Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush

Hi all,

I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.

Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.



REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH

Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'

Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'


CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)

Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
"In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."


DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)

"E como Salaçar, el pequeño vasallo vuestro que allí estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traición de la gente del Rey, llegóse a él e dixole: <Señor, curad de poner vuestra persona en salvo, que por oy no esperéis aver vitoria desta batalla, según la traición conoscida que en los vuestros paresce>; y el Rey le respondió: <Salaçar no plega a Dios que yo buelva un paso atrás, que en esta jornada you quiero morir como Rey, o vencer>; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeça, la qual afirman que valía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e vistió su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerço se sostuvo gran pieça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y él feu muerto; en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e Salaçar pele ó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allí fueron muertos los más de los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdió todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandó ponder al Rey muerto en una pequeña hermita que está cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese así por tres días porque pudíese por todos ser visto."

Translation
And, when Salaçar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `Salaçar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And Salaçar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.


ROUS (LATE 1488)

"Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."

Translation
At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.


VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)

Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.

Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.

A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)

Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.

Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.

Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)

Aidan



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush


 
Hi all,

I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.

Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.

REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH

Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'

Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'

CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)

Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
"In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."

DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)

"E como Salaçar, el pequeño vasallo vuestro que allí estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traición de la gente del Rey, llegóse a él e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondió: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeça, la qual afirman que valía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e vistió su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerço se sostuvo gran pieça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y él feu muerto; en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e Salaçar pele ó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allí fueron muertos los más de los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdió todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandó ponder al Rey muerto en una pequeña hermita que
está cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese así por tres días porque pudíese por todos ser visto."

Translation
And, when Salaçar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `Salaçar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And Salaçar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.

ROUS (LATE 1488)

"Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."

Translation
At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.

VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)

Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.

Marie wrote:
> I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
[snip]

Carol responds:

Thanks very much, Marie. Another legend exposed! And I'm glad to know that Richard didn't ride into battle without a helmet. Just a few comments.

Regarding Richard's having his crown and treasure with him, that very much suggests that he expected to win. Still, why would he need his treasure? I do know that he had his Book of Hours, which ended up in Margaret Beaufort's hands, given to her either by her husband, Lord Stanley, or by Henry, which seems more probable, especially as Lord Stanley played no role in the battle and may not even have been present (unlike his brother whose role we know all too well).

It's interesting that the Croyland Chronicler would concede Richard's bravery only a few sentences after stating that "the earl of Richmond, together with his knights, made straight for king Richard." Good thing we have other sources!

Carol

Thank you for all these, Marie. I'm going to print this out and save it. What wonderful info. Maire.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
>
> Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
>
>
>
> REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
>
> Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
>
> Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
>
>
> CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
>
> Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
>
>
> DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
>
> "E como Salaçar, el pequeño vasallo vuestro que allí estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traición de la gente del Rey, llegóse a él e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondió: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeça, la qual afirman que valía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e vistió su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerço se sostuvo gran pieça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y él feu muerto; en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e Salaçar pele ó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allí fueron muertos los más de los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdió todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandó ponder al Rey muerto en una pequeña hermita que está cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese así por tres días porque pudíese por todos ser visto."
>
> Translation
> And, when Salaçar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `Salaçar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And Salaçar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
>
>
> ROUS (LATE 1488)
>
> "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
>
> Translation
> At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
>
>
> VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
>
> Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
>

Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
Marie


--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
>
> A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
>
> Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
>
> Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
>
> Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
>
> Aidan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>  
> Hi all,
>
> I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
>
> Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
>
> REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
>
> Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
>
> Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
>
> CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
>
> Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
>
> DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
>
> "E como Salaçar, el pequeño vasallo vuestro que allí estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traición de la gente del Rey, llegóse a él e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondió: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeça, la qual afirman que valía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e vistió su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerço se sostuvo gran pieça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y él feu muerto; en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e Salaçar pele ó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allí fueron muertos los más de los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdió todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandó ponder al Rey muerto en una pequeña hermita que
> está cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese así por tres días porque pudíese por todos ser visto."
>
> Translation
> And, when Salaçar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `Salaçar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And Salaçar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
>
> ROUS (LATE 1488)
>
> "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
>
> Translation
> At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
>
> VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
>
> Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
>
>
>
>
>
>

I am stunned - the "crown" crown -  one as gorgeous if not better than that belonging to Anne of Bohemia?  Wow!  (On aie note what a damn shame to put it mildly - that so much was lost/melted down becaseu of the civil war.  They were far more beautiful than the crown our current Queen wears.)
 
I also have to say the more I read Rous, the more I realise what a snivelling little turncoat he was. 


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 16:09
Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush

 
Hi all,

I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.

Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.

REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH

Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'

Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'

CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)

Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
"In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."

DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)

"E como Salaçar, el pequeño vasallo vuestro que allí estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traición de la gente del Rey, llegóse a él e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondió: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeça, la qual afirman que valía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e vistió su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerço se sostuvo gran pieça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y él feu muerto; en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e Salaçar pele ó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allí fueron muertos los más de los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdió todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandó ponder al Rey muerto en una pequeña hermita que está
cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese así por tres días porque pudíese por todos ser visto."

Translation
And, when Salaçar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `Salaçar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And Salaçar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.

ROUS (LATE 1488)

"Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."

Translation
At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.

VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)

Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.

Just a couple of extra pieces of info, from Peter Hammond's "Richard III and the Bosworth Campaign".

1) The story, cited by the Leicester team, that Richard was killed by a Welsh halberdier comes from Molinet. But Molinet's account of Bosworth is well dodgy - he says Richard tried to flee; he was probably the first person to claim this.

2) The Great Chronicle (ca. 1512) is the first to name the person forced to ride Richard's body into Leicester. He says it was 'a pursuivant called Norrey' - this would actually have been John More, Norroy King of Arms.
Hall names the herald as Blanc Sanglier; Peter Hammond says Blanc Sanglier was a son of John More, Norroy King of Arms.

Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks very much, Marie. Another legend exposed! And I'm glad to know that Richard didn't ride into battle without a helmet. Just a few comments.
>
> Regarding Richard's having his crown and treasure with him, that very much suggests that he expected to win. Still, why would he need his treasure? I do know that he had his Book of Hours, which ended up in Margaret Beaufort's hands, given to her either by her husband, Lord Stanley, or by Henry, which seems more probable, especially as Lord Stanley played no role in the battle and may not even have been present (unlike his brother whose role we know all too well).
>
> It's interesting that the Croyland Chronicler would concede Richard's bravery only a few sentences after stating that "the earl of Richmond, together with his knights, made straight for king Richard." Good thing we have other sources!
>
> Carol
>

Crown: wasn't there a "bedside crown" that was literally that -- a crown that sat on a pillow beside every king's bed, or did some fiction writer make that up?

Treasure: How do you pay the bills to feed an army and its horses if you don't have "treasure" with you?

~Weds


--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
.
.
.
> Regarding Richard's having his crown and treasure with him, that very much suggests that he expected to win. Still, why would he need his treasure? I do know that he had his Book of Hours, which ended up in Margaret Beaufort's hands, given to her either by her husband, Lord Stanley, or by Henry, which seems more probable, especially as Lord Stanley played no role in the battle and may not even have been present (unlike his brother whose role we know all too well).
>
> It's interesting that the Croyland Chronicler would concede Richard's bravery only a few sentences after stating that "the earl of Richmond, together with his knights, made straight for king Richard." Good thing we have other sources!
>
> Carol
>

--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Crown: wasn't there a "bedside crown" that was literally that -- a crown that sat on a pillow beside every king's bed, or did some fiction writer make that up?
>
> Treasure: How do you pay the bills to feed an army and its horses if you don't have "treasure" with you?
>
> ~Weds

Also, since it looks as though the Woodvilles may have made off with most of the treasure from the Tower in april 1483, Richard would have been wary about leaving what he still had in the same place in case Tudor slipped round him and made straight for the capital.
Marie

--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Crown: wasn't there a "bedside crown" that was literally that -- a crown that sat on a pillow beside every king's bed, or did some fiction writer make that up?
>
> Treasure: How do you pay the bills to feed an army and its horses if you don't have "treasure" with you?

Carol responds:

Promissory notes backed by collateral? That's essentially how Richard got the loans he needed after he outlawed benevolences IIRC. I can't see him handing out the Crown Jewels to pay for a night at an inn. He certainly didn't have any Crown Jewels with him at Northampton on the way to London in 1483. He must have used some form of credit or gold pieces. Handing an innkeeper a gold cup or a ruby pendant (or whatever--I'm picturing Smaug's hoard, sorry--would be like Edward paying for ship's passage with a fur cloak. He had to promise to buy it back since the captain had no use for it.

Anyway, having the treasure with him seems like a rash and unnecessary move. Surely, he would recall King John's Crown Jewels lost in a flood? (Unless that's another myth.)

I recall a reference to a bedside crown (Edward's) in "The Sunne in Splendour." Jane Shore (Penman makes Jane her middle name which Edward uses to distinguish her from all the Elizabeths) can't keep her eyes off it.

Carol

Marie wrote:
>
> Also, since it looks as though the Woodvilles may have made off with most of the treasure from the Tower in april 1483, Richard would have been wary about leaving what he still had in the same place in case Tudor slipped round him and made straight for the capital.

Carol responds:

Okay, that does seem less rash. But couldn't he have left at least some of it under guard at Nottingham rather than leaving it in his tent while he fought? Presumably, it would be guarded against vandals while the battle was going on, but it still seems unnecessary. Of course, if he lost the battle, it would go to Henry in any case, but I don't think Richard expected to lose.

Carol

[Darkly.] Unless the mercenaries stopped for a little light looting before they went to tell Henry he was king.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> >
> > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> >
> > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> >
> > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> >
> > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> >
> > Aidan
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> >  
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> >
> > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> >
> > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> >
> > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> >
> > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> >
> > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> >
> > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> >
> > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> >
> > "E como Salaçar, el pequeño vasallo vuestro que allí estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traición de la gente del Rey, llegóse a él e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondió: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeça, la qual afirman que valía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e vistió su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerço se sostuvo gran pieça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y él feu muerto; en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e Salaçar pele ó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allí fueron muertos los más de los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdió todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandó ponder al Rey muerto en una pequeña hermita que
> > está cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese así por tres días porque pudíese por todos ser visto."
> >
> > Translation
> > And, when Salaçar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `Salaçar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And Salaçar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> >
> > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> >
> > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> >
> > Translation
> > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> >
> > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> >
> > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)

Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).

Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.

Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -  it makes sense, to me anyway.

Aidan


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush


 

Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
Marie

--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
>
> A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
>
> Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
>
> Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
>
> Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
>
> Aidan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>  
> Hi all,
>
> I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
>
> Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
>
> REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
>
> Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
>
> Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
>
> CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
>
> Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
>
> DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
>
> "E como Salaçar, el pequeño vasallo vuestro que allí estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traición de la gente del Rey, llegóse a él e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondió: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeça, la qual afirman que valía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e vistió su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerço se sostuvo gran pieça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y él feu muerto; en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e Salaçar pele ó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allí fueron muertos los más de los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdió todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandó ponder al
Rey muerto en una pequeña hermita que
> está cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese así por tres días porque pudíese por todos ser visto."
>
> Translation
> And, when Salaçar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `Salaçar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And Salaçar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
>
> ROUS (LATE 1488)
>
> "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
>
> Translation
> At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
>
> VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
>
> Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Does all this come from good old Shakespeare again who had Prince Hal donning the crown at H4's bedside before the King is dead - one of the most famous scenes?  H



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:16
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush

 



--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Crown: wasn't there a "bedside crown" that was literally that -- a crown that sat on a pillow beside every king's bed, or did some fiction writer make that up?
>
> Treasure: How do you pay the bills to feed an army and its horses if you don't have "treasure" with you?

Carol responds:

Promissory notes backed by collateral? That's essentially how Richard got the loans he needed after he outlawed benevolences IIRC. I can't see him handing out the Crown Jewels to pay for a night at an inn. He certainly didn't have any Crown Jewels with him at Northampton on the way to London in 1483. He must have used some form of credit or gold pieces. Handing an innkeeper a gold cup or a ruby pendant (or whatever--I'm picturing Smaug's hoard, sorry--would be like Edward paying for ship's passage with a fur cloak. He had to promise to buy it back since the captain had no use for it.

Anyway, having the treasure with him seems like a rash and unnecessary move. Surely, he would recall King John's Crown Jewels lost in a flood? (Unless that's another myth.)

I recall a reference to a bedside crown (Edward's) in "The Sunne in Splendour." Jane Shore (Penman makes Jane her middle name which Edward uses to distinguish her from all the Elizabeths) can't keep her eyes off it.

Carol

Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
Marie


--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
>
> Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
>
> Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
>
> Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -  it makes sense, to me anyway.
>
> Aidan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>  
>
> Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> >
> > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> >
> > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> >
> > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> >
> > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> >
> > Aidan
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> >  
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> >
> > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> >
> > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> >
> > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> >
> > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> >
> > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> >
> > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> >
> > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> >
> > "E como Salaçar, el pequeño vasallo vuestro que allí estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traición de la gente del Rey, llegóse a él e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondió: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeça, la qual afirman que valía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e vistió su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerço se sostuvo gran pieça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y él feu muerto; en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e Salaçar pele ó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allí fueron muertos los más de los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdió todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandó ponder al
> Rey muerto en una pequeña hermita que
> > está cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese así por tres días porque pudíese por todos ser visto."
> >
> > Translation
> > And, when Salaçar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `Salaçar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And Salaçar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> >
> > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> >
> > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> >
> > Translation
> > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> >
> > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> >
> > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Carol wrote:

"Okay, that does seem less rash. But couldn't he have left at least some of
it under guard at Nottingham rather than leaving it in his tent while he
fought? Presumably, it would be guarded against vandals while the battle was
going on, but it still seems unnecessary. Of course, if he lost the battle,
it would go to Henry in any case, but I don't think Richard expected to
lose."

Doug here:
As you pointed out in another post, Richard would need cash on hand to pay
for food, etc. While it would be "the royal treasure"; ie, treasure in
Richard's keeping, but it wouldn't be "the" Royal Treasure(y). If the
original account was written in a language that didn't have articles, much
would be left up to the discretion of the translator and we know where that
can lead...
Hoping this makes sense,
Doug

Doug here:
> As you pointed out in another post, Richard would need cash on hand to pay for food, etc. While it would be "the royal treasure"; ie, treasure in Richard's keeping, but it wouldn't be "the" Royal Treasure(y). If the original account was written in a language that didn't have articles, much would be left up to the discretion of the translator and we know where that can lead...

Carol responds:

To "Curtis had a face"? Seriously, I think that many of the important sources, especially Croyland, Mancini, and Rous (never fully translated?) are in desperate need of new scholarly translations, peer-reviewed to prevent errors or misleading readings ("short face: being only one example). As you say, the absence of articles in Latin could add to the confusion with no distinction between "a/an: and "the." And it appears from some of the sources that Marie cited in relation to the hawthorn bush question, a few sources haven't been translated at all, forcing her to provide her own translations.

However, translations of the few Spanish, Portuguese, and French sources would probably be easier as long as they were checked for errors and infelicities by scholars of the period. It's probably high time, too, for projects like "The Letters and Papers of Louis XI" unless we want to leave that to specialists in French history.

It would be essential for those undertaking these translations to have impeccable credentials and no strong Tudor *or* Ricardian bias, but they would also need to be thoroughly familiar with all the chronicles in both the original languages in English. I'm sure that such scholars exist, but I'm afraid that they're all rapidly aging.

On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?

Carol

 Carol said:
On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?

Liz replied:
 
By "public" I assume you mean state schools, not what we call "public schools" which means private, fee paying (all Americans shake their heads here).  The answer is no, not very much.  I went to a grammar school (in the 1970s I hasten to add) and we could do Latin up to O level and then Greek for A level if we lasted at Latin for 5 years.  Comprehensive schools certainly don't do it (it's considered too exclusive I presume) and there aren't that many grammar schools around now; I'm not sure how many of them do it.  I do know that there has been some suggestion (especially from London's mayor Boris Johnson) that it is taught again but that's not got far.
 
History isn't taught much either.  Only one of my brother's 5 children/stepchildren did it past 14 and she hated it.
 
Liz
 
 
 

.






________________________________

De Valera wrote in Spanish, which has articles.
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Doug here:
> > As you pointed out in another post, Richard would need cash on hand to pay for food, etc. While it would be "the royal treasure"; ie, treasure in Richard's keeping, but it wouldn't be "the" Royal Treasure(y). If the original account was written in a language that didn't have articles, much would be left up to the discretion of the translator and we know where that can lead...
>
> Carol responds:
>
> To "Curtis had a face"? Seriously, I think that many of the important sources, especially Croyland, Mancini, and Rous (never fully translated?) are in desperate need of new scholarly translations, peer-reviewed to prevent errors or misleading readings ("short face: being only one example). As you say, the absence of articles in Latin could add to the confusion with no distinction between "a/an: and "the." And it appears from some of the sources that Marie cited in relation to the hawthorn bush question, a few sources haven't been translated at all, forcing her to provide her own translations.
>
> However, translations of the few Spanish, Portuguese, and French sources would probably be easier as long as they were checked for errors and infelicities by scholars of the period. It's probably high time, too, for projects like "The Letters and Papers of Louis XI" unless we want to leave that to specialists in French history.
>
> It would be essential for those undertaking these translations to have impeccable credentials and no strong Tudor *or* Ricardian bias, but they would also need to be thoroughly familiar with all the chronicles in both the original languages in English. I'm sure that such scholars exist, but I'm afraid that they're all rapidly aging.
>
> On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?
>
> Carol
>

It still is at my old school and is a requirement for common entrance.
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 13, 2013, at 4:19 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> Carol said:
> On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?
>
> Liz replied:
>
> By "public" I assume you mean state schools, not what we call "public schools" which means private, fee paying (all Americans shake their heads here). The answer is no, not very much. I went to a grammar school (in the 1970s I hasten to add) and we could do Latin up to O level and then Greek for A level if we lasted at Latin for 5 years. Comprehensive schools certainly don't do it (it's considered too exclusive I presume) and there aren't that many grammar schools around now; I'm not sure how many of them do it. I do know that there has been some suggestion (especially from London's mayor Boris Johnson) that it is taught again but that's not got far.
>
> History isn't taught much either. Only one of my brother's 5 children/stepchildren did it past 14 and she hated it.
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>

Marie
                  Why have you raised such a strawman argument?

We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.

To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account. 

And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death


In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'

I propose to look at this story in that light.

1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill


So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'

The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.

Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.

I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.

What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the run  of things it's not a particularly important issue.

Regards

Aidan



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush


 


Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
Marie

--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
>
> Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
>
> Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
>
> Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -  it makes sense, to me anyway.
>
> Aidan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>  
>
> Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> >
> > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> >
> > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> >
> > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> >
> > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> >
> > Aidan
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> > à
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> >
> > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> >
> > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> >
> > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> >
> > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> >
> > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> >
> > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> >
> > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> >
> > "E como SalaÒ§ar, el pequeÒ±o vasallo vuestro que allÒ­ estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÒ³n de la gente del Rey, llegÒ³se a Ò©l e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÒ³: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÒ§a, la qual afirman que valÒ­a ciento e veinte mil coronas, e vistiÒ³ su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÒ§o tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÒ§o se sostuvo gran pieÒ§a la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y Ò©l feu muerto; en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÒ§ar pele Ò³ muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÒ­ fueron muertos los mÒ¡s de los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÒ³ todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÒ­a consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÒ³ ponder al
> Rey muerto en una pequeÒ±a hermita que
> > estÒ¡ cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÒ³lo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÒ­ por tres dÒ­as porque pudÒ­ese por todos ser visto."
> >
> > Translation
> > And, when SalaÒ§ar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÒ§ar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÒ§ar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> >
> > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> >
> > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> >
> > Translation
> > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> >
> > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> >
> > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
Marie

--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
>
>
> Marie
>                   Why have you raised such a strawman argument?
>
> We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
>
> To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account. 
>
> And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
>
>
> In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
>
> I propose to look at this story in that light.
>
> 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
>
>
> So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
>
> The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
>
> Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
>
> I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
>
> What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the run  of things it's not a particularly important issue.
>
> Regards
>
> Aidan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>  
>
>
> Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> >
> > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> >
> > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> >
> > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -  it makes sense, to me anyway.
> >
> > Aidan
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > >
> > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > >
> > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > >
> > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > >
> > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > >
> > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > >
> > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > >
> > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > >
> > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > >
> > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > >
> > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > >
> > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > >
> > > "E como SalaÃÆ'§ar, el pequeÃÆ'±o vasallo vuestro que allÃÆ'­ estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÃÆ'³n de la gente del Rey, llegÃÆ'³se a ÃÆ'©l e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÃÆ'³: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÃÆ'§a, la qual afirman que valÃÆ'­a ciento e veinte mil coronas, e vistiÃÆ'³ su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÃÆ'§o tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÃÆ'§o se sostuvo gran pieÃÆ'§a la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y ÃÆ'©l feu muerto; en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÃÆ'§ar pele ÃÆ'³ muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÃÆ'­ fueron muertos los mÃÆ'¡s de los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÃÆ'³ todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÃÆ'­a consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÃÆ'³ ponder al
> > Rey muerto en una pequeÃÆ'±a hermita que
> > > estÃÆ'¡ cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÃÆ'³lo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÃÆ'­ por tres dÃÆ'­as porque pudÃÆ'­ese por todos ser visto."
> > >
> > > Translation
> > > And, when SalaÃÆ'§ar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÃÆ'§ar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÃÆ'§ar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > >
> > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > >
> > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > >
> > > Translation
> > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > >
> > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > >
> > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I don't seem to be getting through to you Marie. 

I don't give tuppence about the crown in the hawthorn bush story, it was a side issue to the one I was discussing, that for those who cannot visit the battlefield, google streetview allows one to visit in a virtual sense, the site of the last desperate struggle.

To apply your standard that the date of the document that tells the story renders it void, means we would have to throw out a whole lot of history for lack of  original source documents.
150 years ago Scholars rejected the existence of Troy and Mycenae because the only source we have for them is Homer writing centuries after the event. We don't even have the original story written in Homer's own handwriting, but documents dating even more centuries later. The scholars were wrong.

We should , by your standard, discount the existence of Julius Caesar as we have IIRC three documents about him all written over 200 years later, we certainly don't have his Gallic War or Civil War commentaries written in Caesar's own hand.
Historians accept the authenticity nevertheless.

There are countless similar events in history for which we only have copies written much much later than the event
Do we have an original Cicero, Livy? No

Your argument and insistence on original source documents as being all we can depend on is specious and unscholarly IMO. You outlook is incorrect and that was what I was addressing. I will say nothing further



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush


 
Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
Marie

--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
>
>
> Marie
>                   Why have you raised such a strawman argument?
>
> We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
>
> To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account. 
>
> And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
>
>
> In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
>
> I propose to look at this story in that light.
>
> 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
>
>
> So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
>
> The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
>
> Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
>
> I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
>
> What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the run  of things it's not a particularly important issue.
>
> Regards
>
> Aidan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>  
>
>
> Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> >
> > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> >
> > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> >
> > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -à it makes sense, to me anyway.
> >
> > Aidan
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > >
> > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > >
> > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > >
> > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > >
> > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > >
> > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > >
> > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > >
> > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > >
> > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > >
> > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > >
> > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > >
> > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > >
> > > "E como SalaÃ’Æ'çar, el pequeÃ’Æ'ño vasallo vuestro que allÃ’Æ'í estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÃ’Æ'ón de la gente del Rey, llegÃ’Æ'óse a Ã’Æ'él e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÃ’Æ'ó: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÃ’Æ'ça, la qual afirman que valÃ’Æ'ía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e vistiÃ’Æ'ó su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÃ’Æ'ço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÃ’Æ'ço se sostuvo gran pieÃ’Æ'ça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y Ã’Æ'él feu muerto; en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÃ’Æ'çar pele Ã’Æ'ó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÃ’Æ'í fueron muertos los mÃ’Æ'ás de
los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÃ’Æ'ó todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÃ’Æ'ía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÃ’Æ'ó ponder al
> > Rey muerto en una pequeÃ’Æ'ña hermita que
> > > estÃ’Æ'á cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÃ’Æ'ólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÃ’Æ'í por tres dÃ’Æ'ías porque pudÃ’Æ'íese por todos ser visto."
> > >
> > > Translation
> > > And, when SalaÃ’Æ'çar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÃ’Æ'çar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÃ’Æ'çar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > >
> > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > >
> > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > >
> > > Translation
> > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > >
> > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > >
> > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

No by public schools she means English public schools and the answer is yes they still have Latin both in curriculum and at least for my school common entrance exam.
Grammar Schools with the exception I believe of Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School in Wakefield are not public schools and do not appear on the public schools headmasters list.
http://www.hmc.org.uk/
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 13, 2013, at 4:19 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> Carol said:
> On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?
>
> Liz replied:
>
> By "public" I assume you mean state schools, not what we call "public schools" which means private, fee paying (all Americans shake their heads here). The answer is no, not very much. I went to a grammar school (in the 1970s I hasten to add) and we could do Latin up to O level and then Greek for A level if we lasted at Latin for 5 years. Comprehensive schools certainly don't do it (it's considered too exclusive I presume) and there aren't that many grammar schools around now; I'm not sure how many of them do it. I do know that there has been some suggestion (especially from London's mayor Boris Johnson) that it is taught again but that's not got far.
>
> History isn't taught much either. Only one of my brother's 5 children/stepchildren did it past 14 and she hated it.
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>

Aidan,
you're starting to annoy me. This is getting silly. It's not fair to compare something like Homer, who wrote down what was a long oral tradition telling us about happenings in an age for which we don't have the written texts. I could be just as silly and insist you have to take Helen and the apples along with Troy.

