Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-13 04:37:22
I uploaded "As the King Gave Out" to the Files. It's a short but interesting article which arrives at the conclusion that Henry VII never "gave out" anything regarding Tyrell's (imaginary) confession, that the confession originated with More, and that Bacon confused not only Markham) which I knew but Kendall (which I didn't remember) into thinking that the confession originated with Henry rather than with More. (Kendall even states that "a servant," presumably Dighton, was involved in the fabricated confession that Henry gave out (though Kendall does believe that Tyrell never confessed.) She points out one other reference to Tyrell besides Vergil that predates More, "The Great Chronicle of London." She provides no dates, but the Chronicle had to have been compiled before Fabyan died in 1513 (Henry died in 1509) and was not published until 1516 (according to the RIII Society webpage). So, according to Leas, no source mentioned Tyrell until after Henry's death. (I recommend the article to anyone interested in the topic. It confirms the trail of confusion that I traced from Vergil (Tyrell did it, no confession mentioned) through More (inventor of the confession) to Bacon (who thought that Henry had given out the "confession" reported in More), and she adds a few (to me) important details.
However, since her only concern is to show that Henry "gave out" exactly nothing, she doesn't pursue the sources of the rumor that Tyrrell killed the "Princes." Vergil seems to be off the hook as the inventor of the rumor since the near-contemporary Chronicle also includes it as a possibility. Henry could still be the source of the rumor despite the absence of a published confession or declaration since Vergil began his work at Henry's suggestion around 1505 (at least, according to Wikipedia) and Tyrell had been executed three years before. Perhaps they agreed both upon a tale as Bacon would put it, or perhaps Henry only planted the suggestion and Vergil found his "evidence" in the Wardrobe accounts.
The Great Chronicle says only that Sir James Tyrell was reported to be the doer of the cruel deed but others report that another servant of King Richard's (name left blank in the manuscript) did it. So we have Sir James's name connected with the murder, but no trip to London and no timing of the murders to coincide with Richard's progress, both of which occur first in Vergil. It's possible that Vergil got the name Tyrell not from Henry (or from Morton's lost manuscript; Morton himself had died in 1500) but from the Great Chronicle, but if that's the case, where did Fabyan get it? From "reports" (read "rumor"), Fabyan admits, but how and when did that rumor start? Did Henry give it out, not as a