The problem with Ricardian studies, which I've been into for 45 years, is that we have a clear trail of written accounts right from the off - we're not short of them - and can see them changing and getting more extreme over the years. At some point in time Henry VII's rosebush became mistaken for a hawthorn bush, and the legend of the crown in the hawthorn bush grew out of that. The rose tree crowned is the central part of the badge of the yeomen warders of the Tower to this day.

In discounting late sources we may occasionally deprive ourselves of something true, but more often we'll avoid error. If Henry's crown had been found in a hawthorn bush then some of the earlier sources would surely have mentioned it.
A number of late ideas about WotR battles have proved to be misleading. One (still much older than the hawthorn bush theory) is the siting of the Battle of Bosworth on Ambien Hill. Another is Hutton's siting of the Battle of Barnet on Hadley Green.
The "hawthorn bush" probably isn't the only heraldic badge to have sprouted an explanatory legend once the real meaning had been forgotten, but in fact the badges of Edward IV and Henry VII have religious overtones. The white rose was a symbol of the Virgin Mary, and the colours blue and blood red (murrey was also known as sanguine) are the other two colours associated with the Virgin - just look at any image of her and you'll see the red/ pink smock and blue cloak. The Sun was associated with Christ, hence the Sun in Spelndour.
Henry VII took instead of the Sun another symbol of Christ, the red rose.
The author of the article I was referring to explains as well that the golden Portcullis of the Beauforts, as well as referring to their surname (Fair Fort), was another Marian symbol, the porta clausa of her virginity, and also stood for the gate of heaven. This is why Henry was so happy to sprinkle his roses and portcullises around chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary.

There is just no basis for the hawthorn bush story. End of.

If you want to argue for the crown in the hawthorn bush, don't bring in Troy or tell me I don't believe in Julius Caesar - look for some evidence of the story's earlier existence.

Marie



--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> I don't seem to be getting through to you Marie. 
>
> I don't give tuppence about the crown in the hawthorn bush story, it was a side issue to the one I was discussing, that for those who cannot visit the battlefield, google streetview allows one to visit in a virtual sense, the site of the last desperate struggle.
>
> To apply your standard that the date of the document that tells the story renders it void, means we would have to throw out a whole lot of history for lack of  original source documents.
> 150 years ago Scholars rejected the existence of Troy and Mycenae because the only source we have for them is Homer writing centuries after the event. We don't even have the original story written in Homer's own handwriting, but documents dating even more centuries later. The scholars were wrong.
>
> We should , by your standard, discount the existence of Julius Caesar as we have IIRC three documents about him all written over 200 years later, we certainly don't have his Gallic War or Civil War commentaries written in Caesar's own hand.
> Historians accept the authenticity nevertheless.
>
> There are countless similar events in history for which we only have copies written much much later than the event
> Do we have an original Cicero, Livy? No
>
> Your argument and insistence on original source documents as being all we can depend on is specious and unscholarly IMO. You outlook is incorrect and that was what I was addressing. I will say nothing further
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>  
> Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
> You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie
> >                   Why have you raised such a strawman argument?
> >
> > We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
> >
> > To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account. 
> >
> > And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
> >
> >
> > In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> > Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
> >
> > I propose to look at this story in that light.
> >
> > 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> > 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> > he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> > 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> > 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
> >
> >
> > So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
> >
> > The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
> >
> > Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
> >
> > I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
> >
> > What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the run  of things it's not a particularly important issue.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Aidan
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> > >
> > > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> > >
> > > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> > >
> > > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -  it makes sense, to me anyway.
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > > >
> > > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > > >
> > > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > > >
> > > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > > >
> > > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > > >
> > > > Aidan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > > >
> > > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > > >
> > > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > > >
> > > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > > >
> > > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > > >
> > > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > > >
> > > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > > >
> > > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > > >
> > > > "E como SalaÃÆ'Æ'§ar, el pequeÃÆ'Æ'±o vasallo vuestro que allÃÆ'Æ'­ estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÃÆ'Æ'³n de la gente del Rey, llegÃÆ'Æ'³se a ÃÆ'Æ'©l e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÃÆ'Æ'³: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÃÆ'Æ'§a, la qual afirman que valÃÆ'Æ'­a ciento e veinte mil coronas, e vistiÃÆ'Æ'³ su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÃÆ'Æ'§o tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÃÆ'Æ'§o se sostuvo gran pieÃÆ'Æ'§a la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y ÃÆ'Æ'©l feu muerto; en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÃÆ'Æ'§ar pele ÃÆ'Æ'³ muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÃÆ'Æ'­ fueron muertos los mÃÆ'Æ'¡s de
> los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÃÆ'Æ'³ todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÃÆ'Æ'­a consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> > por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÃÆ'Æ'³ ponder al
> > > Rey muerto en una pequeÃÆ'Æ'±a hermita que
> > > > estÃÆ'Æ'¡ cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÃÆ'Æ'³lo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÃÆ'Æ'­ por tres dÃÆ'Æ'­as porque pudÃÆ'Æ'­ese por todos ser visto."
> > > >
> > > > Translation
> > > > And, when SalaÃÆ'Æ'§ar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÃÆ'Æ'§ar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÃÆ'Æ'§ar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > > >
> > > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > > >
> > > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > > >
> > > > Translation
> > > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > > >
> > > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > > >
> > > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Liz is right. I was at grammar school in the 60s and only the top
stream, who were expected to go through at that level from 11 to 18 then
go on to university, were allowed to learn Latin. If you got promoted to
that level later on, you had a hell of a time catching up. Then of
course Latin was needed to get you into the top universities and an
absolute necessity for History, Language, and Science degrees. That is
no longer the case when David Beckham studies can be taken at the
highest level!!
Paul

On 13/02/2013 21:19, liz williams wrote:
> Carol said:
> On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?
>
> Liz replied:
>
> By "public" I assume you mean state schools, not what we call "public schools" which means private, fee paying (all Americans shake their heads here). The answer is no, not very much. I went to a grammar school (in the 1970s I hasten to add) and we could do Latin up to O level and then Greek for A level if we lasted at Latin for 5 years. Comprehensive schools certainly don't do it (it's considered too exclusive I presume) and there aren't that many grammar schools around now; I'm not sure how many of them do it. I do know that there has been some suggestion (especially from London's mayor Boris Johnson) that it is taught again but that's not got far.
>
> History isn't taught much either. Only one of my brother's 5 children/stepchildren did it past 14 and she hated it.
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

This is a picture window from Agecroft Hall, dating from Henry Vii's time and now translated to Richmond, Virginia. 

https://b9fadd2c-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/debbismuseum/Gallery/IMG_8385.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7cr58v1mjDE-oHtWg0AJrnvEGbMEmpiogZMhpxIblb3yBFrXie24iTlGOs5nosFOND0h0i2kaRR0Bb-4ElO3f16yRj-_O-9ucZ20dWk1gIgp7KpSSlajlCno-UA6TlGNqYlyPB_tSd9EMnkPkndksdCJoHFWZL-WymGqDn_Vsn5WlybUO3Jn6aZ-ISiSUyOaOSJr6E_2dKWwGl4tPX4LtjHomJL8381o1aqySKGFip4g602FsTQ%3D&attredirects=0



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush


 
Aidan,
you're starting to annoy me. This is getting silly. It's not fair to compare something like Homer, who wrote down what was a long oral tradition telling us about happenings in an age for which we don't have the written texts. I could be just as silly and insist you have to take Helen and the apples along with Troy.

The problem with Ricardian studies, which I've been into for 45 years, is that we have a clear trail of written accounts right from the off - we're not short of them - and can see them changing and getting more extreme over the years. At some point in time Henry VII's rosebush became mistaken for a hawthorn bush, and the legend of the crown in the hawthorn bush grew out of that. The rose tree crowned is the central part of the badge of the yeomen warders of the Tower to this day.

In discounting late sources we may occasionally deprive ourselves of something true, but more often we'll avoid error. If Henry's crown had been found in a hawthorn bush then some of the earlier sources would surely have mentioned it.
A number of late ideas about WotR battles have proved to be misleading. One (still much older than the hawthorn bush theory) is the siting of the Battle of Bosworth on Ambien Hill. Another is Hutton's siting of the Battle of Barnet on Hadley Green.
The "hawthorn bush" probably isn't the only heraldic badge to have sprouted an explanatory legend once the real meaning had been forgotten, but in fact the badges of Edward IV and Henry VII have religious overtones. The white rose was a symbol of the Virgin Mary, and the colours blue and blood red (murrey was also known as sanguine) are the other two colours associated with the Virgin - just look at any image of her and you'll see the red/ pink smock and blue cloak. The Sun was associated with Christ, hence the Sun in Spelndour.
Henry VII took instead of the Sun another symbol of Christ, the red rose.
The author of the article I was referring to explains as well that the golden Portcullis of the Beauforts, as well as referring to their surname (Fair Fort), was another Marian symbol, the porta clausa of her virginity, and also stood for the gate of heaven. This is why Henry was so happy to sprinkle his roses and portcullises around chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary.

There is just no basis for the hawthorn bush story. End of.

If you want to argue for the crown in the hawthorn bush, don't bring in Troy or tell me I don't believe in Julius Caesar - look for some evidence of the story's earlier existence.

Marie

--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> I don't seem to be getting through to you Marie. 
>
> I don't give tuppence about the crown in the hawthorn bush story, it was a side issue to the one I was discussing, that for those who cannot visit the battlefield, google streetview allows one to visit in a virtual sense, the site of the last desperate struggle.
>
> To apply your standard that the date of the document that tells the story renders it void, means we would have to throw out a whole lot of history for lack of  original source documents.
> 150 years ago Scholars rejected the existence of Troy and Mycenae because the only source we have for them is Homer writing centuries after the event. We don't even have the original story written in Homer's own handwriting, but documents dating even more centuries later. The scholars were wrong.
>
> We should , by your standard, discount the existence of Julius Caesar as we have IIRC three documents about him all written over 200 years later, we certainly don't have his Gallic War or Civil War commentaries written in Caesar's own hand.
> Historians accept the authenticity nevertheless.
>
> There are countless similar events in history for which we only have copies written much much later than the event
> Do we have an original Cicero, Livy? No
>
> Your argument and insistence on original source documents as being all we can depend on is specious and unscholarly IMO. You outlook is incorrect and that was what I was addressing. I will say nothing further
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>  
> Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
> You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie
> > ààààààààààààààààà Why have you raised such a strawman argument?
> >
> > We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
> >
> > To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account.à
> >
> > And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
> >
> >
> > In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> > Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
> >
> > I propose to look at this story in that light.
> >
> > 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> > 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> > he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> > 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> > 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
> >
> >
> > So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
> >
> > The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
> >
> > Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
> >
> > I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
> >
> > What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the runà of things it's not a particularly important issue.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Aidan
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> >
> > Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> > >
> > > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> > >
> > > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> > >
> > > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -Ã’â¬aà it makes sense, to me anyway.
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > > >
> > > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > > >
> > > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > > >
> > > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > > >
> > > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > > >
> > > > Aidan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > > >
> > > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > > >
> > > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > > >
> > > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > > >
> > > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > > >
> > > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > > >
> > > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > > >
> > > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > > >
> > > > "E como SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬açar, el pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬año vasallo vuestro que allÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aí estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aón de la gente del Rey, llegÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aóse a Ã’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aél e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aó: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aça, la qual afirman que valÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e vistiÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aó su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aço se sostuvo gran pieÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y Ã’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aél feu muerto;
en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬açar pele Ã’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aí fueron muertos los mÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aás de
> los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aó todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> > por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aó ponder al
> > > Rey muerto en una pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aña hermita que
> > > > estÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aá cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aí por tres dÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aías porque pudÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aíese por todos ser visto."
> > > >
> > > > Translation
> > > > And, when SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬açar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬açar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬açar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > > >
> > > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > > >
> > > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > > >
> > > > Translation
> > > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > > >
> > > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > > >
> > > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

In all my travels to Richmond and its environs, I never came across this home. Thanks so much for posting. It's going on my bucket list, lol. Maire.

--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> This is a picture window from Agecroft Hall, dating from Henry Vii's time and now translated to Richmond, Virginia. 
>
> https://b9fadd2c-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/debbismuseum/Gallery/IMG_8385.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7cr58v1mjDE-oHtWg0AJrnvEGbMEmpiogZMhpxIblb3yBFrXie24iTlGOs5nosFOND0h0i2kaRR0Bb-4ElO3f16yRj-_O-9ucZ20dWk1gIgp7KpSSlajlCno-UA6TlGNqYlyPB_tSd9EMnkPkndksdCJoHFWZL-WymGqDn_Vsn5WlybUO3Jn6aZ-ISiSUyOaOSJr6E_2dKWwGl4tPX4LtjHomJL8381o1aqySKGFip4g602FsTQ%3D&attredirects=0
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>  
> Aidan,
> you're starting to annoy me. This is getting silly. It's not fair to compare something like Homer, who wrote down what was a long oral tradition telling us about happenings in an age for which we don't have the written texts. I could be just as silly and insist you have to take Helen and the apples along with Troy.
>
> The problem with Ricardian studies, which I've been into for 45 years, is that we have a clear trail of written accounts right from the off - we're not short of them - and can see them changing and getting more extreme over the years. At some point in time Henry VII's rosebush became mistaken for a hawthorn bush, and the legend of the crown in the hawthorn bush grew out of that. The rose tree crowned is the central part of the badge of the yeomen warders of the Tower to this day.
>
> In discounting late sources we may occasionally deprive ourselves of something true, but more often we'll avoid error. If Henry's crown had been found in a hawthorn bush then some of the earlier sources would surely have mentioned it.
> A number of late ideas about WotR battles have proved to be misleading. One (still much older than the hawthorn bush theory) is the siting of the Battle of Bosworth on Ambien Hill. Another is Hutton's siting of the Battle of Barnet on Hadley Green.
> The "hawthorn bush" probably isn't the only heraldic badge to have sprouted an explanatory legend once the real meaning had been forgotten, but in fact the badges of Edward IV and Henry VII have religious overtones. The white rose was a symbol of the Virgin Mary, and the colours blue and blood red (murrey was also known as sanguine) are the other two colours associated with the Virgin - just look at any image of her and you'll see the red/ pink smock and blue cloak. The Sun was associated with Christ, hence the Sun in Spelndour.
> Henry VII took instead of the Sun another symbol of Christ, the red rose.
> The author of the article I was referring to explains as well that the golden Portcullis of the Beauforts, as well as referring to their surname (Fair Fort), was another Marian symbol, the porta clausa of her virginity, and also stood for the gate of heaven. This is why Henry was so happy to sprinkle his roses and portcullises around chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary.
>
> There is just no basis for the hawthorn bush story. End of.
>
> If you want to argue for the crown in the hawthorn bush, don't bring in Troy or tell me I don't believe in Julius Caesar - look for some evidence of the story's earlier existence.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > I don't seem to be getting through to you Marie. 
> >
> > I don't give tuppence about the crown in the hawthorn bush story, it was a side issue to the one I was discussing, that for those who cannot visit the battlefield, google streetview allows one to visit in a virtual sense, the site of the last desperate struggle.
> >
> > To apply your standard that the date of the document that tells the story renders it void, means we would have to throw out a whole lot of history for lack of  original source documents.
> > 150 years ago Scholars rejected the existence of Troy and Mycenae because the only source we have for them is Homer writing centuries after the event. We don't even have the original story written in Homer's own handwriting, but documents dating even more centuries later. The scholars were wrong.
> >
> > We should , by your standard, discount the existence of Julius Caesar as we have IIRC three documents about him all written over 200 years later, we certainly don't have his Gallic War or Civil War commentaries written in Caesar's own hand.
> > Historians accept the authenticity nevertheless.
> >
> > There are countless similar events in history for which we only have copies written much much later than the event
> > Do we have an original Cicero, Livy? No
> >
> > Your argument and insistence on original source documents as being all we can depend on is specious and unscholarly IMO. You outlook is incorrect and that was what I was addressing. I will say nothing further
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> >  
> > Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
> > You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >                   Why have you raised such a strawman argument?
> > >
> > > We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
> > >
> > > To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account. 
> > >
> > > And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
> > >
> > >
> > > In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> > > Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
> > >
> > > I propose to look at this story in that light.
> > >
> > > 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> > > 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> > > he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> > > 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> > > 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
> > >
> > >
> > > So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
> > >
> > > The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
> > >
> > > Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
> > >
> > > I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
> > >
> > > What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the run  of things it's not a particularly important issue.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > > Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> > > >
> > > > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> > > >
> > > > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> > > >
> > > > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -ÃÆ'‚  it makes sense, to me anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Aidan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > >
> > > > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > > > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > > > >
> > > > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > > > >
> > > > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > > > >
> > > > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Aidan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > > > >
> > > > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > > > >
> > > > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > > > >
> > > > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > > > >
> > > > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > > > >
> > > > > "E como SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§ar, el pequeÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚±o vasallo vuestro que allÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚­ estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚³n de la gente del Rey, llegÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚³se a ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚©l e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚³: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§a, la qual afirman que valÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚­a ciento e veinte mil coronas, e vistiÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚³ su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§o tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§o se sostuvo gran pieÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§a la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚©l feu muerto;
> en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§ar pele ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚³ muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚­ fueron muertos los mÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚¡s de
> > los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚³ todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚­a consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> > > por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚³ ponder al
> > > > Rey muerto en una pequeÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚±a hermita que
> > > > > estÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚¡ cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚³lo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚­ por tres dÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚­as porque pudÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚­ese por todos ser visto."
> > > > >
> > > > > Translation
> > > > > And, when SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§ar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§ar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§ar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > > > >
> > > > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > > > >
> > > > > Translation
> > > > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > > > >
> > > > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > > > >
> > > > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

 And this entry comes from a huge work on Heraldry covering Royals and nobles of several countries and going through the centuries, it does appear to describe the device in the window linked to below. The link is http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23186/23186-h/23186-h.htm - Big worj this entry - among a list of devices by English Monarch is just over half-way through


Henry VII.: A Rose of York
and Lancaster, a Portcullis and a Fleur de lys, all of them
crowned: a Red Dragon: a White Greyhound: a Hawthorn Bush
and Crown, with the cypher H. R.



________________________________
From: Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush


 
This is a picture window from Agecroft Hall, dating from Henry Vii's time and now translated to Richmond, Virginia. 

https://b9fadd2c-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/debbismuseum/Gallery/IMG_8385.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7cr58v1mjDE-oHtWg0AJrnvEGbMEmpiogZMhpxIblb3yBFrXie24iTlGOs5nosFOND0h0i2kaRR0Bb-4ElO3f16yRj-_O-9ucZ20dWk1gIgp7KpSSlajlCno-UA6TlGNqYlyPB_tSd9EMnkPkndksdCJoHFWZL-WymGqDn_Vsn5WlybUO3Jn6aZ-ISiSUyOaOSJr6E_2dKWwGl4tPX4LtjHomJL8381o1aqySKGFip4g602FsTQ%3D&attredirects=0

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush


 
Aidan,
you're starting to annoy me. This is getting silly. It's not fair to compare something like Homer, who wrote down what was a long oral tradition telling us about happenings in an age for which we don't have the written texts. I could be just as silly and insist you have to take Helen and the apples along with Troy.

The problem with Ricardian studies, which I've been into for 45 years, is that we have a clear trail of written accounts right from the off - we're not short of them - and can see them changing and getting more extreme over the years. At some point in time Henry VII's rosebush became mistaken for a hawthorn bush, and the legend of the crown in the hawthorn bush grew out of that. The rose tree crowned is the central part of the badge of the yeomen warders of the Tower to this day.

In discounting late sources we may occasionally deprive ourselves of something true, but more often we'll avoid error. If Henry's crown had been found in a hawthorn bush then some of the earlier sources would surely have mentioned it.
A number of late ideas about WotR battles have proved to be misleading. One (still much older than the hawthorn bush theory) is the siting of the Battle of Bosworth on Ambien Hill. Another is Hutton's siting of the Battle of Barnet on Hadley Green.
The "hawthorn bush" probably isn't the only heraldic badge to have sprouted an explanatory legend once the real meaning had been forgotten, but in fact the badges of Edward IV and Henry VII have religious overtones. The white rose was a symbol of the Virgin Mary, and the colours blue and blood red (murrey was also known as sanguine) are the other two colours associated with the Virgin - just look at any image of her and you'll see the red/ pink smock and blue cloak. The Sun was associated with Christ, hence the Sun in Spelndour.
Henry VII took instead of the Sun another symbol of Christ, the red rose.
The author of the article I was referring to explains as well that the golden Portcullis of the Beauforts, as well as referring to their surname (Fair Fort), was another Marian symbol, the porta clausa of her virginity, and also stood for the gate of heaven. This is why Henry was so happy to sprinkle his roses and portcullises around chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary.

There is just no basis for the hawthorn bush story. End of.

If you want to argue for the crown in the hawthorn bush, don't bring in Troy or tell me I don't believe in Julius Caesar - look for some evidence of the story's earlier existence.

Marie

--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> I don't seem to be getting through to you Marie. 
>
> I don't give tuppence about the crown in the hawthorn bush story, it was a side issue to the one I was discussing, that for those who cannot visit the battlefield, google streetview allows one to visit in a virtual sense, the site of the last desperate struggle.
>
> To apply your standard that the date of the document that tells the story renders it void, means we would have to throw out a whole lot of history for lack of  original source documents.
> 150 years ago Scholars rejected the existence of Troy and Mycenae because the only source we have for them is Homer writing centuries after the event. We don't even have the original story written in Homer's own handwriting, but documents dating even more centuries later. The scholars were wrong.
>
> We should , by your standard, discount the existence of Julius Caesar as we have IIRC three documents about him all written over 200 years later, we certainly don't have his Gallic War or Civil War commentaries written in Caesar's own hand.
> Historians accept the authenticity nevertheless.
>
> There are countless similar events in history for which we only have copies written much much later than the event
> Do we have an original Cicero, Livy? No
>
> Your argument and insistence on original source documents as being all we can depend on is specious and unscholarly IMO. You outlook is incorrect and that was what I was addressing. I will say nothing further
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>  
> Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
> You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie
> > ààààààààààààààààà Why have you raised such a strawman argument?
> >
> > We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
> >
> > To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account.à
> >
> > And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
> >
> >
> > In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> > Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
> >
> > I propose to look at this story in that light.
> >
> > 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> > 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> > he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> > 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> > 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
> >
> >
> > So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
> >
> > The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
> >
> > Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
> >
> > I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
> >
> > What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the runà of things it's not a particularly important issue.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Aidan
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> >
> > Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> > >
> > > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> > >
> > > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> > >
> > > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -Ã’â¬aà it makes sense, to me anyway.
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > > >
> > > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > > >
> > > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > > >
> > > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > > >
> > > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > > >
> > > > Aidan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > > >
> > > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > > >
> > > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > > >
> > > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > > >
> > > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > > >
> > > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > > >
> > > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > > >
> > > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > > >
> > > > "E como SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬açar, el pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬año vasallo vuestro que allÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aí estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aón de la gente del Rey, llegÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aóse a Ã’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aél e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aó: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aça, la qual afirman que valÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e vistiÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aó su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aço se sostuvo gran pieÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y Ã’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aél feu muerto;
en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬açar pele Ã’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aí fueron muertos los mÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aás de
> los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aó todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> > por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aó ponder al
> > > Rey muerto en una pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aña hermita que
> > > > estÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aá cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aí por tres dÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aías porque pudÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aíese por todos ser visto."
> > > >
> > > > Translation
> > > > And, when SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬açar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬açar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬açar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > > >
> > > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > > >
> > > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > > >
> > > > Translation
> > > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > > >
> > > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > > >
> > > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

All the panes in that window are fascinating hey , and the discovery of the carved Roses under the edge , just awesome :)

I also found this, upside it mentions a specific book in the British Museum - downside it's a Guardian article but should not be too difficult to get to the original maybe?

A visit to the collection of royal manuscripts at the British Library is an experience of rich, almost suffocating beauty. The books, deeply
coloured and elaborated with gold leaf, stand as a testament to the
skill of their artists  or "my genius", as one illuminator put it. They are also a window on to their patrons and recipients, offering a
glimpse of the beliefs and aspirations of medieval English monarchs.
Here, too, the politics of late 15th-century England are laid bare.
In a largely illiterate age, visual culture was loaded with political symbolism. Coats of arms and badges  emblems such as Henry VI's antelope andRichard III's boar  were easily identifiable, a stamp of authority. Pinned to jackets,
embroidered on banners, carved and moulded into buildings, and painted
on shields and manuscripts, they quickly became associated with a
particular family through simple repetition.
Looking at the
manuscripts that form the core of the collection, the massive, opulent
products of 15th-century Flemish ateliers associated with the court of
the Yorkist King Edward IV, it is strikingly apparent how they were
appropriated and adapted by the most flagrant usurper of them all, the
half-blooded Lancastrian exile who, with a meagre claim to the throne,
won the battle of Bosworth and founded England's most notorious dynasty, the Tudors: Henry VII.In the manuscripts that Henry "inherited", existing coats of arms and owners' names are scraped away and
overpainted with his own emblems, the red dragon and white greyhound. In one naively drawn example, occupying a full page, the crown of England
is depicted nestling in a hawthorn bush, where, according to Tudor myth, it was found after Bosworth; below it an acclamation reads "Vive le noble roy Henry". Elsewhere, the addition of a kneeling Henry VII, crowned and in his
robes of estate, intrudes on the eternal calm of the Holy Trinity; at
the foot of the same page is another dragon-and-greyhound borne coat of
arms, while in the right-hand margin is a baldly drawn red rose; a
clutch of smaller red roses nestles in the top left-hand corner. Henry's red rose, intertwined with the Yorkist white rose, has been painted
everywhere. In the words of one eminent scholar, these manuscripts have
been thoroughly "Tudorised"
Aidan


________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush


 
In all my travels to Richmond and its environs, I never came across this home. Thanks so much for posting. It's going on my bucket list, lol. Maire.

--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> This is a picture window from Agecroft Hall, dating from Henry Vii's time and now translated to Richmond, Virginia. 
>
> https://b9fadd2c-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/debbismuseum/Gallery/IMG_8385.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7cr58v1mjDE-oHtWg0AJrnvEGbMEmpiogZMhpxIblb3yBFrXie24iTlGOs5nosFOND0h0i2kaRR0Bb-4ElO3f16yRj-_O-9ucZ20dWk1gIgp7KpSSlajlCno-UA6TlGNqYlyPB_tSd9EMnkPkndksdCJoHFWZL-WymGqDn_Vsn5WlybUO3Jn6aZ-ISiSUyOaOSJr6E_2dKWwGl4tPX4LtjHomJL8381o1aqySKGFip4g602FsTQ%3D&attredirects=0
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>  
> Aidan,
> you're starting to annoy me. This is getting silly. It's not fair to compare something like Homer, who wrote down what was a long oral tradition telling us about happenings in an age for which we don't have the written texts. I could be just as silly and insist you have to take Helen and the apples along with Troy.
>
> The problem with Ricardian studies, which I've been into for 45 years, is that we have a clear trail of written accounts right from the off - we're not short of them - and can see them changing and getting more extreme over the years. At some point in time Henry VII's rosebush became mistaken for a hawthorn bush, and the legend of the crown in the hawthorn bush grew out of that. The rose tree crowned is the central part of the badge of the yeomen warders of the Tower to this day.
>
> In discounting late sources we may occasionally deprive ourselves of something true, but more often we'll avoid error. If Henry's crown had been found in a hawthorn bush then some of the earlier sources would surely have mentioned it.
> A number of late ideas about WotR battles have proved to be misleading. One (still much older than the hawthorn bush theory) is the siting of the Battle of Bosworth on Ambien Hill. Another is Hutton's siting of the Battle of Barnet on Hadley Green.
> The "hawthorn bush" probably isn't the only heraldic badge to have sprouted an explanatory legend once the real meaning had been forgotten, but in fact the badges of Edward IV and Henry VII have religious overtones. The white rose was a symbol of the Virgin Mary, and the colours blue and blood red (murrey was also known as sanguine) are the other two colours associated with the Virgin - just look at any image of her and you'll see the red/ pink smock and blue cloak. The Sun was associated with Christ, hence the Sun in Spelndour.
> Henry VII took instead of the Sun another symbol of Christ, the red rose.
> The author of the article I was referring to explains as well that the golden Portcullis of the Beauforts, as well as referring to their surname (Fair Fort), was another Marian symbol, the porta clausa of her virginity, and also stood for the gate of heaven. This is why Henry was so happy to sprinkle his roses and portcullises around chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary.
>
> There is just no basis for the hawthorn bush story. End of.
>
> If you want to argue for the crown in the hawthorn bush, don't bring in Troy or tell me I don't believe in Julius Caesar - look for some evidence of the story's earlier existence.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > I don't seem to be getting through to you Marie.à
> >
> > I don't give tuppence about the crown in the hawthorn bush story, it was a side issue to the one I was discussing, that for those who cannot visit the battlefield, google streetview allows one to visit in a virtual sense, the site of the last desperate struggle.
> >
> > To apply your standard that the date of the document that tells the story renders it void, means we would have to throw out a whole lot of history for lack ofà original source documents.
> > 150 years ago Scholars rejected the existence of Troy and Mycenae because the only source we have for them is Homer writing centuries after the event. We don't even have the original story written in Homer's own handwriting, but documents dating even more centuries later. The scholars were wrong.
> >
> > We should , by your standard, discount the existence of Julius Caesar as we have IIRC three documents about him all written over 200 years later, we certainly don't have his Gallic War or Civil War commentaries written in Caesar's own hand.
> > Historians accept the authenticity nevertheless.
> >
> > There are countless similar events in history for which we only have copies written much much later than the event
> > Do we have an original Cicero, Livy? No
> >
> > Your argument and insistence on original source documents as being all we can depend on is specious and unscholarly IMO. You outlook is incorrect and that was what I was addressing. I will say nothing further
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> > à
> > Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
> > You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie
> > > Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aà Why have you raised such a strawman argument?
> > >
> > > We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
> > >
> > > To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account.Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > > And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
> > >
> > >
> > > In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> > > Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
> > >
> > > I propose to look at this story in that light.
> > >
> > > 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> > > 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> > > he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> > > 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> > > 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
> > >
> > >
> > > So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
> > >
> > > The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
> > >
> > > Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
> > >
> > > I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
> > >
> > > What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the runÃ’â¬aà of things it's not a particularly important issue.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > >
> > > Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> > > >
> > > > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> > > >
> > > > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> > > >
> > > > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà it makes sense, to me anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Aidan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > >
> > > > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > > > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > > > >
> > > > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > > > >
> > > > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > > > >
> > > > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Aidan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > > > >
> > > > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > > > >
> > > > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > > > >
> > > > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > > > >
> > > > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > > > >
> > > > > "E como SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, el pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬año vasallo vuestro que allÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aón de la gente del Rey, llegÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aóse a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aél e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aça, la qual afirman que valÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e
vistiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aço se sostuvo gran pieÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aél feu muerto;
> en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar pele Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí fueron muertos los mÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aás de
> > los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> > > por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó ponder al
> > > > Rey muerto en una pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aña hermita que
> > > > > estÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aá cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí por tres dÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aías porque pudÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aíese por todos ser visto."
> > > > >
> > > > > Translation
> > > > > And, when SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > > > >
> > > > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > > > >
> > > > > Translation
> > > > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > > > >
> > > > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > > > >
> > > > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I got pushed into the 'comprehensive' system, late 60's. At least they still taught English and History back then. 

(working at Bristol Uni and knocking about with the archaeologist's was a big help too) :)

Aidan



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush


 
Liz is right. I was at grammar school in the 60s and only the top
stream, who were expected to go through at that level from 11 to 18 then
go on to university, were allowed to learn Latin. If you got promoted to
that level later on, you had a hell of a time catching up. Then of
course Latin was needed to get you into the top universities and an
absolute necessity for History, Language, and Science degrees. That is
no longer the case when David Beckham studies can be taken at the
highest level!!
Paul

On 13/02/2013 21:19, liz williams wrote:
> Carol said:
> On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?
>
> Liz replied:
>
> By "public" I assume you mean state schools, not what we call "public schools" which means private, fee paying (all Americans shake their heads here). The answer is no, not very much. I went to a grammar school (in the 1970s I hasten to add) and we could do Latin up to O level and then Greek for A level if we lasted at Latin for 5 years. Comprehensive schools certainly don't do it (it's considered too exclusive I presume) and there aren't that many grammar schools around now; I'm not sure how many of them do it. I do know that there has been some suggestion (especially from London's mayor Boris Johnson) that it is taught again but that's not got far.
>
> History isn't taught much either. Only one of my brother's 5 children/stepchildren did it past 14 and she hated it.
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Oh, I assumed "public" meant private because it invariably  does when non English people ask that question (Carol I have no idea where you are from, sorry, but assumed you are not British.)
 
For non Brits, here is an explanation of our secondary school system:
 
Grammar schools were traditionally state schools.  Now however there are fee paying independent schools that call themselves a Grammar because they are academically  selective.  Due to the demise of the state grammar there is now a high demand for these schools.  (Stafford Grammar School for example is fee paying and selective but is not on the HMC website.  It is however on the ISC and ISBI websites.  I grew up in Stafford but went to a state girls' grammar which no longer exists because Stafford went comprehensive in the late 70s) There are also grammar schools which are still state schools (mostly in the south of England) so are not fee paying but are academically selective. 
 
UK education is a lot more complicated nowadays - where there used to just be public and state schools (which included grammars) there are now:
 
1. Independent schools -  These are fee paying.  This could include the old public schools which do Common Entrance as well as new independents which may or may not be academically selective
2. State Comprehensive - admits all students.
3. State Grammar school - academic selection at 11
4. State Secondary modern - admits all students not selected by state grammar
State schools are free.  Plus of course various faith schools which may be free or not.  The only schools  really likely to do Latin are public/independent and some grammars. 
 
Anyone who is not British is no doubt totally confused by now but the above is basically a long winded way of saying very few people in the UK now get a classical education.
 
 
 
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 3:03
Subject: Re: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush

 
No by public schools she means English public schools and the answer is yes they still have Latin both in curriculum and at least for my school common entrance exam.
Grammar Schools with the exception I believe of Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School in Wakefield are not public schools and do not appear on the public schools headmasters list.
http://www.hmc.org.uk/
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 13, 2013, at 4:19 PM, liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:

> Carol said:
> On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?
>
> Liz replied:
>
> By "public" I assume you mean state schools, not what we call "public schools" which means private, fee paying (all Americans shake their heads here). The answer is no, not very much. I went to a grammar school (in the 1970s I hasten to add) and we could do Latin up to O level and then Greek for A level if we lasted at Latin for 5 years. Comprehensive schools certainly don't do it (it's considered too exclusive I presume) and there aren't that many grammar schools around now; I'm not sure how many of them do it. I do know that there has been some suggestion (especially from London's mayor Boris Johnson) that it is taught again but that's not got far.
>
> History isn't taught much either. Only one of my brother's 5 children/stepchildren did it past 14 and she hated it.
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>

Poll on the page in case anyone wished to add their choice

Richard III: Should his bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral?

Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-bones-display-Leicester-Cathedral/story-18080711-detail/story.html#ixzz2Ksb4rScO
Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter | thisisleicestershire on Facebook

Aidan


________________________________
From: Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush


I got pushed into the 'comprehensive' system, late 60's. At least they still taught English and History back then. 

(working at Bristol Uni and knocking about with the archaeologist's was a big help too) :)

Aidan



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush


 
Liz is right. I was at grammar school in the 60s and only the top
stream, who were expected to go through at that level from 11 to 18 then
go on to university, were allowed to learn Latin. If you got promoted to
that level later on, you had a hell of a time catching up. Then of
course Latin was needed to get you into the top universities and an
absolute necessity for History, Language, and Science degrees. That is
no longer the case when David Beckham studies can be taken at the
highest level!!
Paul

On 13/02/2013 21:19, liz williams wrote:
> Carol said:
> On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?
>
> Liz replied:
>
> By "public" I assume you mean state schools, not what we call "public schools" which means private, fee paying (all Americans shake their heads here). The answer is no, not very much. I went to a grammar school (in the 1970s I hasten to add) and we could do Latin up to O level and then Greek for A level if we lasted at Latin for 5 years. Comprehensive schools certainly don't do it (it's considered too exclusive I presume) and there aren't that many grammar schools around now; I'm not sure how many of them do it. I do know that there has been some suggestion (especially from London's mayor Boris Johnson) that it is taught again but that's not got far.
>
> History isn't taught much either. Only one of my brother's 5 children/stepchildren did it past 14 and she hated it.
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

No they  shouldn't.  Whose suggestion was this anyway?  I bet a reporter first asked the question.
 
 

From: Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 13:29
Subject: Poll: hould Richard's bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral

 
Poll on the page in case anyone wished to add their choice

Richard III: Should his bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral?

Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-bones-display-Leicester-Cathedral/story-18080711-detail/story.html#ixzz2Ksb4rScO
Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter | thisisleicestershire on Facebook

Aidan

The article says the cathedral has already rejected the notion. In this I am in total agreement with them.

Holographic images or plastic replicas can satisfy those who want to see them, be ghoulish to, yet again, put his
sad mortal remains out for everyone to gawk at.

The poll was showing 67% support that decision and 37% don't. just wanted to let folks know so they can vote if the feel like it :)
but it will not be happening anyway

Aidan


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Poll: hould Richard's bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral


 
No they  shouldn't.  Whose suggestion was this anyway?  I bet a reporter first asked the question.
 
 

From: Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 13:29
Subject: Poll: hould Richard's bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral

 
Poll on the page in case anyone wished to add their choice

Richard III: Should his bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral?

Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-bones-display-Leicester-Cathedral/story-18080711-detail/story.html#ixzz2Ksb4rScO
Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter | thisisleicestershire on Facebook

Aidan

Hi All

I have just sent this request out from Philippa re the display of
Richard's bones. Please vote

thanks

Jac

" 
The Leicester Mercury are running a poll about the public display'
of Richard's remains - please vote NO!
 

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news#axzz2KggMHFf5
 
 See right hand side of the page."


*******************************






In message <1360850420.79054.YahooMailNeo@...>,
liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> writes
>No they  shouldn't.  Whose suggestion was this anyway?  I bet a
>reporter first asked the question.
> 
> 
>
>From: Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...>
>To: ""
><>
>Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 13:29
>Subject: Poll: hould Richard's bones go on
>display in Leicester Cathedral
>
> 
>Poll on the page in case anyone wished to add their choice
>
>Richard III: Should his bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral?
>
>Read more:
>http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-bones-display-Leiceste
>r-Cathedral/story-18080711-detail/story.html#ixzz2Ksb4rScO
>Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter | thisisleicestershire on Facebook
>
>Aidan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--

On 14/02/2013 13:28, liz williams wrote:
> There are also grammar schools which are still state schools (mostly in the south of England) so are not fee paying but are academically selective.
>
Oh yes. I went to Wallington County Grammar School For Boys between 1959
and 1967 and I loved it. Great school in a terrific setting. It was a
state school then and I think it still is. It now takes girls in the 6th
form, but is so popular now that there is an entrance examination to
pass to get in! I was really lucky in that it was the second on my list
of 3 grammars to choose from, the first being Rutlish. I was later happy
to learn that had I gone there I would have been in the same year as
John Major, future Prime Minister! But Wallington was fantastic. I don't
know of anyone who went there who does not feel the same.
Paul

When I started the school had to use a nearby house, Carew Manor, a walk
across Beddington Park to the main school for the first two years boys,
being part of the post war bulge. Carew Manor was known as being one of
those places Elizabeth I is supposed to have slept at!
My house was named Mandeville, after Sir Geoffrey.
How could anyone going there not be interested in history? I of course
already was and expressed my dislike of having to enter a Tudor building
every morning!!! :-)

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Not giving up on this one are you Aiden?
What difference will it make to you in Oz?
I am finding the squabbling over his remains as undignified as the
detailed discussion about his wounds. The Foundation is screaming about
it too, and making Ricardians look stupid.
Paul


On 14/02/2013 13:29, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> Poll on the page in case anyone wished to add their choice
>
> Richard III: Should his bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral?
>
> Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-bones-display-Leicester-Cathedral/story-18080711-detail/story.html#ixzz2Ksb4rScO
> Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter | thisisleicestershire on Facebook
>
> Aidan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
> I got pushed into the 'comprehensive' system, late 60's. At least they still taught English and History back then.
>
> (working at Bristol Uni and knocking about with the archaeologist's was a big help too) :)
>
> Aidan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Cc: paul.bale@...
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 6:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>
> Liz is right. I was at grammar school in the 60s and only the top
> stream, who were expected to go through at that level from 11 to 18 then
> go on to university, were allowed to learn Latin. If you got promoted to
> that level later on, you had a hell of a time catching up. Then of
> course Latin was needed to get you into the top universities and an
> absolute necessity for History, Language, and Science degrees. That is
> no longer the case when David Beckham studies can be taken at the
> highest level!!
> Paul
>
> On 13/02/2013 21:19, liz williams wrote:
>> Carol said:
>> On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?
>>
>> Liz replied:
>>
>> By "public" I assume you mean state schools, not what we call "public schools" which means private, fee paying (all Americans shake their heads here). The answer is no, not very much. I went to a grammar school (in the 1970s I hasten to add) and we could do Latin up to O level and then Greek for A level if we lasted at Latin for 5 years. Comprehensive schools certainly don't do it (it's considered too exclusive I presume) and there aren't that many grammar schools around now; I'm not sure how many of them do it. I do know that there has been some suggestion (especially from London's mayor Boris Johnson) that it is taught again but that's not got far.
>>
>> History isn't taught much either. Only one of my brother's 5 children/stepchildren did it past 14 and she hated it.
>>
>> Liz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I am concerned that the article indicates that Leicester University haven't ruled this out yet and Prof Harris will be discussing this with Dr Jo Appleby


________________________________


On 14/02/2013 13:29, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> Poll on the page in case anyone wished to add their choice
>
> Richard III: Should his bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral?
>
> Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-bones-display-Leicester-Cathedral/story-18080711-detail/story.html#ixzz2Ksb4rScO
> Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter | thisisleicestershire on Facebook
>
> Aidan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
> I got pushed into the 'comprehensive' system, late 60's. At least they still taught English and History back then.
>
> (working at Bristol Uni and knocking about with the archaeologist's was a big help too) :)
>
> Aidan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Cc: paul.bale@...
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 6:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>
> Liz is right. I was at grammar school in the 60s and only the top
> stream, who were expected to go through at that level from 11 to 18 then
> go on to university, were allowed to learn Latin. If you got promoted to
> that level later on, you had a hell of a time catching up. Then of
> course Latin was needed to get you into the top universities and an
> absolute necessity for History, Language, and Science degrees. That is
> no longer the case when David Beckham studies can be taken at the
> highest level!!
> Paul
>
> On 13/02/2013 21:19, liz williams wrote:
>> Carol said:
>> On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?
>>
>> Liz replied:
>>
>> By "public" I assume you mean state schools, not what we call "public schools" which means private, fee paying (all Americans shake their heads here). The answer is no, not very much. I went to a grammar school (in the 1970s I hasten to add) and we could do Latin up to O level and then Greek for A level if we lasted at Latin for 5 years. Comprehensive schools certainly don't do it (it's considered too exclusive I presume) and there aren't that many grammar schools around now; I'm not sure how many of them do it. I do know that there has been some suggestion (especially from London's mayor Boris Johnson) that it is taught again but that's not got far.
>>
>> History isn't taught much either. Only one of my brother's 5 children/stepchildren did it past 14 and she hated it.
>>
>> Liz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

As Philippa has also asked people to vote, and as it has nothing to do with where he is interred, I am unsure
what you are saying here. I simply saw some information about them displaying his bones and that there was a poll
Just put that here in case people were interested.
I repeat, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the interrment issue.

Regards

Aidan



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: Poll: hould Richard's bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral


 
Not giving up on this one are you Aiden?
What difference will it make to you in Oz?
I am finding the squabbling over his remains as undignified as the
detailed discussion about his wounds. The Foundation is screaming about
it too, and making Ricardians look stupid.
Paul

On 14/02/2013 13:29, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> Poll on the page in case anyone wished to add their choice
>
> Richard III: Should his bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral?
>
> Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-bones-display-Leicester-Cathedral/story-18080711-detail/story.html#ixzz2Ksb4rScO
> Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter | thisisleicestershire on Facebook
>
> Aidan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
> I got pushed into the 'comprehensive' system, late 60's. At least they still taught English and History back then.
>
> (working at Bristol Uni and knocking about with the archaeologist's was a big help too) :)
>
> Aidan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Cc: paul.bale@...
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 6:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>
> Liz is right. I was at grammar school in the 60s and only the top
> stream, who were expected to go through at that level from 11 to 18 then
> go on to university, were allowed to learn Latin. If you got promoted to
> that level later on, you had a hell of a time catching up. Then of
> course Latin was needed to get you into the top universities and an
> absolute necessity for History, Language, and Science degrees. That is
> no longer the case when David Beckham studies can be taken at the
> highest level!!
> Paul
>
> On 13/02/2013 21:19, liz williams wrote:
>> Carol said:
>> On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?
>>
>> Liz replied:
>>
>> By "public" I assume you mean state schools, not what we call "public schools" which means private, fee paying (all Americans shake their heads here). The answer is no, not very much. I went to a grammar school (in the 1970s I hasten to add) and we could do Latin up to O level and then Greek for A level if we lasted at Latin for 5 years. Comprehensive schools certainly don't do it (it's considered too exclusive I presume) and there aren't that many grammar schools around now; I'm not sure how many of them do it. I do know that there has been some suggestion (especially from London's mayor Boris Johnson) that it is taught again but that's not got far.
>>
>> History isn't taught much either. Only one of my brother's 5 children/stepchildren did it past 14 and she hated it.
>>
>> Liz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Lovely.....I bet that cost a pretty penny to purchase and move!

On Feb 14, 2013, at 5:40 AM, "Aidan Donnelly" <aidan.donnelly@...<mailto:aidan.donnelly@...>> wrote:



This is a picture window from Agecroft Hall, dating from Henry Vii's time and now translated to Richmond, Virginia.

https://b9fadd2c-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/debbismuseum/Gallery/IMG_8385.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7cr58v1mjDE-oHtWg0AJrnvEGbMEmpiogZMhpxIblb3yBFrXie24iTlGOs5nosFOND0h0i2kaRR0Bb-4ElO3f16yRj-_O-9ucZ20dWk1gIgp7KpSSlajlCno-UA6TlGNqYlyPB_tSd9EMnkPkndksdCJoHFWZL-WymGqDn_Vsn5WlybUO3Jn6aZ-ISiSUyOaOSJr6E_2dKWwGl4tPX4LtjHomJL8381o1aqySKGFip4g602FsTQ%3D&attredirects=0

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush



Aidan,
you're starting to annoy me. This is getting silly. It's not fair to compare something like Homer, who wrote down what was a long oral tradition telling us about happenings in an age for which we don't have the written texts. I could be just as silly and insist you have to take Helen and the apples along with Troy.

The problem with Ricardian studies, which I've been into for 45 years, is that we have a clear trail of written accounts right from the off - we're not short of them - and can see them changing and getting more extreme over the years. At some point in time Henry VII's rosebush became mistaken for a hawthorn bush, and the legend of the crown in the hawthorn bush grew out of that. The rose tree crowned is the central part of the badge of the yeomen warders of the Tower to this day.

In discounting late sources we may occasionally deprive ourselves of something true, but more often we'll avoid error. If Henry's crown had been found in a hawthorn bush then some of the earlier sources would surely have mentioned it.
A number of late ideas about WotR battles have proved to be misleading. One (still much older than the hawthorn bush theory) is the siting of the Battle of Bosworth on Ambien Hill. Another is Hutton's siting of the Battle of Barnet on Hadley Green.
The "hawthorn bush" probably isn't the only heraldic badge to have sprouted an explanatory legend once the real meaning had been forgotten, but in fact the badges of Edward IV and Henry VII have religious overtones. The white rose was a symbol of the Virgin Mary, and the colours blue and blood red (murrey was also known as sanguine) are the other two colours associated with the Virgin - just look at any image of her and you'll see the red/ pink smock and blue cloak. The Sun was associated with Christ, hence the Sun in Spelndour.
Henry VII took instead of the Sun another symbol of Christ, the red rose.
The author of the article I was referring to explains as well that the golden Portcullis of the Beauforts, as well as referring to their surname (Fair Fort), was another Marian symbol, the porta clausa of her virginity, and also stood for the gate of heaven. This is why Henry was so happy to sprinkle his roses and portcullises around chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary.

There is just no basis for the hawthorn bush story. End of.

If you want to argue for the crown in the hawthorn bush, don't bring in Troy or tell me I don't believe in Julius Caesar - look for some evidence of the story's earlier existence.

Marie

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> I don't seem to be getting through to you Marie.ý
>
> I don't give tuppence about the crown in the hawthorn bush story, it was a side issue to the one I was discussing, that for those who cannot visit the battlefield, google streetview allows one to visit in a virtual sense, the site of the last desperate struggle.
>
> To apply your standard that the date of the document that tells the story renders it void, means we would have to throw out a whole lot of history for lack ofý original source documents.
> 150 years ago Scholars rejected the existence of Troy and Mycenae because the only source we have for them is Homer writing centuries after the event. We don't even have the original story written in Homer's own handwriting, but documents dating even more centuries later. The scholars were wrong.
>
> We should , by your standard, discount the existence of Julius Caesar as we have IIRC three documents about him all written over 200 years later, we certainly don't have his Gallic War or Civil War commentaries written in Caesar's own hand.
> Historians accept the authenticity nevertheless.
>
> There are countless similar events in history for which we only have copies written much much later than the event
> Do we have an original Cicero, Livy? No
>
> Your argument and insistence on original source documents as being all we can depend on is specious and unscholarly IMO. You outlook is incorrect and that was what I was addressing. I will say nothing further
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
> ý
> Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
> You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
> Marie
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie
> > ýýý ýýý ýýý ýýý ýýý ýýý ýýý ýýý ýýý ýýý ýýý ýýý ýýý ýýý ýýý ýýý ýýý Why have you raised such a strawman argument?
> >
> > We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
> >
> > To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account.ýýý
> >
> > And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
> >
> >
> > In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> > Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
> >
> > I propose to look at this story in that light.
> >
> > 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> > 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> > he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> > 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> > 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
> >
> >
> > So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
> >
> > The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
> >
> > Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
> >
> > I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
> >
> > What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the runýýý of things it's not a particularly important issue.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Aidan
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> > ýýý
> >
> >
> > Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> > >
> > > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> > >
> > > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> > >
> > > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -ýýýýýýýý it makes sense, to me anyway.
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > > ýýýýýýýý
> > >
> > > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > > >
> > > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > > >
> > > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > > >
> > > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > > >
> > > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > > >
> > > > Aidan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ýýý'ýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > > >
> > > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > > >
> > > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > > >
> > > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > > >
> > > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > > >
> > > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > > >
> > > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > > >
> > > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > > >
> > > > "E como Salaýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýar, el pequeýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýo vasallo vuestro que allýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýý estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýn de la gente del Rey, llegýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýse a ýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýl e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýý: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýa, la qual afirman que valýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýa ciento e veinte mil coronas, e vistiýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýý su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýo tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýo se sostuvo gran pieýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýa la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y ýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýl feu muerto;
en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e Salaýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýar pele ýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýý muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýý fueron muertos los mýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýs de
> los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýý todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýa consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> > por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýý ponder al
> > > Rey muerto en una pequeýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýa hermita que
> > > > estýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýý cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýlo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýý por tres dýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýas porque pudýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýese por todos ser visto."
> > > >
> > > > Translation
> > > > And, when Salaýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `Salaýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And Salaýýý'ýý'ýýýýýýýýýar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > > >
> > > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > > >
> > > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > > >
> > > > Translation
> > > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > > >
> > > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > > >
> > > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I voted "no" (I live in the USA, lol!). The "no" votes seem to be winning, thank God. Maire.

--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> As Philippa has also asked people to vote, and as it has nothing to do with where he is interred, I am unsure
> what you are saying here. I simply saw some information about them displaying his bones and that there was a poll
> Just put that here in case people were interested.
> I repeat, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the interrment issue.
>
> Regards
>
> Aidan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Cc: paul.bale@...
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 10:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Poll: hould Richard's bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral
>
>
>  
> Not giving up on this one are you Aiden?
> What difference will it make to you in Oz?
> I am finding the squabbling over his remains as undignified as the
> detailed discussion about his wounds. The Foundation is screaming about
> it too, and making Ricardians look stupid.
> Paul
>
> On 14/02/2013 13:29, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > Poll on the page in case anyone wished to add their choice
> >
> > Richard III: Should his bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral?
> >
> > Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-bones-display-Leicester-Cathedral/story-18080711-detail/story.html#ixzz2Ksb4rScO
> > Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter | thisisleicestershire on Facebook
> >
> > Aidan
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@...>
> > To: "" >
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> > I got pushed into the 'comprehensive' system, late 60's. At least they still taught English and History back then.
> >
> > (working at Bristol Uni and knocking about with the archaeologist's was a big help too) :)
> >
> > Aidan
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> > To:
> > Cc: paul.bale@...
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 6:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> >
> > Liz is right. I was at grammar school in the 60s and only the top
> > stream, who were expected to go through at that level from 11 to 18 then
> > go on to university, were allowed to learn Latin. If you got promoted to
> > that level later on, you had a hell of a time catching up. Then of
> > course Latin was needed to get you into the top universities and an
> > absolute necessity for History, Language, and Science degrees. That is
> > no longer the case when David Beckham studies can be taken at the
> > highest level!!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 13/02/2013 21:19, liz williams wrote:
> >> Carol said:
> >> On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?
> >>
> >> Liz replied:
> >>
> >> By "public" I assume you mean state schools, not what we call "public schools" which means private, fee paying (all Americans shake their heads here). The answer is no, not very much. I went to a grammar school (in the 1970s I hasten to add) and we could do Latin up to O level and then Greek for A level if we lasted at Latin for 5 years. Comprehensive schools certainly don't do it (it's considered too exclusive I presume) and there aren't that many grammar schools around now; I'm not sure how many of them do it. I do know that there has been some suggestion (especially from London's mayor Boris Johnson) that it is taught again but that's not got far.
> >>
> >> History isn't taught much either. Only one of my brother's 5 children/stepchildren did it past 14 and she hated it.
> >>
> >> Liz
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>

Liz, unless a child in the US attends a very posh secondary school, sadly the curriculum is very much watered down. Even in great public schools, grammar and writing skills have been omitted. History is covered quickly, and with lots of serious omissions. The dummying down of education, probably in all corners of our planet, is a very sad thing. History, it seems, will repeat itself. Only the very wealthy or a chosen few on scholarship, will receive the classic education most over 50 did. I have three college age grandchildren, and their writing skills are appalling. Their knowledge of history is scant, and when they get to college, you can get degrees in all sorts of things, which will never pan out to profession which will keep them working.

On Feb 14, 2013, at 7:28 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



Oh, I assumed "public" meant private because it invariably does when non English people ask that question (Carol I have no idea where you are from, sorry, but assumed you are not British.)

For non Brits, here is an explanation of our secondary school system:

Grammar schools were traditionally state schools. Now however there are fee paying independent schools that call themselves a Grammar because they are academically selective. Due to the demise of the state grammar there is now a high demand for these schools. (Stafford Grammar School for example is fee paying and selective but is not on the HMC website. It is however on the ISC and ISBI websites. I grew up in Stafford but went to a state girls' grammar which no longer exists because Stafford went comprehensive in the late 70s) There are also grammar schools which are still state schools (mostly in the south of England) so are not fee paying but are academically selective.

UK education is a lot more complicated nowadays - where there used to just be public and state schools (which included grammars) there are now:

1. Independent schools - These are fee paying. This could include the old public schools which do Common Entrance as well as new independents which may or may not be academically selective
2. State Comprehensive - admits all students.
3. State Grammar school - academic selection at 11
4. State Secondary modern - admits all students not selected by state grammar
State schools are free. Plus of course various faith schools which may be free or not. The only schools really likely to do Latin are public/independent and some grammars.

Anyone who is not British is no doubt totally confused by now but the above is basically a long winded way of saying very few people in the UK now get a classical education.



From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 3:03
Subject: Re: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush


No by public schools she means English public schools and the answer is yes they still have Latin both in curriculum and at least for my school common entrance exam.
Grammar Schools with the exception I believe of Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School in Wakefield are not public schools and do not appear on the public schools headmasters list.
http://www.hmc.org.uk/
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 13, 2013, at 4:19 PM, liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com>> wrote:

> Carol said:
> On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?
>
> Liz replied:
>
> By "public" I assume you mean state schools, not what we call "public schools" which means private, fee paying (all Americans shake their heads here). The answer is no, not very much. I went to a grammar school (in the 1970s I hasten to add) and we could do Latin up to O level and then Greek for A level if we lasted at Latin for 5 years. Comprehensive schools certainly don't do it (it's considered too exclusive I presume) and there aren't that many grammar schools around now; I'm not sure how many of them do it. I do know that there has been some suggestion (especially from London's mayor Boris Johnson) that it is taught again but that's not got far.
>
> History isn't taught much either. Only one of my brother's 5 children/stepchildren did it past 14 and she hated it.
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>

Now, that is considerably more interesting. The leaves do look more like hawthorn than rose, although it is hard to be absolutely certain given that hawthorn leaves are described in one website I just checked as "rose-like". The five-petalled flowers and berries could in theory be either roses & rosehips or mayflowers and haws. But on blanace I do think it looks more like a hawthorn bush, which would mean the Virginia Hendserson, whose article I used, would be incorrect about the heraldry.

I know you'll kill me, but for me this still doesn't prove the story that Henry found his crown in a hawthorn bush. This badge doesn't show the crown hanging in the bush but encricling it hovering in mid air. It is rather like the crown hovering over the top of the rose plant on the badges of the Beefeaters. And here is another reference to crowing the rose tree, from the pageants that the city of York devised for king Henry's visit in 1486:-
"Under the heaven shall be a world desolate, full of trees and flowers, in the which shall spring up a royal red rose conveyed by [de]vice, unto the which rose shall appear another rich white rose, unto whom, so being together, all other flowers shall `lowte' [bow] and evidently give sovereignty.... And thereupon shall come from a cloud a crown covering the roses...(York House Books, p.482).
And, wait for it, the mayflower was another of the flowers associated with the Virgin Mary, as in a Christian context she became the Queen of the May; they were known as "Mary's flower of May".

So I think there is room for different views on whether to believe the much later claims that Henry's crown was actually found in a hawthorn bush. I'm still puzzled as to why an incident so noteworthy as to have inspired a new royal badge should not be mentioned in any of the descriptions of the battle.
But thanks very much for that image. I'd been looking for as picture of Henry's "hawthorn" badge and hadn't been able to find one. At leastit's now fairly clear that he did use the hawthorn, as well as the rose (and the lily, another marian flower).

Marie


--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> This is a picture window from Agecroft Hall, dating from Henry Vii's time and now translated to Richmond, Virginia. 
>
> https://b9fadd2c-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/debbismuseum/Gallery/IMG_8385.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7cr58v1mjDE-oHtWg0AJrnvEGbMEmpiogZMhpxIblb3yBFrXie24iTlGOs5nosFOND0h0i2kaRR0Bb-4ElO3f16yRj-_O-9ucZ20dWk1gIgp7KpSSlajlCno-UA6TlGNqYlyPB_tSd9EMnkPkndksdCJoHFWZL-WymGqDn_Vsn5WlybUO3Jn6aZ-ISiSUyOaOSJr6E_2dKWwGl4tPX4LtjHomJL8381o1aqySKGFip4g602FsTQ%3D&attredirects=0
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>  
> Aidan,
> you're starting to annoy me. This is getting silly. It's not fair to compare something like Homer, who wrote down what was a long oral tradition telling us about happenings in an age for which we don't have the written texts. I could be just as silly and insist you have to take Helen and the apples along with Troy.
>
> The problem with Ricardian studies, which I've been into for 45 years, is that we have a clear trail of written accounts right from the off - we're not short of them - and can see them changing and getting more extreme over the years. At some point in time Henry VII's rosebush became mistaken for a hawthorn bush, and the legend of the crown in the hawthorn bush grew out of that. The rose tree crowned is the central part of the badge of the yeomen warders of the Tower to this day.
>
> In discounting late sources we may occasionally deprive ourselves of something true, but more often we'll avoid error. If Henry's crown had been found in a hawthorn bush then some of the earlier sources would surely have mentioned it.
> A number of late ideas about WotR battles have proved to be misleading. One (still much older than the hawthorn bush theory) is the siting of the Battle of Bosworth on Ambien Hill. Another is Hutton's siting of the Battle of Barnet on Hadley Green.
> The "hawthorn bush" probably isn't the only heraldic badge to have sprouted an explanatory legend once the real meaning had been forgotten, but in fact the badges of Edward IV and Henry VII have religious overtones. The white rose was a symbol of the Virgin Mary, and the colours blue and blood red (murrey was also known as sanguine) are the other two colours associated with the Virgin - just look at any image of her and you'll see the red/ pink smock and blue cloak. The Sun was associated with Christ, hence the Sun in Spelndour.
> Henry VII took instead of the Sun another symbol of Christ, the red rose.
> The author of the article I was referring to explains as well that the golden Portcullis of the Beauforts, as well as referring to their surname (Fair Fort), was another Marian symbol, the porta clausa of her virginity, and also stood for the gate of heaven. This is why Henry was so happy to sprinkle his roses and portcullises around chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary.
>
> There is just no basis for the hawthorn bush story. End of.
>
> If you want to argue for the crown in the hawthorn bush, don't bring in Troy or tell me I don't believe in Julius Caesar - look for some evidence of the story's earlier existence.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > I don't seem to be getting through to you Marie. 
> >
> > I don't give tuppence about the crown in the hawthorn bush story, it was a side issue to the one I was discussing, that for those who cannot visit the battlefield, google streetview allows one to visit in a virtual sense, the site of the last desperate struggle.
> >
> > To apply your standard that the date of the document that tells the story renders it void, means we would have to throw out a whole lot of history for lack of  original source documents.
> > 150 years ago Scholars rejected the existence of Troy and Mycenae because the only source we have for them is Homer writing centuries after the event. We don't even have the original story written in Homer's own handwriting, but documents dating even more centuries later. The scholars were wrong.
> >
> > We should , by your standard, discount the existence of Julius Caesar as we have IIRC three documents about him all written over 200 years later, we certainly don't have his Gallic War or Civil War commentaries written in Caesar's own hand.
> > Historians accept the authenticity nevertheless.
> >
> > There are countless similar events in history for which we only have copies written much much later than the event
> > Do we have an original Cicero, Livy? No
> >
> > Your argument and insistence on original source documents as being all we can depend on is specious and unscholarly IMO. You outlook is incorrect and that was what I was addressing. I will say nothing further
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> >  
> > Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
> > You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >                   Why have you raised such a strawman argument?
> > >
> > > We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
> > >
> > > To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account. 
> > >
> > > And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
> > >
> > >
> > > In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> > > Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
> > >
> > > I propose to look at this story in that light.
> > >
> > > 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> > > 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> > > he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> > > 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> > > 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
> > >
> > >
> > > So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
> > >
> > > The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
> > >
> > > Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
> > >
> > > I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
> > >
> > > What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the run  of things it's not a particularly important issue.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > > Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> > > >
> > > > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> > > >
> > > > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> > > >
> > > > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -ÃÆ'‚  it makes sense, to me anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Aidan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > >
> > > > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > > > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > > > >
> > > > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > > > >
> > > > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > > > >
> > > > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Aidan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > > > >
> > > > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > > > >
> > > > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > > > >
> > > > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > > > >
> > > > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > > > >
> > > > > "E como SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§ar, el pequeÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚±o vasallo vuestro que allÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚­ estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚³n de la gente del Rey, llegÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚³se a ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚©l e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚³: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§a, la qual afirman que valÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚­a ciento e veinte mil coronas, e vistiÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚³ su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§o tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§o se sostuvo gran pieÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§a la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚©l feu muerto;
> en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§ar pele ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚³ muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚­ fueron muertos los mÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚¡s de
> > los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚³ todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚­a consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> > > por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚³ ponder al
> > > > Rey muerto en una pequeÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚±a hermita que
> > > > > estÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚¡ cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚³lo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚­ por tres dÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚­as porque pudÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚­ese por todos ser visto."
> > > > >
> > > > > Translation
> > > > > And, when SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§ar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§ar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚§ar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > > > >
> > > > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > > > >
> > > > > Translation
> > > > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > > > >
> > > > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > > > >
> > > > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

An absolute and resounding NO. It's tasteless and disrepectful and what I feared might happen when the scientists got hold of him. I also have reservations regarding the length of time it will take before the reinterment as he deserves dignity not to be part of untold scientific analyses. I agree with Paul regarding the constant discussion of the wounds; which I also find tasteless and disrepectful.
Elaine

--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> I voted "no" (I live in the USA, lol!). The "no" votes seem to be winning, thank God. Maire.
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > As Philippa has also asked people to vote, and as it has nothing to do with where he is interred, I am unsure
> > what you are saying here. I simply saw some information about them displaying his bones and that there was a poll
> > Just put that here in case people were interested.
> > I repeat, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the interrment issue.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Aidan
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To:
> > Cc: paul.bale@
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 10:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: Poll: hould Richard's bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral
> >
> >
> >  
> > Not giving up on this one are you Aiden?
> > What difference will it make to you in Oz?
> > I am finding the squabbling over his remains as undignified as the
> > detailed discussion about his wounds. The Foundation is screaming about
> > it too, and making Ricardians look stupid.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 14/02/2013 13:29, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > Poll on the page in case anyone wished to add their choice
> > >
> > > Richard III: Should his bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral?
> > >
> > > Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-bones-display-Leicester-Cathedral/story-18080711-detail/story.html#ixzz2Ksb4rScO
> > > Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter | thisisleicestershire on Facebook
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@>
> > > To: "" >
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:53 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > > I got pushed into the 'comprehensive' system, late 60's. At least they still taught English and History back then.
> > >
> > > (working at Bristol Uni and knocking about with the archaeologist's was a big help too) :)
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@>
> > > To:
> > > Cc: paul.bale@
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 6:40 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Liz is right. I was at grammar school in the 60s and only the top
> > > stream, who were expected to go through at that level from 11 to 18 then
> > > go on to university, were allowed to learn Latin. If you got promoted to
> > > that level later on, you had a hell of a time catching up. Then of
> > > course Latin was needed to get you into the top universities and an
> > > absolute necessity for History, Language, and Science degrees. That is
> > > no longer the case when David Beckham studies can be taken at the
> > > highest level!!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 13/02/2013 21:19, liz williams wrote:
> > >> Carol said:
> > >> On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?
> > >>
> > >> Liz replied:
> > >>
> > >> By "public" I assume you mean state schools, not what we call "public schools" which means private, fee paying (all Americans shake their heads here). The answer is no, not very much. I went to a grammar school (in the 1970s I hasten to add) and we could do Latin up to O level and then Greek for A level if we lasted at Latin for 5 years. Comprehensive schools certainly don't do it (it's considered too exclusive I presume) and there aren't that many grammar schools around now; I'm not sure how many of them do it. I do know that there has been some suggestion (especially from London's mayor Boris Johnson) that it is taught again but that's not got far.
> > >>
> > >> History isn't taught much either. Only one of my brother's 5 children/stepchildren did it past 14 and she hated it.
> > >>
> > >> Liz
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> .
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Sorry to throw a spanner into this but my little research into Agecroft Hall says it fell into 'considerable disrepair' in England in the 19th century before being parcelled up and shipped. It's not a 19th century restoration window is it - it sounds a bit Pre-Raphaelite?  I shall duck under the table!



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 15:56
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush

 

Now, that is considerably more interesting. The leaves do look more like hawthorn than rose, although it is hard to be absolutely certain given that hawthorn leaves are described in one website I just checked as "rose-like". The five-petalled flowers and berries could in theory be either roses & rosehips or mayflowers and haws. But on blanace I do think it looks more like a hawthorn bush, which would mean the Virginia Hendserson, whose article I used, would be incorrect about the heraldry.

I know you'll kill me, but for me this still doesn't prove the story that Henry found his crown in a hawthorn bush. This badge doesn't show the crown hanging in the bush but encricling it hovering in mid air. It is rather like the crown hovering over the top of the rose plant on the badges of the Beefeaters. And here is another reference to crowing the rose tree, from the pageants that the city of York devised for king Henry's visit in 1486:-
"Under the heaven shall be a world desolate, full of trees and flowers, in the which shall spring up a royal red rose conveyed by [de]vice, unto the which rose shall appear another rich white rose, unto whom, so being together, all other flowers shall `lowte' [bow] and evidently give sovereignty.... And thereupon shall come from a cloud a crown covering the roses...(York House Books, p.482).
And, wait for it, the mayflower was another of the flowers associated with the Virgin Mary, as in a Christian context she became the Queen of the May; they were known as "Mary's flower of May".

So I think there is room for different views on whether to believe the much later claims that Henry's crown was actually found in a hawthorn bush. I'm still puzzled as to why an incident so noteworthy as to have inspired a new royal badge should not be mentioned in any of the descriptions of the battle.
But thanks very much for that image. I'd been looking for as picture of Henry's "hawthorn" badge and hadn't been able to find one. At leastit's now fairly clear that he did use the hawthorn, as well as the rose (and the lily, another marian flower).

Marie

--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> This is a picture window from Agecroft Hall, dating from Henry Vii's time and now translated to Richmond, Virginia. 
>
> https://b9fadd2c-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/debbismuseum/Gallery/IMG_8385.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7cr58v1mjDE-oHtWg0AJrnvEGbMEmpiogZMhpxIblb3yBFrXie24iTlGOs5nosFOND0h0i2kaRR0Bb-4ElO3f16yRj-_O-9ucZ20dWk1gIgp7KpSSlajlCno-UA6TlGNqYlyPB_tSd9EMnkPkndksdCJoHFWZL-WymGqDn_Vsn5WlybUO3Jn6aZ-ISiSUyOaOSJr6E_2dKWwGl4tPX4LtjHomJL8381o1aqySKGFip4g602FsTQ%3D&attredirects=0
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>  
> Aidan,
> you're starting to annoy me. This is getting silly. It's not fair to compare something like Homer, who wrote down what was a long oral tradition telling us about happenings in an age for which we don't have the written texts. I could be just as silly and insist you have to take Helen and the apples along with Troy.
>
> The problem with Ricardian studies, which I've been into for 45 years, is that we have a clear trail of written accounts right from the off - we're not short of them - and can see them changing and getting more extreme over the years. At some point in time Henry VII's rosebush became mistaken for a hawthorn bush, and the legend of the crown in the hawthorn bush grew out of that. The rose tree crowned is the central part of the badge of the yeomen warders of the Tower to this day.
>
> In discounting late sources we may occasionally deprive ourselves of something true, but more often we'll avoid error. If Henry's crown had been found in a hawthorn bush then some of the earlier sources would surely have mentioned it.
> A number of late ideas about WotR battles have proved to be misleading. One (still much older than the hawthorn bush theory) is the siting of the Battle of Bosworth on Ambien Hill. Another is Hutton's siting of the Battle of Barnet on Hadley Green.
> The "hawthorn bush" probably isn't the only heraldic badge to have sprouted an explanatory legend once the real meaning had been forgotten, but in fact the badges of Edward IV and Henry VII have religious overtones. The white rose was a symbol of the Virgin Mary, and the colours blue and blood red (murrey was also known as sanguine) are the other two colours associated with the Virgin - just look at any image of her and you'll see the red/ pink smock and blue cloak. The Sun was associated with Christ, hence the Sun in Spelndour.
> Henry VII took instead of the Sun another symbol of Christ, the red rose.
> The author of the article I was referring to explains as well that the golden Portcullis of the Beauforts, as well as referring to their surname (Fair Fort), was another Marian symbol, the porta clausa of her virginity, and also stood for the gate of heaven. This is why Henry was so happy to sprinkle his roses and portcullises around chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary.
>
> There is just no basis for the hawthorn bush story. End of.
>
> If you want to argue for the crown in the hawthorn bush, don't bring in Troy or tell me I don't believe in Julius Caesar - look for some evidence of the story's earlier existence.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > I don't seem to be getting through to you Marie.à
> >
> > I don't give tuppence about the crown in the hawthorn bush story, it was a side issue to the one I was discussing, that for those who cannot visit the battlefield, google streetview allows one to visit in a virtual sense, the site of the last desperate struggle.
> >
> > To apply your standard that the date of the document that tells the story renders it void, means we would have to throw out a whole lot of history for lack ofà original source documents.
> > 150 years ago Scholars rejected the existence of Troy and Mycenae because the only source we have for them is Homer writing centuries after the event. We don't even have the original story written in Homer's own handwriting, but documents dating even more centuries later. The scholars were wrong.
> >
> > We should , by your standard, discount the existence of Julius Caesar as we have IIRC three documents about him all written over 200 years later, we certainly don't have his Gallic War or Civil War commentaries written in Caesar's own hand.
> > Historians accept the authenticity nevertheless.
> >
> > There are countless similar events in history for which we only have copies written much much later than the event
> > Do we have an original Cicero, Livy? No
> >
> > Your argument and insistence on original source documents as being all we can depend on is specious and unscholarly IMO. You outlook is incorrect and that was what I was addressing. I will say nothing further
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> > à
> > Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
> > You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie
> > > Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aà Why have you raised such a strawman argument?
> > >
> > > We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
> > >
> > > To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account.Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > > And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
> > >
> > >
> > > In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> > > Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
> > >
> > > I propose to look at this story in that light.
> > >
> > > 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> > > 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> > > he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> > > 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> > > 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
> > >
> > >
> > > So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
> > >
> > > The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
> > >
> > > Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
> > >
> > > I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
> > >
> > > What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the runÃ’â¬aà of things it's not a particularly important issue.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > >
> > > Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> > > >
> > > > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> > > >
> > > > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> > > >
> > > > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà it makes sense, to me anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Aidan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > >
> > > > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > > > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > > > >
> > > > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > > > >
> > > > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > > > >
> > > > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Aidan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > > > >
> > > > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > > > >
> > > > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > > > >
> > > > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > > > >
> > > > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > > > >
> > > > > "E como SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, el pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬año vasallo vuestro que allÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aón de la gente del Rey, llegÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aóse a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aél e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aça, la qual afirman que valÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e
vistiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aço se sostuvo gran pieÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aél feu muerto;
> en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar pele Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí fueron muertos los mÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aás de
> > los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> > > por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó ponder al
> > > > Rey muerto en una pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aña hermita que
> > > > > estÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aá cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí por tres dÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aías porque pudÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aíese por todos ser visto."
> > > > >
> > > > > Translation
> > > > > And, when SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > > > >
> > > > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > > > >
> > > > > Translation
> > > > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > > > >
> > > > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > > > >
> > > > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I will refrain until you have looked at the other two posts regarding the entry on the heraldry site and the book in the British Museum, however looking at all the frames in the window, the restoration seems to have been to the leading (it does I am sure you know, sag over the years) -and were restored in order that the window panes would retain their original imagery.

The website the pic comes from is well worth looking at - all Lancastrian and Tudor imagery - believe it belonged to the Langley family..

Ther will be no crowing or angst, if our little bunfight has brought some good stuff to light then it's a gain, no? :)





________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush


 
Sorry to throw a spanner into this but my little research into Agecroft Hall says it fell into 'considerable disrepair' in England in the 19th century before being parcelled up and shipped. It's not a 19th century restoration window is it - it sounds a bit Pre-Raphaelite?  I shall duck under the table!

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 15:56
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush

 

Now, that is considerably more interesting. The leaves do look more like hawthorn than rose, although it is hard to be absolutely certain given that hawthorn leaves are described in one website I just checked as "rose-like". The five-petalled flowers and berries could in theory be either roses & rosehips or mayflowers and haws. But on blanace I do think it looks more like a hawthorn bush, which would mean the Virginia Hendserson, whose article I used, would be incorrect about the heraldry.

I know you'll kill me, but for me this still doesn't prove the story that Henry found his crown in a hawthorn bush. This badge doesn't show the crown hanging in the bush but encricling it hovering in mid air. It is rather like the crown hovering over the top of the rose plant on the badges of the Beefeaters. And here is another reference to crowing the rose tree, from the pageants that the city of York devised for king Henry's visit in 1486:-
"Under the heaven shall be a world desolate, full of trees and flowers, in the which shall spring up a royal red rose conveyed by [de]vice, unto the which rose shall appear another rich white rose, unto whom, so being together, all other flowers shall `lowte' [bow] and evidently give sovereignty.... And thereupon shall come from a cloud a crown covering the roses...(York House Books, p.482).
And, wait for it, the mayflower was another of the flowers associated with the Virgin Mary, as in a Christian context she became the Queen of the May; they were known as "Mary's flower of May".

So I think there is room for different views on whether to believe the much later claims that Henry's crown was actually found in a hawthorn bush. I'm still puzzled as to why an incident so noteworthy as to have inspired a new royal badge should not be mentioned in any of the descriptions of the battle.
But thanks very much for that image. I'd been looking for as picture of Henry's "hawthorn" badge and hadn't been able to find one. At leastit's now fairly clear that he did use the hawthorn, as well as the rose (and the lily, another marian flower).

Marie

--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> This is a picture window from Agecroft Hall, dating from Henry Vii's time and now translated to Richmond, Virginia. 
>
> https://b9fadd2c-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/debbismuseum/Gallery/IMG_8385.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7cr58v1mjDE-oHtWg0AJrnvEGbMEmpiogZMhpxIblb3yBFrXie24iTlGOs5nosFOND0h0i2kaRR0Bb-4ElO3f16yRj-_O-9ucZ20dWk1gIgp7KpSSlajlCno-UA6TlGNqYlyPB_tSd9EMnkPkndksdCJoHFWZL-WymGqDn_Vsn5WlybUO3Jn6aZ-ISiSUyOaOSJr6E_2dKWwGl4tPX4LtjHomJL8381o1aqySKGFip4g602FsTQ%3D&attredirects=0
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>  
> Aidan,
> you're starting to annoy me. This is getting silly. It's not fair to compare something like Homer, who wrote down what was a long oral tradition telling us about happenings in an age for which we don't have the written texts. I could be just as silly and insist you have to take Helen and the apples along with Troy.
>
> The problem with Ricardian studies, which I've been into for 45 years, is that we have a clear trail of written accounts right from the off - we're not short of them - and can see them changing and getting more extreme over the years. At some point in time Henry VII's rosebush became mistaken for a hawthorn bush, and the legend of the crown in the hawthorn bush grew out of that. The rose tree crowned is the central part of the badge of the yeomen warders of the Tower to this day.
>
> In discounting late sources we may occasionally deprive ourselves of something true, but more often we'll avoid error. If Henry's crown had been found in a hawthorn bush then some of the earlier sources would surely have mentioned it.
> A number of late ideas about WotR battles have proved to be misleading. One (still much older than the hawthorn bush theory) is the siting of the Battle of Bosworth on Ambien Hill. Another is Hutton's siting of the Battle of Barnet on Hadley Green.
> The "hawthorn bush" probably isn't the only heraldic badge to have sprouted an explanatory legend once the real meaning had been forgotten, but in fact the badges of Edward IV and Henry VII have religious overtones. The white rose was a symbol of the Virgin Mary, and the colours blue and blood red (murrey was also known as sanguine) are the other two colours associated with the Virgin - just look at any image of her and you'll see the red/ pink smock and blue cloak. The Sun was associated with Christ, hence the Sun in Spelndour.
> Henry VII took instead of the Sun another symbol of Christ, the red rose.
> The author of the article I was referring to explains as well that the golden Portcullis of the Beauforts, as well as referring to their surname (Fair Fort), was another Marian symbol, the porta clausa of her virginity, and also stood for the gate of heaven. This is why Henry was so happy to sprinkle his roses and portcullises around chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary.
>
> There is just no basis for the hawthorn bush story. End of.
>
> If you want to argue for the crown in the hawthorn bush, don't bring in Troy or tell me I don't believe in Julius Caesar - look for some evidence of the story's earlier existence.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > I don't seem to be getting through to you Marie.à
> >
> > I don't give tuppence about the crown in the hawthorn bush story, it was a side issue to the one I was discussing, that for those who cannot visit the battlefield, google streetview allows one to visit in a virtual sense, the site of the last desperate struggle.
> >
> > To apply your standard that the date of the document that tells the story renders it void, means we would have to throw out a whole lot of history for lack ofà original source documents.
> > 150 years ago Scholars rejected the existence of Troy and Mycenae because the only source we have for them is Homer writing centuries after the event. We don't even have the original story written in Homer's own handwriting, but documents dating even more centuries later. The scholars were wrong.
> >
> > We should , by your standard, discount the existence of Julius Caesar as we have IIRC three documents about him all written over 200 years later, we certainly don't have his Gallic War or Civil War commentaries written in Caesar's own hand.
> > Historians accept the authenticity nevertheless.
> >
> > There are countless similar events in history for which we only have copies written much much later than the event
> > Do we have an original Cicero, Livy? No
> >
> > Your argument and insistence on original source documents as being all we can depend on is specious and unscholarly IMO. You outlook is incorrect and that was what I was addressing. I will say nothing further
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> > à
> > Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
> > You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie
> > > Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aà Why have you raised such a strawman argument?
> > >
> > > We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
> > >
> > > To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account.Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > > And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
> > >
> > >
> > > In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> > > Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
> > >
> > > I propose to look at this story in that light.
> > >
> > > 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> > > 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> > > he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> > > 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> > > 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
> > >
> > >
> > > So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
> > >
> > > The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
> > >
> > > Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
> > >
> > > I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
> > >
> > > What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the runÃ’â¬aà of things it's not a particularly important issue.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > >
> > > Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> > > >
> > > > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> > > >
> > > > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> > > >
> > > > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà it makes sense, to me anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Aidan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > >
> > > > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > > > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > > > >
> > > > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > > > >
> > > > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > > > >
> > > > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Aidan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > > > >
> > > > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > > > >
> > > > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > > > >
> > > > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > > > >
> > > > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > > > >
> > > > > "E como SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, el pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬año vasallo vuestro que allÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aón de la gente del Rey, llegÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aóse a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aél e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aça, la qual afirman que valÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e
vistiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aço se sostuvo gran pieÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aél feu muerto;
> en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar pele Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí fueron muertos los mÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aás de
> > los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> > > por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó ponder al
> > > > Rey muerto en una pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aña hermita que
> > > > > estÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aá cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí por tres dÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aías porque pudÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aíese por todos ser visto."
> > > > >
> > > > > Translation
> > > > > And, when SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > > > >
> > > > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > > > >
> > > > > Translation
> > > > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > > > >
> > > > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > > > >
> > > > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Just voted no.

--- In , jacqui wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> I have just sent this request out from Philippa re the display of
> Richard's bones. Please vote
>
> thanks
>
> Jac
>
> " 
> The Leicester Mercury are running a poll about the ‘public display’
> of Richard's remains - please vote NO!
>  
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news#axzz2KggMHFf5
>  
>  See right hand side of the page."
>
>
> *******************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In message <1360850420.79054.YahooMailNeo@...>,
> liz williams writes
> >No they  shouldn't.  Whose suggestion was this anyway?  I bet a
> >reporter first asked the question.
> > 
> > 
> >
> >From: Aidan Donnelly
> >To: ""
> >
> >Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 13:29
> >Subject: Poll: hould Richard's bones go on
> >display in Leicester Cathedral
> >
> > 
> >Poll on the page in case anyone wished to add their choice
> >
> >Richard III: Should his bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral?
> >
> >Read more:
> >http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-bones-display-Leiceste
> >r-Cathedral/story-18080711-detail/story.html#ixzz2Ksb4rScO
> >Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter | thisisleicestershire on Facebook
> >
> >Aidan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>

I'm just surprised they let such valuable glass out of the country.


________________________________
From: Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 16:21
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush

 

I will refrain until you have looked at the other two posts regarding the entry on the heraldry site and the book in the British Museum, however looking at all the frames in the window, the restoration seems to have been to the leading (it does I am sure you know, sag over the years) -and were restored in order that the window panes would retain their original imagery.

The website the pic comes from is well worth looking at - all Lancastrian and Tudor imagery - believe it belonged to the Langley family..

Ther will be no crowing or angst, if our little bunfight has brought some good stuff to light then it's a gain, no? :)

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush


 
Sorry to throw a spanner into this but my little research into Agecroft Hall says it fell into 'considerable disrepair' in England in the 19th century before being parcelled up and shipped. It's not a 19th century restoration window is it - it sounds a bit Pre-Raphaelite?  I shall duck under the table!

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 15:56
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush

 

Now, that is considerably more interesting. The leaves do look more like hawthorn than rose, although it is hard to be absolutely certain given that hawthorn leaves are described in one website I just checked as "rose-like". The five-petalled flowers and berries could in theory be either roses & rosehips or mayflowers and haws. But on blanace I do think it looks more like a hawthorn bush, which would mean the Virginia Hendserson, whose article I used, would be incorrect about the heraldry.

I know you'll kill me, but for me this still doesn't prove the story that Henry found his crown in a hawthorn bush. This badge doesn't show the crown hanging in the bush but encricling it hovering in mid air. It is rather like the crown hovering over the top of the rose plant on the badges of the Beefeaters. And here is another reference to crowing the rose tree, from the pageants that the city of York devised for king Henry's visit in 1486:-
"Under the heaven shall be a world desolate, full of trees and flowers, in the which shall spring up a royal red rose conveyed by [de]vice, unto the which rose shall appear another rich white rose, unto whom, so being together, all other flowers shall `lowte' [bow] and evidently give sovereignty.... And thereupon shall come from a cloud a crown covering the roses...(York House Books, p.482).
And, wait for it, the mayflower was another of the flowers associated with the Virgin Mary, as in a Christian context she became the Queen of the May; they were known as "Mary's flower of May".

So I think there is room for different views on whether to believe the much later claims that Henry's crown was actually found in a hawthorn bush. I'm still puzzled as to why an incident so noteworthy as to have inspired a new royal badge should not be mentioned in any of the descriptions of the battle.
But thanks very much for that image. I'd been looking for as picture of Henry's "hawthorn" badge and hadn't been able to find one. At leastit's now fairly clear that he did use the hawthorn, as well as the rose (and the lily, another marian flower).

Marie

--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> This is a picture window from Agecroft Hall, dating from Henry Vii's time and now translated to Richmond, Virginia. 
>
> https://b9fadd2c-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/debbismuseum/Gallery/IMG_8385.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7cr58v1mjDE-oHtWg0AJrnvEGbMEmpiogZMhpxIblb3yBFrXie24iTlGOs5nosFOND0h0i2kaRR0Bb-4ElO3f16yRj-_O-9ucZ20dWk1gIgp7KpSSlajlCno-UA6TlGNqYlyPB_tSd9EMnkPkndksdCJoHFWZL-WymGqDn_Vsn5WlybUO3Jn6aZ-ISiSUyOaOSJr6E_2dKWwGl4tPX4LtjHomJL8381o1aqySKGFip4g602FsTQ%3D&attredirects=0
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>  
> Aidan,
> you're starting to annoy me. This is getting silly. It's not fair to compare something like Homer, who wrote down what was a long oral tradition telling us about happenings in an age for which we don't have the written texts. I could be just as silly and insist you have to take Helen and the apples along with Troy.
>
> The problem with Ricardian studies, which I've been into for 45 years, is that we have a clear trail of written accounts right from the off - we're not short of them - and can see them changing and getting more extreme over the years. At some point in time Henry VII's rosebush became mistaken for a hawthorn bush, and the legend of the crown in the hawthorn bush grew out of that. The rose tree crowned is the central part of the badge of the yeomen warders of the Tower to this day.
>
> In discounting late sources we may occasionally deprive ourselves of something true, but more often we'll avoid error. If Henry's crown had been found in a hawthorn bush then some of the earlier sources would surely have mentioned it.
> A number of late ideas about WotR battles have proved to be misleading. One (still much older than the hawthorn bush theory) is the siting of the Battle of Bosworth on Ambien Hill. Another is Hutton's siting of the Battle of Barnet on Hadley Green.
> The "hawthorn bush" probably isn't the only heraldic badge to have sprouted an explanatory legend once the real meaning had been forgotten, but in fact the badges of Edward IV and Henry VII have religious overtones. The white rose was a symbol of the Virgin Mary, and the colours blue and blood red (murrey was also known as sanguine) are the other two colours associated with the Virgin - just look at any image of her and you'll see the red/ pink smock and blue cloak. The Sun was associated with Christ, hence the Sun in Spelndour.
> Henry VII took instead of the Sun another symbol of Christ, the red rose.
> The author of the article I was referring to explains as well that the golden Portcullis of the Beauforts, as well as referring to their surname (Fair Fort), was another Marian symbol, the porta clausa of her virginity, and also stood for the gate of heaven. This is why Henry was so happy to sprinkle his roses and portcullises around chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary.
>
> There is just no basis for the hawthorn bush story. End of.
>
> If you want to argue for the crown in the hawthorn bush, don't bring in Troy or tell me I don't believe in Julius Caesar - look for some evidence of the story's earlier existence.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > I don't seem to be getting through to you Marie.à
> >
> > I don't give tuppence about the crown in the hawthorn bush story, it was a side issue to the one I was discussing, that for those who cannot visit the battlefield, google streetview allows one to visit in a virtual sense, the site of the last desperate struggle.
> >
> > To apply your standard that the date of the document that tells the story renders it void, means we would have to throw out a whole lot of history for lack ofà original source documents.
> > 150 years ago Scholars rejected the existence of Troy and Mycenae because the only source we have for them is Homer writing centuries after the event. We don't even have the original story written in Homer's own handwriting, but documents dating even more centuries later. The scholars were wrong.
> >
> > We should , by your standard, discount the existence of Julius Caesar as we have IIRC three documents about him all written over 200 years later, we certainly don't have his Gallic War or Civil War commentaries written in Caesar's own hand.
> > Historians accept the authenticity nevertheless.
> >
> > There are countless similar events in history for which we only have copies written much much later than the event
> > Do we have an original Cicero, Livy? No
> >
> > Your argument and insistence on original source documents as being all we can depend on is specious and unscholarly IMO. You outlook is incorrect and that was what I was addressing. I will say nothing further
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> > à
> > Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
> > You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie
> > > Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aà Why have you raised such a strawman argument?
> > >
> > > We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
> > >
> > > To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account.Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > > And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
> > >
> > >
> > > In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> > > Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
> > >
> > > I propose to look at this story in that light.
> > >
> > > 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> > > 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> > > he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> > > 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> > > 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
> > >
> > >
> > > So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
> > >
> > > The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
> > >
> > > Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
> > >
> > > I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
> > >
> > > What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the runÃ’â¬aà of things it's not a particularly important issue.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > >
> > > Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> > > >
> > > > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> > > >
> > > > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> > > >
> > > > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà it makes sense, to me anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Aidan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > >
> > > > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > > > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > > > >
> > > > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > > > >
> > > > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > > > >
> > > > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Aidan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > > > >
> > > > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > > > >
> > > > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > > > >
> > > > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > > > >
> > > > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > > > >
> > > > > "E como SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, el pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬año vasallo vuestro que allÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aón de la gente del Rey, llegÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aóse a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aél e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aça, la qual afirman que valÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e
vistiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aço se sostuvo gran pieÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aél feu muerto;
> en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar pele Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí fueron muertos los mÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aás de
> > los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> > > por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó ponder al
> > > > Rey muerto en una pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aña hermita que
> > > > > estÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aá cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí por tres dÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aías porque pudÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aíese por todos ser visto."
> > > > >
> > > > > Translation
> > > > > And, when SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > > > >
> > > > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > > > >
> > > > > Translation
> > > > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > > > >
> > > > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > > > >
> > > > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Carol earlier:
> On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?
>
> Liz replied:
>  
> By "public" I assume you mean state schools, not what we call "public schools" which means private, fee paying (all Americans shake their heads here).  The answer is no, not very much.  I went to a grammar school (in the 1970s I hasten to add) and we could do Latin up to O level and then Greek for A level if we lasted at Latin for 5 years.  Comprehensive schools certainly don't do it (it's considered too exclusive I presume) and there aren't that many grammar schools around now; I'm not sure how many of them do it.  I do know that there has been some suggestion (especially from London's mayor Boris Johnson) that it is taught again but that's not got far.
>  
> History isn't taught much either.  Only one of my brother's 5 children/stepchildren did it past 14 and she hated it.

Carol responds:

Hi, Liz. Actually, my dissertation was on the English Romantic poet Percy Shelley, so my idea of an English public school is Eton and similar schools. (It has always amused or bemused me that the English public schools are private.) The grammar schools were, as I understand it, originally so called because they taught Latin grammar to boys as young as six. In Shelley's day, they began Greek when the boys were still young, around ten, I think, but it's been a long time, so I'm not certain. I was just wondering how much the curriculum had changed. It used to be taken for granted that an educated man, or perhaps an English gentleman would be better since social classes were involved, knew both Latin and Greek. But Shelley lived in the early nineteenth century, and I have no clear idea how the British public school system worked after that.

I'm unclear as to how "grammar school" fits in with public )private) vs. state schools. (Here in the U.S.m grammar school is synonymous with grade school or elementary school, meaning first through fifth grades, followed by middle school and high school.) Is a grammar school a public (private) school and a comprehensive school a state-sponsored school?

Carol

Will do!!!

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Feb 14, 2013, at 9:13 AM, jacqui <jacqui@...> wrote:

> Hi All
>
> I have just sent this request out from Philippa re the display of
> Richard's bones. Please vote
>
> thanks
>
> Jac
>
> "
> The Leicester Mercury are running a poll about the public display'
> of Richard's remains - please vote NO!
>
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news#axzz2KggMHFf5
>
> See right hand side of the page."
>
> *******************************
>
> In message 1360850420.79054.YahooMailNeo@...>,
> liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...> writes
> >No they shouldn't. Whose suggestion was this anyway? I bet a
> >reporter first asked the question.
> >
> >
> >
> >From: Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@...>
> >To: ""
> >>
> >Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 13:29
> >Subject: Poll: hould Richard's bones go on
> >display in Leicester Cathedral
> >
> >
> >Poll on the page in case anyone wished to add their choice
> >
> >Richard III: Should his bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral?
> >
> >Read more:
> >http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-bones-display-Leiceste
> >r-Cathedral/story-18080711-detail/story.html#ixzz2Ksb4rScO
> >Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter | thisisleicestershire on Facebook
> >
> >Aidan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
>

How dreadful to even contemplate such indignity! It seems like a sad repetition of what happened 500 years ago. He doesn't deserve it. A NO from USA. Can we vote on the website too?

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Feb 14, 2013, at 11:00 AM, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:

> An absolute and resounding NO. It's tasteless and disrepectful and what I feared might happen when the scientists got hold of him. I also have reservations regarding the length of time it will take before the reinterment as he deserves dignity not to be part of untold scientific analyses. I agree with Paul regarding the constant discussion of the wounds; which I also find tasteless and disrepectful.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I voted "no" (I live in the USA, lol!). The "no" votes seem to be winning, thank God. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > > As Philippa has also asked people to vote, and as it has nothing to do with where he is interred, I am unsure
> > > what you are saying here. I simply saw some information about them displaying his bones and that there was a poll
> > > Just put that here in case people were interested.
> > > I repeat, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the interrment issue.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Aidan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To:
> > > Cc: paul.bale@
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 10:21 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Poll: hould Richard's bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Not giving up on this one are you Aiden?
> > > What difference will it make to you in Oz?
> > > I am finding the squabbling over his remains as undignified as the
> > > detailed discussion about his wounds. The Foundation is screaming about
> > > it too, and making Ricardians look stupid.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 14/02/2013 13:29, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > Poll on the page in case anyone wished to add their choice
> > > >
> > > > Richard III: Should his bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral?
> > > >
> > > > Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-bones-display-Leicester-Cathedral/story-18080711-detail/story.html#ixzz2Ksb4rScO
> > > > Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter | thisisleicestershire on Facebook
> > > >
> > > > Aidan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@>
> > > > To: ">
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:53 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I got pushed into the 'comprehensive' system, late 60's. At least they still taught English and History back then.
> > > >
> > > > (working at Bristol Uni and knocking about with the archaeologist's was a big help too) :)
> > > >
> > > > Aidan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Cc: paul.bale@
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 6:40 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Liz is right. I was at grammar school in the 60s and only the top
> > > > stream, who were expected to go through at that level from 11 to 18 then
> > > > go on to university, were allowed to learn Latin. If you got promoted to
> > > > that level later on, you had a hell of a time catching up. Then of
> > > > course Latin was needed to get you into the top universities and an
> > > > absolute necessity for History, Language, and Science degrees. That is
> > > > no longer the case when David Beckham studies can be taken at the
> > > > highest level!!
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 13/02/2013 21:19, liz williams wrote:
> > > >> Carol said:
> > > >> On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?
> > > >>
> > > >> Liz replied:
> > > >>
> > > >> By "public" I assume you mean state schools, not what we call "public schools" which means private, fee paying (all Americans shake their heads here). The answer is no, not very much. I went to a grammar school (in the 1970s I hasten to add) and we could do Latin up to O level and then Greek for A level if we lasted at Latin for 5 years. Comprehensive schools certainly don't do it (it's considered too exclusive I presume) and there aren't that many grammar schools around now; I'm not sure how many of them do it. I do know that there has been some suggestion (especially from London's mayor Boris Johnson) that it is taught again but that's not got far.
> > > >>
> > > >> History isn't taught much either. Only one of my brother's 5 children/stepchildren did it past 14 and she hated it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Liz
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> .
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ________________________________
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > >>
> > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Why would this surprise you! Have you not seen the collections of European art in most large American museums. Now days it is frowned on but in the late 18th. Century almost till today it was very common to collect goodies, Britain is not without blame ask Greece or Egypt were all their ancient relics are!

Mind you they do buy all our old bridges!
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 14, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> I'm just surprised they let such valuable glass out of the country.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 16:21
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>
> I will refrain until you have looked at the other two posts regarding the entry on the heraldry site and the book in the British Museum, however looking at all the frames in the window, the restoration seems to have been to the leading (it does I am sure you know, sag over the years) -and were restored in order that the window panes would retain their original imagery.
>
> The website the pic comes from is well worth looking at - all Lancastrian and Tudor imagery - believe it belonged to the Langley family..
>
> Ther will be no crowing or angst, if our little bunfight has brought some good stuff to light then it's a gain, no? :)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013 12:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
> Sorry to throw a spanner into this but my little research into Agecroft Hall says it fell into 'considerable disrepair' in England in the 19th century before being parcelled up and shipped. It's not a 19th century restoration window is it - it sounds a bit Pre-Raphaelite? I shall duck under the table!
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 15:56
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>
> Now, that is considerably more interesting. The leaves do look more like hawthorn than rose, although it is hard to be absolutely certain given that hawthorn leaves are described in one website I just checked as "rose-like". The five-petalled flowers and berries could in theory be either roses & rosehips or mayflowers and haws. But on blanace I do think it looks more like a hawthorn bush, which would mean the Virginia Hendserson, whose article I used, would be incorrect about the heraldry.
>
> I know you'll kill me, but for me this still doesn't prove the story that Henry found his crown in a hawthorn bush. This badge doesn't show the crown hanging in the bush but encricling it hovering in mid air. It is rather like the crown hovering over the top of the rose plant on the badges of the Beefeaters. And here is another reference to crowing the rose tree, from the pageants that the city of York devised for king Henry's visit in 1486:-
> "Under the heaven shall be a world desolate, full of trees and flowers, in the which shall spring up a royal red rose conveyed by [de]vice, unto the which rose shall appear another rich white rose, unto whom, so being together, all other flowers shall `lowte' [bow] and evidently give sovereignty.... And thereupon shall come from a cloud a crown covering the roses...(York House Books, p.482).
> And, wait for it, the mayflower was another of the flowers associated with the Virgin Mary, as in a Christian context she became the Queen of the May; they were known as "Mary's flower of May".
>
> So I think there is room for different views on whether to believe the much later claims that Henry's crown was actually found in a hawthorn bush. I'm still puzzled as to why an incident so noteworthy as to have inspired a new royal badge should not be mentioned in any of the descriptions of the battle.
> But thanks very much for that image. I'd been looking for as picture of Henry's "hawthorn" badge and hadn't been able to find one. At leastit's now fairly clear that he did use the hawthorn, as well as the rose (and the lily, another marian flower).
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > This is a picture window from Agecroft Hall, dating from Henry Vii's time and now translated to Richmond, Virginia.Â
> >
> > https://b9fadd2c-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/debbismuseum/Gallery/IMG_8385.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7cr58v1mjDE-oHtWg0AJrnvEGbMEmpiogZMhpxIblb3yBFrXie24iTlGOs5nosFOND0h0i2kaRR0Bb-4ElO3f16yRj-_O-9ucZ20dWk1gIgp7KpSSlajlCno-UA6TlGNqYlyPB_tSd9EMnkPkndksdCJoHFWZL-WymGqDn_Vsn5WlybUO3Jn6aZ-ISiSUyOaOSJr6E_2dKWwGl4tPX4LtjHomJL8381o1aqySKGFip4g602FsTQ%3D&attredirects=0
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Aidan,
> > you're starting to annoy me. This is getting silly. It's not fair to compare something like Homer, who wrote down what was a long oral tradition telling us about happenings in an age for which we don't have the written texts. I could be just as silly and insist you have to take Helen and the apples along with Troy.
> >
> > The problem with Ricardian studies, which I've been into for 45 years, is that we have a clear trail of written accounts right from the off - we're not short of them - and can see them changing and getting more extreme over the years. At some point in time Henry VII's rosebush became mistaken for a hawthorn bush, and the legend of the crown in the hawthorn bush grew out of that. The rose tree crowned is the central part of the badge of the yeomen warders of the Tower to this day.
> >
> > In discounting late sources we may occasionally deprive ourselves of something true, but more often we'll avoid error. If Henry's crown had been found in a hawthorn bush then some of the earlier sources would surely have mentioned it.
> > A number of late ideas about WotR battles have proved to be misleading. One (still much older than the hawthorn bush theory) is the siting of the Battle of Bosworth on Ambien Hill. Another is Hutton's siting of the Battle of Barnet on Hadley Green.
> > The "hawthorn bush" probably isn't the only heraldic badge to have sprouted an explanatory legend once the real meaning had been forgotten, but in fact the badges of Edward IV and Henry VII have religious overtones. The white rose was a symbol of the Virgin Mary, and the colours blue and blood red (murrey was also known as sanguine) are the other two colours associated with the Virgin - just look at any image of her and you'll see the red/ pink smock and blue cloak. The Sun was associated with Christ, hence the Sun in Spelndour.
> > Henry VII took instead of the Sun another symbol of Christ, the red rose.
> > The author of the article I was referring to explains as well that the golden Portcullis of the Beauforts, as well as referring to their surname (Fair Fort), was another Marian symbol, the porta clausa of her virginity, and also stood for the gate of heaven. This is why Henry was so happy to sprinkle his roses and portcullises around chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary.
> >
> > There is just no basis for the hawthorn bush story. End of.
> >
> > If you want to argue for the crown in the hawthorn bush, don't bring in Troy or tell me I don't believe in Julius Caesar - look for some evidence of the story's earlier existence.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't seem to be getting through to you Marie.ÃÂ
> > >
> > > I don't give tuppence about the crown in the hawthorn bush story, it was a side issue to the one I was discussing, that for those who cannot visit the battlefield, google streetview allows one to visit in a virtual sense, the site of the last desperate struggle.
> > >
> > > To apply your standard that the date of the document that tells the story renders it void, means we would have to throw out a whole lot of history for lack ofÃÂ original source documents.
> > > 150 years ago Scholars rejected the existence of Troy and Mycenae because the only source we have for them is Homer writing centuries after the event. We don't even have the original story written in Homer's own handwriting, but documents dating even more centuries later. The scholars were wrong.
> > >
> > > We should , by your standard, discount the existence of Julius Caesar as we have IIRC three documents about him all written over 200 years later, we certainly don't have his Gallic War or Civil War commentaries written in Caesar's own hand.
> > > Historians accept the authenticity nevertheless.
> > >
> > > There are countless similar events in history for which we only have copies written much much later than the event
> > > Do we have an original Cicero, Livy? No
> > >
> > > Your argument and insistence on original source documents as being all we can depend on is specious and unscholarly IMO. You outlook is incorrect and that was what I was addressing. I will say nothing further
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:30 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > > Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
> > > You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > > Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aàWhy have you raised such a strawman argument?
> > > >
> > > > We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
> > > >
> > > > To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account.Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> > > > Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
> > > >
> > > > I propose to look at this story in that light.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> > > > 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> > > > he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> > > > 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> > > > 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
> > > >
> > > > The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
> > > >
> > > > Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
> > > >
> > > > I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
> > > >
> > > > What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the runÃ’â¬aàof things it's not a particularly important issue.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Aidan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> > > > >
> > > > > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàit makes sense, to me anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > Aidan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > > > > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > > > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > > > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Aidan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > > > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > > > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > > > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > > > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "E como SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, el pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬año vasallo vuestro que allÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aón de la gente del Rey, llegÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aóse a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aél e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aça, la qual afirman que valÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e
> vistiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aço se sostuvo gran pieÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aél feu muerto;
> > en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar pele Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí fueron muertos los mÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aás de
> > > los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> > > > por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó ponder al
> > > > > Rey muerto en una pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aña hermita que
> > > > > > estÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aá cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí por tres dÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aías porque pudÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aíese por todos ser visto."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Translation
> > > > > > And, when SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > > > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > > > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > > > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Translation
> > > > > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > > > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > > > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

European art was bought by Americans, not plundered. Check out Simon Gray's wonderful play "Old Masters." Maire.

--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Why would this surprise you! Have you not seen the collections of European art in most large American museums. Now days it is frowned on but in the late 18th. Century almost till today it was very common to collect goodies, Britain is not without blame ask Greece or Egypt were all their ancient relics are!
>
> Mind you they do buy all our old bridges!
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 14, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > I'm just surprised they let such valuable glass out of the country.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@...>
> > To: "" >
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 16:21
> > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> >
> > I will refrain until you have looked at the other two posts regarding the entry on the heraldry site and the book in the British Museum, however looking at all the frames in the window, the restoration seems to have been to the leading (it does I am sure you know, sag over the years) -and were restored in order that the window panes would retain their original imagery.
> >
> > The website the pic comes from is well worth looking at - all Lancastrian and Tudor imagery - believe it belonged to the Langley family..
> >
> > Ther will be no crowing or angst, if our little bunfight has brought some good stuff to light then it's a gain, no? :)
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> > To: "@[email protected]>
> > Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013 12:10 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> > Sorry to throw a spanner into this but my little research into Agecroft Hall says it fell into 'considerable disrepair' in England in the 19th century before being parcelled up and shipped. It's not a 19th century restoration window is it - it sounds a bit Pre-Raphaelite? I shall duck under the table!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 15:56
> > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, that is considerably more interesting. The leaves do look more like hawthorn than rose, although it is hard to be absolutely certain given that hawthorn leaves are described in one website I just checked as "rose-like". The five-petalled flowers and berries could in theory be either roses & rosehips or mayflowers and haws. But on blanace I do think it looks more like a hawthorn bush, which would mean the Virginia Hendserson, whose article I used, would be incorrect about the heraldry.
> >
> > I know you'll kill me, but for me this still doesn't prove the story that Henry found his crown in a hawthorn bush. This badge doesn't show the crown hanging in the bush but encricling it hovering in mid air. It is rather like the crown hovering over the top of the rose plant on the badges of the Beefeaters. And here is another reference to crowing the rose tree, from the pageants that the city of York devised for king Henry's visit in 1486:-
> > "Under the heaven shall be a world desolate, full of trees and flowers, in the which shall spring up a royal red rose conveyed by [de]vice, unto the which rose shall appear another rich white rose, unto whom, so being together, all other flowers shall `lowte' [bow] and evidently give sovereignty.... And thereupon shall come from a cloud a crown covering the roses...(York House Books, p.482).
> > And, wait for it, the mayflower was another of the flowers associated with the Virgin Mary, as in a Christian context she became the Queen of the May; they were known as "Mary's flower of May".
> >
> > So I think there is room for different views on whether to believe the much later claims that Henry's crown was actually found in a hawthorn bush. I'm still puzzled as to why an incident so noteworthy as to have inspired a new royal badge should not be mentioned in any of the descriptions of the battle.
> > But thanks very much for that image. I'd been looking for as picture of Henry's "hawthorn" badge and hadn't been able to find one. At leastit's now fairly clear that he did use the hawthorn, as well as the rose (and the lily, another marian flower).
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > > This is a picture window from Agecroft Hall, dating from Henry Vii's time and now translated to Richmond, Virginia.Â
> > >
> > > https://b9fadd2c-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/debbismuseum/Gallery/IMG_8385.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7cr58v1mjDE-oHtWg0AJrnvEGbMEmpiogZMhpxIblb3yBFrXie24iTlGOs5nosFOND0h0i2kaRR0Bb-4ElO3f16yRj-_O-9ucZ20dWk1gIgp7KpSSlajlCno-UA6TlGNqYlyPB_tSd9EMnkPkndksdCJoHFWZL-WymGqDn_Vsn5WlybUO3Jn6aZ-ISiSUyOaOSJr6E_2dKWwGl4tPX4LtjHomJL8381o1aqySKGFip4g602FsTQ%3D&attredirects=0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:39 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Aidan,
> > > you're starting to annoy me. This is getting silly. It's not fair to compare something like Homer, who wrote down what was a long oral tradition telling us about happenings in an age for which we don't have the written texts. I could be just as silly and insist you have to take Helen and the apples along with Troy.
> > >
> > > The problem with Ricardian studies, which I've been into for 45 years, is that we have a clear trail of written accounts right from the off - we're not short of them - and can see them changing and getting more extreme over the years. At some point in time Henry VII's rosebush became mistaken for a hawthorn bush, and the legend of the crown in the hawthorn bush grew out of that. The rose tree crowned is the central part of the badge of the yeomen warders of the Tower to this day.
> > >
> > > In discounting late sources we may occasionally deprive ourselves of something true, but more often we'll avoid error. If Henry's crown had been found in a hawthorn bush then some of the earlier sources would surely have mentioned it.
> > > A number of late ideas about WotR battles have proved to be misleading. One (still much older than the hawthorn bush theory) is the siting of the Battle of Bosworth on Ambien Hill. Another is Hutton's siting of the Battle of Barnet on Hadley Green.
> > > The "hawthorn bush" probably isn't the only heraldic badge to have sprouted an explanatory legend once the real meaning had been forgotten, but in fact the badges of Edward IV and Henry VII have religious overtones. The white rose was a symbol of the Virgin Mary, and the colours blue and blood red (murrey was also known as sanguine) are the other two colours associated with the Virgin - just look at any image of her and you'll see the red/ pink smock and blue cloak. The Sun was associated with Christ, hence the Sun in Spelndour.
> > > Henry VII took instead of the Sun another symbol of Christ, the red rose.
> > > The author of the article I was referring to explains as well that the golden Portcullis of the Beauforts, as well as referring to their surname (Fair Fort), was another Marian symbol, the porta clausa of her virginity, and also stood for the gate of heaven. This is why Henry was so happy to sprinkle his roses and portcullises around chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary.
> > >
> > > There is just no basis for the hawthorn bush story. End of.
> > >
> > > If you want to argue for the crown in the hawthorn bush, don't bring in Troy or tell me I don't believe in Julius Caesar - look for some evidence of the story's earlier existence.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't seem to be getting through to you Marie.ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > I don't give tuppence about the crown in the hawthorn bush story, it was a side issue to the one I was discussing, that for those who cannot visit the battlefield, google streetview allows one to visit in a virtual sense, the site of the last desperate struggle.
> > > >
> > > > To apply your standard that the date of the document that tells the story renders it void, means we would have to throw out a whole lot of history for lack of original source documents.
> > > > 150 years ago Scholars rejected the existence of Troy and Mycenae because the only source we have for them is Homer writing centuries after the event. We don't even have the original story written in Homer's own handwriting, but documents dating even more centuries later. The scholars were wrong.
> > > >
> > > > We should , by your standard, discount the existence of Julius Caesar as we have IIRC three documents about him all written over 200 years later, we certainly don't have his Gallic War or Civil War commentaries written in Caesar's own hand.
> > > > Historians accept the authenticity nevertheless.
> > > >
> > > > There are countless similar events in history for which we only have copies written much much later than the event
> > > > Do we have an original Cicero, Livy? No
> > > >
> > > > Your argument and insistence on original source documents as being all we can depend on is specious and unscholarly IMO. You outlook is incorrect and that was what I was addressing. I will say nothing further
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:30 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
> > > > You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ Why have you raised such a strawman argument?
> > > > >
> > > > > We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account.ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> > > > > Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
> > > > >
> > > > > I propose to look at this story in that light.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> > > > > 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> > > > > he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> > > > > 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> > > > > 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
> > > > >
> > > > > The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
> > > > >
> > > > > What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the runÃÆ'‚ÂÂ of things it's not a particularly important issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Aidan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ it makes sense, to me anyway.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Aidan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > > > > > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > > > > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > > > > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Aidan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > > > > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > > > > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > > > > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > > > > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "E como SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§ar, el pequeÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚±o vasallo vuestro que allÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­ estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³n de la gente del Rey, llegÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³se a ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚©l e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§a, la qual afirman que valÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­a ciento e veinte mil coronas, e
> > vistiÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³ su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§o tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§o se sostuvo gran pieÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§a la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚©l feu muerto;
> > > en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§ar pele ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³ muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­ fueron muertos los mÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚¡s de
> > > > los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³ todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­a consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> > > > > por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³ ponder al
> > > > > > Rey muerto en una pequeÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚±a hermita que
> > > > > > > estÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚¡ cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³lo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­ por tres dÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­as porque pudÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­ese por todos ser visto."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Translation
> > > > > > > And, when SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§ar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§ar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > > > > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§ar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > > > > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > > > > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Translation
> > > > > > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > > > > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > > > > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I don't see the word " plundered " in any comment, however I assume that you mean the Elgin marbles that were purchased at the time but the list is very long of stuff "borrowed" by various countries America seems to be high on the list as during this time they both had the money and opportunity to obtain unlimited amounts of souvenirs. Once it is out of the country of origin that heritage is gone for good. How would we feel if an Egyptian archeological team had discovered R3 then taken his remains back to Egypt?
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 14, 2013, at 1:44 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:

> European art was bought by Americans, not plundered. Check out Simon Gray's wonderful play "Old Masters." Maire.
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > Why would this surprise you! Have you not seen the collections of European art in most large American museums. Now days it is frowned on but in the late 18th. Century almost till today it was very common to collect goodies, Britain is not without blame ask Greece or Egypt were all their ancient relics are!
> >
> > Mind you they do buy all our old bridges!
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 14, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > > I'm just surprised they let such valuable glass out of the country.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@...>
> > > To: ">
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 16:21
> > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I will refrain until you have looked at the other two posts regarding the entry on the heraldry site and the book in the British Museum, however looking at all the frames in the window, the restoration seems to have been to the leading (it does I am sure you know, sag over the years) -and were restored in order that the window panes would retain their original imagery.
> > >
> > > The website the pic comes from is well worth looking at - all Lancastrian and Tudor imagery - believe it belonged to the Langley family..
> > >
> > > Ther will be no crowing or angst, if our little bunfight has brought some good stuff to light then it's a gain, no? :)
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
> > > To: "@[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013 12:10 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry to throw a spanner into this but my little research into Agecroft Hall says it fell into 'considerable disrepair' in England in the 19th century before being parcelled up and shipped. It's not a 19th century restoration window is it - it sounds a bit Pre-Raphaelite? I shall duck under the table!
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 15:56
> > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Now, that is considerably more interesting. The leaves do look more like hawthorn than rose, although it is hard to be absolutely certain given that hawthorn leaves are described in one website I just checked as "rose-like". The five-petalled flowers and berries could in theory be either roses & rosehips or mayflowers and haws. But on blanace I do think it looks more like a hawthorn bush, which would mean the Virginia Hendserson, whose article I used, would be incorrect about the heraldry.
> > >
> > > I know you'll kill me, but for me this still doesn't prove the story that Henry found his crown in a hawthorn bush. This badge doesn't show the crown hanging in the bush but encricling it hovering in mid air. It is rather like the crown hovering over the top of the rose plant on the badges of the Beefeaters. And here is another reference to crowing the rose tree, from the pageants that the city of York devised for king Henry's visit in 1486:-
> > > "Under the heaven shall be a world desolate, full of trees and flowers, in the which shall spring up a royal red rose conveyed by [de]vice, unto the which rose shall appear another rich white rose, unto whom, so being together, all other flowers shall `lowte' [bow] and evidently give sovereignty.... And thereupon shall come from a cloud a crown covering the roses...(York House Books, p.482).
> > > And, wait for it, the mayflower was another of the flowers associated with the Virgin Mary, as in a Christian context she became the Queen of the May; they were known as "Mary's flower of May".
> > >
> > > So I think there is room for different views on whether to believe the much later claims that Henry's crown was actually found in a hawthorn bush. I'm still puzzled as to why an incident so noteworthy as to have inspired a new royal badge should not be mentioned in any of the descriptions of the battle.
> > > But thanks very much for that image. I'd been looking for as picture of Henry's "hawthorn" badge and hadn't been able to find one. At leastit's now fairly clear that he did use the hawthorn, as well as the rose (and the lily, another marian flower).
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is a picture window from Agecroft Hall, dating from Henry Vii's time and now translated to Richmond, Virginia.Ã
> > > >
> > > > https://b9fadd2c-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/debbismuseum/Gallery/IMG_8385.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7cr58v1mjDE-oHtWg0AJrnvEGbMEmpiogZMhpxIblb3yBFrXie24iTlGOs5nosFOND0h0i2kaRR0Bb-4ElO3f16yRj-_O-9ucZ20dWk1gIgp7KpSSlajlCno-UA6TlGNqYlyPB_tSd9EMnkPkndksdCJoHFWZL-WymGqDn_Vsn5WlybUO3Jn6aZ-ISiSUyOaOSJr6E_2dKWwGl4tPX4LtjHomJL8381o1aqySKGFip4g602FsTQ%3D&attredirects=0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:39 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã
> > > > Aidan,
> > > > you're starting to annoy me. This is getting silly. It's not fair to compare something like Homer, who wrote down what was a long oral tradition telling us about happenings in an age for which we don't have the written texts. I could be just as silly and insist you have to take Helen and the apples along with Troy.
> > > >
> > > > The problem with Ricardian studies, which I've been into for 45 years, is that we have a clear trail of written accounts right from the off - we're not short of them - and can see them changing and getting more extreme over the years. At some point in time Henry VII's rosebush became mistaken for a hawthorn bush, and the legend of the crown in the hawthorn bush grew out of that. The rose tree crowned is the central part of the badge of the yeomen warders of the Tower to this day.
> > > >
> > > > In discounting late sources we may occasionally deprive ourselves of something true, but more often we'll avoid error. If Henry's crown had been found in a hawthorn bush then some of the earlier sources would surely have mentioned it.
> > > > A number of late ideas about WotR battles have proved to be misleading. One (still much older than the hawthorn bush theory) is the siting of the Battle of Bosworth on Ambien Hill. Another is Hutton's siting of the Battle of Barnet on Hadley Green.
> > > > The "hawthorn bush" probably isn't the only heraldic badge to have sprouted an explanatory legend once the real meaning had been forgotten, but in fact the badges of Edward IV and Henry VII have religious overtones. The white rose was a symbol of the Virgin Mary, and the colours blue and blood red (murrey was also known as sanguine) are the other two colours associated with the Virgin - just look at any image of her and you'll see the red/ pink smock and blue cloak. The Sun was associated with Christ, hence the Sun in Spelndour.
> > > > Henry VII took instead of the Sun another symbol of Christ, the red rose.
> > > > The author of the article I was referring to explains as well that the golden Portcullis of the Beauforts, as well as referring to their surname (Fair Fort), was another Marian symbol, the porta clausa of her virginity, and also stood for the gate of heaven. This is why Henry was so happy to sprinkle his roses and portcullises around chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary.
> > > >
> > > > There is just no basis for the hawthorn bush story. End of.
> > > >
> > > > If you want to argue for the crown in the hawthorn bush, don't bring in Troy or tell me I don't believe in Julius Caesar - look for some evidence of the story's earlier existence.
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't seem to be getting through to you Marie.Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't give tuppence about the crown in the hawthorn bush story, it was a side issue to the one I was discussing, that for those who cannot visit the battlefield, google streetview allows one to visit in a virtual sense, the site of the last desperate struggle.
> > > > >
> > > > > To apply your standard that the date of the document that tells the story renders it void, means we would have to throw out a whole lot of history for lack ofÃ’â¬aà original source documents.
> > > > > 150 years ago Scholars rejected the existence of Troy and Mycenae because the only source we have for them is Homer writing centuries after the event. We don't even have the original story written in Homer's own handwriting, but documents dating even more centuries later. The scholars were wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > We should , by your standard, discount the existence of Julius Caesar as we have IIRC three documents about him all written over 200 years later, we certainly don't have his Gallic War or Civil War commentaries written in Caesar's own hand.
> > > > > Historians accept the authenticity nevertheless.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are countless similar events in history for which we only have copies written much much later than the event
> > > > > Do we have an original Cicero, Livy? No
> > > > >
> > > > > Your argument and insistence on original source documents as being all we can depend on is specious and unscholarly IMO. You outlook is incorrect and that was what I was addressing. I will say nothing further
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:30 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > > > Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
> > > > > You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà Why have you raised such a strawman argument?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> > > > > > Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I propose to look at this story in that light.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> > > > > > 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> > > > > > he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> > > > > > 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> > > > > > 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the runÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà of things it's not a particularly important issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Aidan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà it makes sense, to me anyway.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Aidan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > > > > > > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > > > > > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > > > > > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Aidan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > > > > > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > > > > > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > > > > > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > > > > > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "E como SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, el pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬año vasallo vuestro que allÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aón de la gente del Rey, llegÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aóse a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aél e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aça, la qual afirman que valÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e
> > > vistiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aço se sostuvo gran pieÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aél feu muerto;
> > > > en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar pele Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí fueron muertos los mÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aás de
> > > > > los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> > > > > > por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó ponder al
> > > > > > > Rey muerto en una pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aña hermita que
> > > > > > > > estÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aá cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí por tres dÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aías porque pudÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aíese por todos ser visto."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Translation
> > > > > > > > And, when SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > > > > > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > > > > > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > > > > > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Translation
> > > > > > > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > > > > > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > > > > > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

At least this is one indignity that he'll be spared. Makes for a nice change.

~Weds



--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
>
>
> The article says the cathedral has already rejected the notion. In this I am in total agreement with them.
>
> Holographic images or plastic replicas can satisfy those who want to see them, be ghoulish to, yet again, put his
> sad mortal remains out for everyone to gawk at.
>
> The poll was showing 67% support that decision and 37% don't. just wanted to let folks know so they can vote if the feel like it :)
> but it will not be happening anyway
>
> Aidan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
> To: ""
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 10:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Poll: hould Richard's bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral
>
>
>  
> No they  shouldn't.  Whose suggestion was this anyway?  I bet a reporter first asked the question.
>  
>  
>
> From: Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 13:29
> Subject: Poll: hould Richard's bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral
>
>  
> Poll on the page in case anyone wished to add their choice
>
> Richard III: Should his bones go on display in Leicester Cathedral?
>
> Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-bones-display-Leicester-Cathedral/story-18080711-detail/story.html#ixzz2Ksb4rScO
> Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter | thisisleicestershire on Facebook
>
> Aidan

Just making sure people don't misunderstand. Most art shipped out of the country of origin usually has someone on the inside helping it along. Like Sir Joseph Duveen. Maire.

--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> I don't see the word " plundered " in any comment, however I assume that you mean the Elgin marbles that were purchased at the time but the list is very long of stuff "borrowed" by various countries America seems to be high on the list as during this time they both had the money and opportunity to obtain unlimited amounts of souvenirs. Once it is out of the country of origin that heritage is gone for good. How would we feel if an Egyptian archeological team had discovered R3 then taken his remains back to Egypt?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 14, 2013, at 1:44 PM, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> > European art was bought by Americans, not plundered. Check out Simon Gray's wonderful play "Old Masters." Maire.
> >
> > --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> > >
> > > Why would this surprise you! Have you not seen the collections of European art in most large American museums. Now days it is frowned on but in the late 18th. Century almost till today it was very common to collect goodies, Britain is not without blame ask Greece or Egypt were all their ancient relics are!
> > >
> > > Mind you they do buy all our old bridges!
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 14, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm just surprised they let such valuable glass out of the country.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@>
> > > > To: "@[email protected]>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 16:21
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I will refrain until you have looked at the other two posts regarding the entry on the heraldry site and the book in the British Museum, however looking at all the frames in the window, the restoration seems to have been to the leading (it does I am sure you know, sag over the years) -and were restored in order that the window panes would retain their original imagery.
> > > >
> > > > The website the pic comes from is well worth looking at - all Lancastrian and Tudor imagery - believe it belonged to the Langley family..
> > > >
> > > > Ther will be no crowing or angst, if our little bunfight has brought some good stuff to light then it's a gain, no? :)
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@>
> > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013 12:10 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry to throw a spanner into this but my little research into Agecroft Hall says it fell into 'considerable disrepair' in England in the 19th century before being parcelled up and shipped. It's not a 19th century restoration window is it - it sounds a bit Pre-Raphaelite? I shall duck under the table!
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 15:56
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now, that is considerably more interesting. The leaves do look more like hawthorn than rose, although it is hard to be absolutely certain given that hawthorn leaves are described in one website I just checked as "rose-like". The five-petalled flowers and berries could in theory be either roses & rosehips or mayflowers and haws. But on blanace I do think it looks more like a hawthorn bush, which would mean the Virginia Hendserson, whose article I used, would be incorrect about the heraldry.
> > > >
> > > > I know you'll kill me, but for me this still doesn't prove the story that Henry found his crown in a hawthorn bush. This badge doesn't show the crown hanging in the bush but encricling it hovering in mid air. It is rather like the crown hovering over the top of the rose plant on the badges of the Beefeaters. And here is another reference to crowing the rose tree, from the pageants that the city of York devised for king Henry's visit in 1486:-
> > > > "Under the heaven shall be a world desolate, full of trees and flowers, in the which shall spring up a royal red rose conveyed by [de]vice, unto the which rose shall appear another rich white rose, unto whom, so being together, all other flowers shall `lowte' [bow] and evidently give sovereignty.... And thereupon shall come from a cloud a crown covering the roses...(York House Books, p.482).
> > > > And, wait for it, the mayflower was another of the flowers associated with the Virgin Mary, as in a Christian context she became the Queen of the May; they were known as "Mary's flower of May".
> > > >
> > > > So I think there is room for different views on whether to believe the much later claims that Henry's crown was actually found in a hawthorn bush. I'm still puzzled as to why an incident so noteworthy as to have inspired a new royal badge should not be mentioned in any of the descriptions of the battle.
> > > > But thanks very much for that image. I'd been looking for as picture of Henry's "hawthorn" badge and hadn't been able to find one. At leastit's now fairly clear that he did use the hawthorn, as well as the rose (and the lily, another marian flower).
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a picture window from Agecroft Hall, dating from Henry Vii's time and now translated to Richmond, Virginia.Â
> > > > >
> > > > > https://b9fadd2c-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/debbismuseum/Gallery/IMG_8385.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7cr58v1mjDE-oHtWg0AJrnvEGbMEmpiogZMhpxIblb3yBFrXie24iTlGOs5nosFOND0h0i2kaRR0Bb-4ElO3f16yRj-_O-9ucZ20dWk1gIgp7KpSSlajlCno-UA6TlGNqYlyPB_tSd9EMnkPkndksdCJoHFWZL-WymGqDn_Vsn5WlybUO3Jn6aZ-ISiSUyOaOSJr6E_2dKWwGl4tPX4LtjHomJL8381o1aqySKGFip4g602FsTQ%3D&attredirects=0
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:39 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > Aidan,
> > > > > you're starting to annoy me. This is getting silly. It's not fair to compare something like Homer, who wrote down what was a long oral tradition telling us about happenings in an age for which we don't have the written texts. I could be just as silly and insist you have to take Helen and the apples along with Troy.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with Ricardian studies, which I've been into for 45 years, is that we have a clear trail of written accounts right from the off - we're not short of them - and can see them changing and getting more extreme over the years. At some point in time Henry VII's rosebush became mistaken for a hawthorn bush, and the legend of the crown in the hawthorn bush grew out of that. The rose tree crowned is the central part of the badge of the yeomen warders of the Tower to this day.
> > > > >
> > > > > In discounting late sources we may occasionally deprive ourselves of something true, but more often we'll avoid error. If Henry's crown had been found in a hawthorn bush then some of the earlier sources would surely have mentioned it.
> > > > > A number of late ideas about WotR battles have proved to be misleading. One (still much older than the hawthorn bush theory) is the siting of the Battle of Bosworth on Ambien Hill. Another is Hutton's siting of the Battle of Barnet on Hadley Green.
> > > > > The "hawthorn bush" probably isn't the only heraldic badge to have sprouted an explanatory legend once the real meaning had been forgotten, but in fact the badges of Edward IV and Henry VII have religious overtones. The white rose was a symbol of the Virgin Mary, and the colours blue and blood red (murrey was also known as sanguine) are the other two colours associated with the Virgin - just look at any image of her and you'll see the red/ pink smock and blue cloak. The Sun was associated with Christ, hence the Sun in Spelndour.
> > > > > Henry VII took instead of the Sun another symbol of Christ, the red rose.
> > > > > The author of the article I was referring to explains as well that the golden Portcullis of the Beauforts, as well as referring to their surname (Fair Fort), was another Marian symbol, the porta clausa of her virginity, and also stood for the gate of heaven. This is why Henry was so happy to sprinkle his roses and portcullises around chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is just no basis for the hawthorn bush story. End of.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want to argue for the crown in the hawthorn bush, don't bring in Troy or tell me I don't believe in Julius Caesar - look for some evidence of the story's earlier existence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't seem to be getting through to you Marie.ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't give tuppence about the crown in the hawthorn bush story, it was a side issue to the one I was discussing, that for those who cannot visit the battlefield, google streetview allows one to visit in a virtual sense, the site of the last desperate struggle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To apply your standard that the date of the document that tells the story renders it void, means we would have to throw out a whole lot of history for lack ofÃÆ'‚Â original source documents.
> > > > > > 150 years ago Scholars rejected the existence of Troy and Mycenae because the only source we have for them is Homer writing centuries after the event. We don't even have the original story written in Homer's own handwriting, but documents dating even more centuries later. The scholars were wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We should , by your standard, discount the existence of Julius Caesar as we have IIRC three documents about him all written over 200 years later, we certainly don't have his Gallic War or Civil War commentaries written in Caesar's own hand.
> > > > > > Historians accept the authenticity nevertheless.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are countless similar events in history for which we only have copies written much much later than the event
> > > > > > Do we have an original Cicero, Livy? No
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your argument and insistence on original source documents as being all we can depend on is specious and unscholarly IMO. You outlook is incorrect and that was what I was addressing. I will say nothing further
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:30 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
> > > > > > You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â Why have you raised such a strawman argument?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> > > > > > > Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I propose to look at this story in that light.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> > > > > > > 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> > > > > > > he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> > > > > > > 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> > > > > > > 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the runÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â of things it's not a particularly important issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Aidan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ it makes sense, to me anyway.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Aidan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > > > > > > > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > > > > > > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > > > > > > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Aidan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > > > > > > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > > > > > > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > > > > > > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > > > > > > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "E como SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§ar, el pequeÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚±o vasallo vuestro que allÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­ estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³n de la gente del Rey, llegÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³se a ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚©l e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§a, la qual afirman que valÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­a ciento e veinte mil coronas, e
> > > > vistiÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³ su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§o tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§o se sostuvo gran pieÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§a la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚©l feu muerto;
> > > > > en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§ar pele ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³ muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­ fueron muertos los mÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚¡s de
> > > > > > los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³ todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­a consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> > > > > > > por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³ ponder al
> > > > > > > > Rey muerto en una pequeÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚±a hermita que
> > > > > > > > > estÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚¡ cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³lo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­ por tres dÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­as porque pudÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­ese por todos ser visto."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Translation
> > > > > > > > > And, when SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§ar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§ar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§ar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > > > > > > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > > > > > > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Translation
> > > > > > > > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > > > > > > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > > > > > > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Maire

On the theory that if you pay for someone's heritage does that make it right? Suppose then if the Egyptian team that took R3's remains back with them had spoken with Leicester City Council and purchased the remains in order to offset the cost of a new car park then that's ok?

Payment only validates a sale, it does not validate the correctness of the sale. I don't dispute your statement that everything we know about in museums has been paid for, just that sometimes it's not just the issue of the monetary value but the intrinsic value.

George



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:01 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush





Just making sure people don't misunderstand. Most art shipped out of the country of origin usually has someone on the inside helping it along. Like Sir Joseph Duveen. Maire.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> I don't see the word " plundered " in any comment, however I assume that you mean the Elgin marbles that were purchased at the time but the list is very long of stuff "borrowed" by various countries America seems to be high on the list as during this time they both had the money and opportunity to obtain unlimited amounts of souvenirs. Once it is out of the country of origin that heritage is gone for good. How would we feel if an Egyptian archeological team had discovered R3 then taken his remains back to Egypt?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 14, 2013, at 1:44 PM, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> > European art was bought by Americans, not plundered. Check out Simon Gray's wonderful play "Old Masters." Maire.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , George Butterfield wrote:
> > >
> > > Why would this surprise you! Have you not seen the collections of European art in most large American museums. Now days it is frowned on but in the late 18th. Century almost till today it was very common to collect goodies, Britain is not without blame ask Greece or Egypt were all their ancient relics are!
> > >
> > > Mind you they do buy all our old bridges!
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 14, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm just surprised they let such valuable glass out of the country.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@>
> > > > To: "@[email protected]>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 16:21
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I will refrain until you have looked at the other two posts regarding the entry on the heraldry site and the book in the British Museum, however looking at all the frames in the window, the restoration seems to have been to the leading (it does I am sure you know, sag over the years) -and were restored in order that the window panes would retain their original imagery.
> > > >
> > > > The website the pic comes from is well worth looking at - all Lancastrian and Tudor imagery - believe it belonged to the Langley family..
> > > >
> > > > Ther will be no crowing or angst, if our little bunfight has brought some good stuff to light then it's a gain, no? :)
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@>
> > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013 12:10 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry to throw a spanner into this but my little research into Agecroft Hall says it fell into 'considerable disrepair' in England in the 19th century before being parcelled up and shipped. It's not a 19th century restoration window is it - it sounds a bit Pre-Raphaelite? I shall duck under the table!
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected] <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 15:56
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now, that is considerably more interesting. The leaves do look more like hawthorn than rose, although it is hard to be absolutely certain given that hawthorn leaves are described in one website I just checked as "rose-like". The five-petalled flowers and berries could in theory be either roses & rosehips or mayflowers and haws. But on blanace I do think it looks more like a hawthorn bush, which would mean the Virginia Hendserson, whose article I used, would be incorrect about the heraldry.
> > > >
> > > > I know you'll kill me, but for me this still doesn't prove the story that Henry found his crown in a hawthorn bush. This badge doesn't show the crown hanging in the bush but encricling it hovering in mid air. It is rather like the crown hovering over the top of the rose plant on the badges of the Beefeaters. And here is another reference to crowing the rose tree, from the pageants that the city of York devised for king Henry's visit in 1486:-
> > > > "Under the heaven shall be a world desolate, full of trees and flowers, in the which shall spring up a royal red rose conveyed by [de]vice, unto the which rose shall appear another rich white rose, unto whom, so being together, all other flowers shall `lowte' [bow] and evidently give sovereignty.... And thereupon shall come from a cloud a crown covering the roses...(York House Books, p.482).
> > > > And, wait for it, the mayflower was another of the flowers associated with the Virgin Mary, as in a Christian context she became the Queen of the May; they were known as "Mary's flower of May".
> > > >
> > > > So I think there is room for different views on whether to believe the much later claims that Henry's crown was actually found in a hawthorn bush. I'm still puzzled as to why an incident so noteworthy as to have inspired a new royal badge should not be mentioned in any of the descriptions of the battle.
> > > > But thanks very much for that image. I'd been looking for as picture of Henry's "hawthorn" badge and hadn't been able to find one. At leastit's now fairly clear that he did use the hawthorn, as well as the rose (and the lily, another marian flower).
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a picture window from Agecroft Hall, dating from Henry Vii's time and now translated to Richmond, Virginia.Ã’â¬a
> > > > >
> > > > > https://b9fadd2c-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/debbismuseum/Gallery/IMG_8385.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7cr58v1mjDE-oHtWg0AJrnvEGbMEmpiogZMhpxIblb3yBFrXie24iTlGOs5nosFOND0h0i2kaRR0Bb-4ElO3f16yRj-_O-9ucZ20dWk1gIgp7KpSSlajlCno-UA6TlGNqYlyPB_tSd9EMnkPkndksdCJoHFWZL-WymGqDn_Vsn5WlybUO3Jn6aZ-ISiSUyOaOSJr6E_2dKWwGl4tPX4LtjHomJL8381o1aqySKGFip4g602FsTQ%3D <https://b9fadd2c-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/debbismuseum/Gallery/IMG_8385.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7cr58v1mjDE-oHtWg0AJrnvEGbMEmpiogZMhpxIblb3yBFrXie24iTlGOs5nosFOND0h0i2kaRR0Bb-4ElO3f16yRj-_O-9ucZ20dWk1gIgp7KpSSlajlCno-UA6TlGNqYlyPB_tSd9EMnkPkndksdCJoHFWZL-WymGqDn_Vsn5WlybUO3Jn6aZ-ISiSUyOaOSJr6E_2dKWwGl4tPX4LtjHomJL8381o1aqySKGFip4g602FsTQ%3D&attredirects=0> &attredirects=0
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:39 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’â¬a
> > > > > Aidan,
> > > > > you're starting to annoy me. This is getting silly. It's not fair to compare something like Homer, who wrote down what was a long oral tradition telling us about happenings in an age for which we don't have the written texts. I could be just as silly and insist you have to take Helen and the apples along with Troy.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with Ricardian studies, which I've been into for 45 years, is that we have a clear trail of written accounts right from the off - we're not short of them - and can see them changing and getting more extreme over the years. At some point in time Henry VII's rosebush became mistaken for a hawthorn bush, and the legend of the crown in the hawthorn bush grew out of that. The rose tree crowned is the central part of the badge of the yeomen warders of the Tower to this day.
> > > > >
> > > > > In discounting late sources we may occasionally deprive ourselves of something true, but more often we'll avoid error. If Henry's crown had been found in a hawthorn bush then some of the earlier sources would surely have mentioned it.
> > > > > A number of late ideas about WotR battles have proved to be misleading. One (still much older than the hawthorn bush theory) is the siting of the Battle of Bosworth on Ambien Hill. Another is Hutton's siting of the Battle of Barnet on Hadley Green.
> > > > > The "hawthorn bush" probably isn't the only heraldic badge to have sprouted an explanatory legend once the real meaning had been forgotten, but in fact the badges of Edward IV and Henry VII have religious overtones. The white rose was a symbol of the Virgin Mary, and the colours blue and blood red (murrey was also known as sanguine) are the other two colours associated with the Virgin - just look at any image of her and you'll see the red/ pink smock and blue cloak. The Sun was associated with Christ, hence the Sun in Spelndour.
> > > > > Henry VII took instead of the Sun another symbol of Christ, the red rose.
> > > > > The author of the article I was referring to explains as well that the golden Portcullis of the Beauforts, as well as referring to their surname (Fair Fort), was another Marian symbol, the porta clausa of her virginity, and also stood for the gate of heaven. This is why Henry was so happy to sprinkle his roses and portcullises around chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is just no basis for the hawthorn bush story. End of.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want to argue for the crown in the hawthorn bush, don't bring in Troy or tell me I don't believe in Julius Caesar - look for some evidence of the story's earlier existence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't seem to be getting through to you Marie.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't give tuppence about the crown in the hawthorn bush story, it was a side issue to the one I was discussing, that for those who cannot visit the battlefield, google streetview allows one to visit in a virtual sense, the site of the last desperate struggle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To apply your standard that the date of the document that tells the story renders it void, means we would have to throw out a whole lot of history for lack ofÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a original source documents.
> > > > > > 150 years ago Scholars rejected the existence of Troy and Mycenae because the only source we have for them is Homer writing centuries after the event. We don't even have the original story written in Homer's own handwriting, but documents dating even more centuries later. The scholars were wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We should , by your standard, discount the existence of Julius Caesar as we have IIRC three documents about him all written over 200 years later, we certainly don't have his Gallic War or Civil War commentaries written in Caesar's own hand.
> > > > > > Historians accept the authenticity nevertheless.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are countless similar events in history for which we only have copies written much much later than the event
> > > > > > Do we have an original Cicero, Livy? No
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your argument and insistence on original source documents as being all we can depend on is specious and unscholarly IMO. You outlook is incorrect and that was what I was addressing. I will say nothing further
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:30 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
> > > > > > You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Why have you raised such a strawman argument?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account.Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> > > > > > > Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I propose to look at this story in that light.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> > > > > > > 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> > > > > > > he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> > > > > > > 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> > > > > > > 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the runÃ’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a of things it's not a particularly important issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Aidan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en <https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl> &tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a it makes sense, to me anyway.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Aidan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > > > > > > > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > > > > > > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > > > > > > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Aidan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬aâÒÆ'âҢââ¬a¬Ã&¡Òâ¬aìÒÆ'ââ¬Â¦Ã’â¬aáÒÆ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > > > > > > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > > > > > > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > > > > > > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > > > > > > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "E como SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, el pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬año vasallo vuestro que allÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aón de la gente del Rey, llegÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aóse a Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aél e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aça, la qual afirman que valÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aía ciento e veinte mil coronas, e
> > > > vistiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aço tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aço se sostuvo gran pieÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aça la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aél feu muerto;
> > > > > en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar pele Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí fueron muertos los mÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aás de
> > > > > > los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aía consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> > > > > > > por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aó ponder al
> > > > > > > > Rey muerto en una pequeÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aña hermita que
> > > > > > > > > estÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aá cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aólo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aí por tres dÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aías porque pudÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aíese por todos ser visto."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Translation
> > > > > > > > > And, when SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'â⬠'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬ 'Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬açar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > > > > > > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > > > > > > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Translation
> > > > > > > > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > > > > > > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > > > > > > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

And check out Hearst Castle in California.

And the Getty Museum in L.A.

And London Bridge in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. (Which is looking shabby these days -- the town, not the bridge.)

There are times I wonder if Richard had won at Bosworth and there had been no fat King George for the Colonies to rebel against, would the U.S. still be British?

~Weds



--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> European art was bought by Americans, not plundered. Check out Simon Gray's wonderful play "Old Masters." Maire.
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > Why would this surprise you! Have you not seen the collections of European art in most large American museums. Now days it is frowned on but in the late 18th. Century almost till today it was very common to collect goodies, Britain is not without blame ask Greece or Egypt were all their ancient relics are!
> >
> > Mind you they do buy all our old bridges!
> > George

Carol,
 
I've sent another post explaining the type of schools here today.  If you still need clarification let me know!
 
 
 
My understanding is that "public" schools were so called because the upper classes originally would have been tutored privately at home and not gone to school at all.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 17:33
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush

 
Carol earlier:
> On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?
>
> Liz replied:
>  
> By "public" I assume you mean state schools, not what we call "public schools" which means private, fee paying (all Americans shake their heads here).  The answer is no, not very much.  I went to a grammar school (in the 1970s I hasten to add) and we could do Latin up to O level and then Greek for A level if we lasted at Latin for 5 years.  Comprehensive schools certainly don't do it (it's considered too exclusive I presume) and there aren't that many grammar schools around now; I'm not sure how many of them do it.  I do know that there has been some suggestion (especially from London's mayor Boris Johnson) that it is taught again but that's not got far.
>  
> History isn't taught much either.  Only one of my brother's 5 children/stepchildren did it past 14 and she hated it.

Carol responds:

Hi, Liz. Actually, my dissertation was on the English Romantic poet Percy Shelley, so my idea of an English public school is Eton and similar schools. (It has always amused or bemused me that the English public schools are private.) The grammar schools were, as I understand it, originally so called because they taught Latin grammar to boys as young as six. In Shelley's day, they began Greek when the boys were still young, around ten, I think, but it's been a long time, so I'm not certain. I was just wondering how much the curriculum had changed. It used to be taken for granted that an educated man, or perhaps an English gentleman would be better since social classes were involved, knew both Latin and Greek. But Shelley lived in the early nineteenth century, and I have no clear idea how the British public school system worked after that.

I'm unclear as to how "grammar school" fits in with public )private) vs. state schools. (Here in the U.S.m grammar school is synonymous with grade school or elementary school, meaning first through fifth grades, followed by middle school and high school.) Is a grammar school a public (private) school and a comprehensive school a state-sponsored school?

Carol

I wouldn't want the current crew in Egypt to be in possession of a Charles Keene painting much less Richard's bones!!

But no matter what we may think of the robber barons' motivations for buying great art, they have turned out to be fairly good custodians of it. I lived in the Frick Museum as a kid! Maire.

--- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> Maire
>
> On the theory that if you pay for someone’s heritage does that make it right? Suppose then if the Egyptian team that took R3’s remains back with them had spoken with Leicester City Council and purchased the remains in order to offset the cost of a new car park then that’s ok?
>
> Payment only validates a sale, it does not validate the correctness of the sale. I don’t dispute your statement that everything we know about in museums has been paid for, just that sometimes it’s not just the issue of the monetary value but the intrinsic value.
>
> George
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:01 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>
>
>
> Just making sure people don't misunderstand. Most art shipped out of the country of origin usually has someone on the inside helping it along. Like Sir Joseph Duveen. Maire.
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > I don't see the word " plundered " in any comment, however I assume that you mean the Elgin marbles that were purchased at the time but the list is very long of stuff "borrowed" by various countries America seems to be high on the list as during this time they both had the money and opportunity to obtain unlimited amounts of souvenirs. Once it is out of the country of origin that heritage is gone for good. How would we feel if an Egyptian archeological team had discovered R3 then taken his remains back to Egypt?
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 14, 2013, at 1:44 PM, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > > European art was bought by Americans, not plundered. Check out Simon Gray's wonderful play "Old Masters." Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why would this surprise you! Have you not seen the collections of European art in most large American museums. Now days it is frowned on but in the late 18th. Century almost till today it was very common to collect goodies, Britain is not without blame ask Greece or Egypt were all their ancient relics are!
> > > >
> > > > Mind you they do buy all our old bridges!
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 14, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm just surprised they let such valuable glass out of the country.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@>
> > > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 16:21
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I will refrain until you have looked at the other two posts regarding the entry on the heraldry site and the book in the British Museum, however looking at all the frames in the window, the restoration seems to have been to the leading (it does I am sure you know, sag over the years) -and were restored in order that the window panes would retain their original imagery.
> > > > >
> > > > > The website the pic comes from is well worth looking at - all Lancastrian and Tudor imagery - believe it belonged to the Langley family..
> > > > >
> > > > > Ther will be no crowing or angst, if our little bunfight has brought some good stuff to light then it's a gain, no? :)
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@>
> > > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013 12:10 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry to throw a spanner into this but my little research into Agecroft Hall says it fell into 'considerable disrepair' in England in the 19th century before being parcelled up and shipped. It's not a 19th century restoration window is it - it sounds a bit Pre-Raphaelite? I shall duck under the table!
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected] >
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 15:56
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, that is considerably more interesting. The leaves do look more like hawthorn than rose, although it is hard to be absolutely certain given that hawthorn leaves are described in one website I just checked as "rose-like". The five-petalled flowers and berries could in theory be either roses & rosehips or mayflowers and haws. But on blanace I do think it looks more like a hawthorn bush, which would mean the Virginia Hendserson, whose article I used, would be incorrect about the heraldry.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know you'll kill me, but for me this still doesn't prove the story that Henry found his crown in a hawthorn bush. This badge doesn't show the crown hanging in the bush but encricling it hovering in mid air. It is rather like the crown hovering over the top of the rose plant on the badges of the Beefeaters. And here is another reference to crowing the rose tree, from the pageants that the city of York devised for king Henry's visit in 1486:-
> > > > > "Under the heaven shall be a world desolate, full of trees and flowers, in the which shall spring up a royal red rose conveyed by [de]vice, unto the which rose shall appear another rich white rose, unto whom, so being together, all other flowers shall `lowte' [bow] and evidently give sovereignty.... And thereupon shall come from a cloud a crown covering the roses...(York House Books, p.482).
> > > > > And, wait for it, the mayflower was another of the flowers associated with the Virgin Mary, as in a Christian context she became the Queen of the May; they were known as "Mary's flower of May".
> > > > >
> > > > > So I think there is room for different views on whether to believe the much later claims that Henry's crown was actually found in a hawthorn bush. I'm still puzzled as to why an incident so noteworthy as to have inspired a new royal badge should not be mentioned in any of the descriptions of the battle.
> > > > > But thanks very much for that image. I'd been looking for as picture of Henry's "hawthorn" badge and hadn't been able to find one. At leastit's now fairly clear that he did use the hawthorn, as well as the rose (and the lily, another marian flower).
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a picture window from Agecroft Hall, dating from Henry Vii's time and now translated to Richmond, Virginia.ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://b9fadd2c-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/debbismuseum/Gallery/IMG_8385.JPG?attachauth=ANoY7cr58v1mjDE-oHtWg0AJrnvEGbMEmpiogZMhpxIblb3yBFrXie24iTlGOs5nosFOND0h0i2kaRR0Bb-4ElO3f16yRj-_O-9ucZ20dWk1gIgp7KpSSlajlCno-UA6TlGNqYlyPB_tSd9EMnkPkndksdCJoHFWZL-WymGqDn_Vsn5WlybUO3Jn6aZ-ISiSUyOaOSJr6E_2dKWwGl4tPX4LtjHomJL8381o1aqySKGFip4g602FsTQ%3D &attredirects=0
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 5:39 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > Aidan,
> > > > > > you're starting to annoy me. This is getting silly. It's not fair to compare something like Homer, who wrote down what was a long oral tradition telling us about happenings in an age for which we don't have the written texts. I could be just as silly and insist you have to take Helen and the apples along with Troy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem with Ricardian studies, which I've been into for 45 years, is that we have a clear trail of written accounts right from the off - we're not short of them - and can see them changing and getting more extreme over the years. At some point in time Henry VII's rosebush became mistaken for a hawthorn bush, and the legend of the crown in the hawthorn bush grew out of that. The rose tree crowned is the central part of the badge of the yeomen warders of the Tower to this day.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In discounting late sources we may occasionally deprive ourselves of something true, but more often we'll avoid error. If Henry's crown had been found in a hawthorn bush then some of the earlier sources would surely have mentioned it.
> > > > > > A number of late ideas about WotR battles have proved to be misleading. One (still much older than the hawthorn bush theory) is the siting of the Battle of Bosworth on Ambien Hill. Another is Hutton's siting of the Battle of Barnet on Hadley Green.
> > > > > > The "hawthorn bush" probably isn't the only heraldic badge to have sprouted an explanatory legend once the real meaning had been forgotten, but in fact the badges of Edward IV and Henry VII have religious overtones. The white rose was a symbol of the Virgin Mary, and the colours blue and blood red (murrey was also known as sanguine) are the other two colours associated with the Virgin - just look at any image of her and you'll see the red/ pink smock and blue cloak. The Sun was associated with Christ, hence the Sun in Spelndour.
> > > > > > Henry VII took instead of the Sun another symbol of Christ, the red rose.
> > > > > > The author of the article I was referring to explains as well that the golden Portcullis of the Beauforts, as well as referring to their surname (Fair Fort), was another Marian symbol, the porta clausa of her virginity, and also stood for the gate of heaven. This is why Henry was so happy to sprinkle his roses and portcullises around chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is just no basis for the hawthorn bush story. End of.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you want to argue for the crown in the hawthorn bush, don't bring in Troy or tell me I don't believe in Julius Caesar - look for some evidence of the story's earlier existence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't seem to be getting through to you Marie.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't give tuppence about the crown in the hawthorn bush story, it was a side issue to the one I was discussing, that for those who cannot visit the battlefield, google streetview allows one to visit in a virtual sense, the site of the last desperate struggle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To apply your standard that the date of the document that tells the story renders it void, means we would have to throw out a whole lot of history for lack ofÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ original source documents.
> > > > > > > 150 years ago Scholars rejected the existence of Troy and Mycenae because the only source we have for them is Homer writing centuries after the event. We don't even have the original story written in Homer's own handwriting, but documents dating even more centuries later. The scholars were wrong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We should , by your standard, discount the existence of Julius Caesar as we have IIRC three documents about him all written over 200 years later, we certainly don't have his Gallic War or Civil War commentaries written in Caesar's own hand.
> > > > > > > Historians accept the authenticity nevertheless.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are countless similar events in history for which we only have copies written much much later than the event
> > > > > > > Do we have an original Cicero, Livy? No
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your argument and insistence on original source documents as being all we can depend on is specious and unscholarly IMO. You outlook is incorrect and that was what I was addressing. I will say nothing further
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 8:30 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > Aidan, I'm not getting through, am I? You've clearly not read my posts properly. According to the scholarly article I checked out yesterday it's a late, late, late - like, hundreds of years later - legend based on misunderstanding of that badge of Henry's, which is of a ROSEBUSH not a hawthorn bush; and the hawthorn bush is not in ANY account of the battle. Okay?
> > > > > > > You obviously want your hawthorn bush, though, so I'll say no more.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ Why have you raised such a strawman argument?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We are not interested in how much Hawthorn grows in England, we are interested in if there is Hawthorn in a very small area along the edge of the marsh where the struggle took place. There is, in some profusion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To say it doesn't 'prove' the story is another Strawman argument. On that basis we can throw out around 90% of all source evidence around the battle at least, given every account I have read is not in accord with the next - army sizes ranging from 5,000 in one to 100,000 in another account.ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And we apply this same stringency, even the entry in the city records of York should be discounted, as it had Norfolk as being one of the traitors that caused Richard's defeat and death
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In the 1984 'Trial' of Richard on the murder of the Princes charge, the Judge directed the Jury along the lines that :
> > > > > > > > Given the time passed since the alleged offence - in consequence having no living witness and with no unbiased documentation, they should, rather than make their decision on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt', they should make it on the basis of 'Balance of Probability'
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I propose to look at this story in that light.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Was King Richard fighting in an area where Hawthorn grows - Yes
> > > > > > > > 2. Was his helmet with attached crown, broken or damaged by a blow, removed from his head during the struggle. From the wounds we now know categorically Yes
> > > > > > > > he could not have been wearing a helmet when at least one if not three of the wounds were inflicted.
> > > > > > > > 3. Did Henry end up with said crown - Yes
> > > > > > > > 4. Other supporting circumstantial evidence supporting the 'crown in hawthorn' story? - Yes the Tudor emblem and the renaming of the hill
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So if I was on a jury then I could not return a positive verdict on 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but most definitely could on 'Balance of probability'
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The helm with crown attached had to fall SOMEWHERE in that area, and given the profusion of Hawthorn there is no pressing reason to say it did NOT fall onto, into or under a bush of it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Someone finds the damaged/broken hem with crown attached, maybe that's why Stanley was still there, looking for it, maybe someone else found it and brought it to him, he has no use for the helm but detaches the crown and spurs his horse back up to what was later renamed to Crown Hill to present it to Henry.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see no reason to apply harder standards of evidence than that above in order to say the story of the crown in the Hawthorn is likely a true one.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What I don't know is why you are so unwilling to accept that probability, that you will raise such strawman arguments to discount it. In the runÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ of things it's not a particularly important issue.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Aidan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:15 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Okay, Aiden, I take your point there would have been hawthorn bushes. But there is hawthorn just everywhere in England except up on open moorland. It doesn't prove the story, which according to this article didn't arise till the 1700s, Henry's badge actually being of a rosebush encircled by a crown, the significance of which is obvious given his adoption of the red rose as his badge. You know me, I ditch anything that is not mentioned in primary sources.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sorry - no grid ref on Google maps, but it's easy enough to see from the Google maps 'Satellite' view. https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en &tab=wl - enter: foxcovert Lane, stoke golding, uk - in the address box and the little A marker will apear right in the lane by the marsh, easy out :)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Zoomed out as the view is you can see the shape of the march, with Foxcovert Lane running to it's southern edge then along it's eastern edge. I just dropped the little 'streetview' man(by clicking on the 'A' ab and selecting streetview) into the lane where it turns to skirt the marsh edge , (which also confirms the marsh was there when the lane and property boundaries formed).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Then just click to up and down the lane, and you should see what appears very much like hawthorn in the hedgerow, it's in blossom which makes it quite easy to spot and there's quite a lot along both hedges.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Which suggests to me that Richard and his men were making a fight of it in Foxcovert Lane to avoid being pushed into the marsh, which is immediately behind the lane, the Pikemen force them back anyway and we know the rest - well mostly :) -ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ it makes sense, to me anyway.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Aidan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 3:11 AM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sorry Aidan, what you're describing doesn't ring any bells with my memories of the site. Could you specify the names of the roads/ lanes, and perhaps give a grid reference?
> > > > > > > > > The hawthorn legend, being so late, is I think likely to be wrong. It always puzzled me because it suggested that the battle had moved on and Richard's remains etc hadn't been taken charge of immediately. It also suggests a crown not connected to a helmet.
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Paul having kindly shown me where the battlesite is, I was able to see it on google view, the shape of the marsh can still be seen.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A lane runs along and by the southern tip of the marsh. It has hedgerows both sides (though it would have been an unsealed track back then)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hedgerows delineate property boundaries and often date back into Roman times so the hedge lining the lane would likely have been there at the time of the battle.
> > > > > > > > > > In the hedgerow are many of what appears to be hawthorn and have looked up the pictures of them and I am fairly certain they are Hawthorne.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Which leads me to speculate that the story is actually true and somewhere along there Richard lost his circlet and possibly his battle helm.
> > > > > > > > > > It also suggests that he and his men were making a stand in the lane to prevent being pushed back and into the marsh.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Still speculation, but backed up by another snippet of information :)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Aidan
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 12:09 AM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚¢ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'‚¬ÃÆ'Æ'…ÃÆ'‚¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've put together a few sources dating to before 1500 and these are below. If anybody can think of any more, can you please suggest them? I've also checked about the crown being found in the hawthorn bush. The upshot is:-
> > > > > > > > > > 1) There is general agreement that Richard's crown and treasure were with him at Bosworth
> > > > > > > > > > 2) One early foreign source, which may be based directly on an eye-witness account, does tell us specifically that he put on the crown over his helmet
> > > > > > > > > > 3) The hawthorn bush story is very late - popular in the 18th century. It has retained credibility, and probably originated, because Henry VII's bade of a rose-tree surrounded by a crown was mistaken for a crown hanging in a thorn bush.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Anyhow, these are the quotations. With the exception of Crowland the translations are my own, so I am responsible for any mistakes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > REPORT OF FRENCH SOLDIERS AT BOSWORTH
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Richard III `vint a tout sa bataile, lequelle estoit estimee plus de XVM homes, en criant: ces traictres francois aujourd'uy sont cause de la perdicion de nostre royaume.' Henri Tudor `voult estre a pye au milieu de nous, et en partie fusme cause de gaigner la bataille'
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Richard III "came with his whole battle, which was estimated at more than 15,000 men, crying `These French traitors are the cause of the loss of our kingdom'." Henry Tudor `wanted to be on foot amongst us, and we were in part the cause of his winning the battle.'
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > CROWLAND (AUTUMN 1485)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pronay & Cox's Translation:-
> > > > > > > > > > "In the end a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the priceless crown which King Richard had previously worn. As for King Richard he received many mortal wounds and, like a spirited and most courageous prince, fell in battle on the field and not in flight."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > DIEGO DE VALERA (1ST MARCH 1486)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "E como SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§ar, el pequeÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚±o vasallo vuestro que allÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­ estava in servicio del rey Rixarte, viese la traiciÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³n de la gente del Rey, llegÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³se a ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚©l e dixole: ; y el Rey le respondiÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³: ; e luego puso la corona real sobre la armadura de su cabeÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§a, la qual afirman que valÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­a ciento e veinte mil coronas, e
> > > > > vistiÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³ su cotta d'armas a pelear con tan gran vigor y esforÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§o tanto aquellos que le quedaron leales, que con solo su esfuerÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§o se sostuvo gran pieÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§a la batalla. E a la fin le gente del Rey fue vencida y ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚©l feu muerto;
> > > > > > en la qual batalla, se affirma ser muertos de dies mill ombres arriba de amas partes; e SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§ar pele ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³ muy bien, e con todo eso se supo salvar, e allÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­ fueron muertos los mÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚¡s de
> > > > > > > los que al Rey lealmente sirvian, e alli se perdiÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³ todo el thesoro de Rey, el qual le traÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­a consigo en el campo. E avida esta vitoria
> > > > > > > > por el conde Enrrique, luego fue por todos llamado Rey, el qual mandÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³ ponder al
> > > > > > > > > Rey muerto en una pequeÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚±a hermita que
> > > > > > > > > > estÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚¡ cerca de donde la batalla se dio, e mandÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚³lo cobrir de la cintura abaxo con un pano negro asaz pobre, mandando que estoviese asÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­ por tres dÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­as porque pudÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚­ese por todos ser visto."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Translation
> > > > > > > > > > And, when SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§ar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the King's people, he went up to him and told him: `Sire, look to put your person in safety, for you cannot have victory in this battle today because of the manifest treason amongst your men.' And the King answered him: `SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§ar, God forbid I should turn back one step! For in this battle I will either die as King or win.' And then he put on over his head armour the royal crown, which they claim is worth a hundred and twenty thousand crowns, and put on his coat of arms and began to fight with great vigour, and he enheartened some who remained loyal to him, so that with his strength alone he sustained the battle for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > > But at the last the King's people were vanquished and he was dead, in which battle it is maintained that upwards of of ten thousand men perished on both sides. And SalaÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬ 'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚§ar fought right well, but for all that was able to save himself. And there died most of those who loyally served the King; and there was lost all the King's treasure, which he had brought with him to the field.
> > > > > > > > > > And, after this victory was had by Earl Henry, he was by all acclaimed as king; and he commanded the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage that lay close to where the battle was given, and ordered him to be covered from the waist down with a very poor black cloth, commanding that he should remain there for three days so that he could be seen by all.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ROUS (LATE 1488)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Tandem advesperante vita regis Ricardi multi clam ab eo se retraxerunt, qui adjuncti australibus exulibus adhaeserunt Henrico comiti Richmundiae ex fratre uterino nepoti regis Henrici sexti, qui in Wallia festo transfigurationis domini apud Mildford Havyn cum paucis comparative applicans multos habuit obvios. Tandem cum rege Ricardo & suo maximo exercitu VIII. die assumptionis beatae Mariae anno Domini M. CCCC. LXXXV. congrediens, regem Ricardum in campo interfecit in confinibus comitatuum Warrwici & Leicestriae.
> > > > > > > > > > Iste rex Ricardus diebus suis ultra modum crudelis triennio & parum ultra ad instar Antechristi regnaturi regnavit. Et sicut Antechristus `in futuro' in maxima sublimitate sua confundetur, sic & iste corona praesente cum thesauri copiosa multitudine subito in exercitu suo conglobato paucorum in comparatione tamen ferventi armorum fulmine ut miser extinctus est. Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus & viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans & dicens Treson, Treson, Treson, & sic gustan quod aliis saepius propinaverat miserrime vitam finivit, & finaliter apud fratre Minores Leicestriae in choro est sepultus."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Translation
> > > > > > > > > > At length, as the evening of Richard's life approached, many secretly withdrew from him who, in association with the southern exiles, attached themselves to Henry Earl of Richmund (nephew of Henry the Sixth by his uterine brother) who, landing at Milford Havyn in Wales on the feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord [6th August] with comparatively few, had many ready to meet him. At last, meeting with Richard and his greater army on the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [22nd August] in the year of Our lord 1485, he killed King Richard in the field on the boundaries of the counties of Warwick and Leicester.
> > > > > > > > > > This King Richard, in his days unusually cruel, reigned three [sic] years and a little more in likeness of how the Antichrist shall reign. And just as the Antichrist is `in the future' to be confounded at the height of his majesty, so he, having the crown itself with a copious mass of treasure, was suddenly, in the thick of his army, destroyed like a wretch by the raging clash of comparatively few armed men.
> > > > > > > > > > Yet if I might speak the truth to his honour, as a noble knight although small of body and weak of powers he defended himself vigorously to his last gasp, often crying out that he was betrayed and saying `Treson! Treson! Treson!' And so, tasting what he had more often meted out to others, he most wretchedly ended his life, and was at last buried at the Friars Minor of Leicester, in the choir.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > VITELLIUS AXVI (ca. 1495)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also this year the 22 day of August was the field of Bosworth, where King Richard was slain, and the Duke of Northfolk upon his party, and th'earl of Surrey, son unto the said duke, was taken upon the said field, and many other men slain, as Brakynbury and other, by the power of King Henry the VII. And after the field done, the said King richard was carried upon an horse behind a man all naked to Leyciter, fast by the Feld; and there buryed within the friars.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, George.

In the mid-80s, a neighbor of mine found out that many Scots were trading in their Arts & Crafts period, solid-oak furniture for new stuff from Montgomery Wards. He arranged to buy many pieces at rock-bottom prices and ship it back to the U.S. Container shipping was cheap; you just "nested" as many pieces inside of others and therefore saved on space. Pieces he couldn't get to were broken up for firewood and burned by their owners, who saw no further value in them.

These Scottish antiques ended up in his garage. He sold each shipment, piece by piece, to his friends and others by word of mouth.

I ended up buying a highboy and a small desk for next to nothing. I still have them. I know they are part of Britain's heritage, but the Scots themselves didn't want them.

Today, their intrinsic value has been "rediscovered" So tell me, is it right that I should own them, or should I arrange to sell them back to someone in Scotland?

If so, I would be willing to trade them for one of Richard's lovely minted coins. (Irony? what irony?) :)

~Weds


--- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> Maire
>
> On the theory that if you pay for someone’s heritage does that make it right? Suppose then if the Egyptian team that took R3’s remains back with them had spoken with Leicester City Council and purchased the remains in order to offset the cost of a new car park then that’s ok?
>
> Payment only validates a sale, it does not validate the correctness of the sale. I don’t dispute your statement that everything we know about in museums has been paid for, just that sometimes it’s not just the issue of the monetary value but the intrinsic value.
>
> George
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:01 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush
>
>
>
>
>
> Just making sure people don't misunderstand. Most art shipped out of the country of origin usually has someone on the inside helping it along. Like Sir Joseph Duveen. Maire.

P.S.  A grammar school is a secondary school aged 11-18 as are comprehensives and secondary moderns.  We have primary schools from aged 5 (or 4) to 11. 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 17:33
Subject: Re: Richard at Bosworth, The Helmet, the Crown & the Hawthorn Bush

 
Carol earlier:
> On a side note: Is Latin still taught in the English public schools? If not, when did a classical education die out?
>
> Liz replied:
>  
> By "public" I assume you mean state schools, not what we call "public schools" which means private, fee paying (all Americans shake their heads here).  The answer is no, not very much.  I went to a grammar school (in the 1970s I hasten to add) and we could do Latin up to O level and then Greek for A level if we lasted at Latin for 5 years.  Comprehensive schools certainly don't do it (it's considered too exclusive I presume) and there aren't that many grammar schools around now; I'm not sure how many of them do it.  I do know that there has been some suggestion (especially from London's mayor Boris Johnson) that it is taught again but that's not got far.
>  
> History isn't taught much either.  Only one of my brother's 5 children/stepchildren did it past 14 and she hated it.

Carol responds:

Hi, Liz. Actually, my dissertation was on the English Romantic poet Percy Shelley, so my idea of an English public school is Eton and similar schools. (It has always amused or bemused me that the English public schools are private.) The grammar schools were, as I understand it, originally so called because they taught Latin grammar to boys as young as six. In Shelley's day, they began Greek when the boys were still young, around ten, I think, but it's been a long time, so I'm not certain. I was just wondering how much the curriculum had changed. It used to be taken for granted that an educated man, or perhaps an English gentleman would be better since social classes were involved, knew both Latin and Greek. But Shelley lived in the early nineteenth century, and I have no clear idea how the British public school system worked after that.

I'm unclear as to how "grammar school" fits in with public )private) vs. state schools. (Here in the U.S.m grammar school is synonymous with grade school or elementary school, meaning first through fifth grades, followed by middle school and high school.) Is a grammar school a public (private) school and a comprehensive school a state-sponsored school?

Carol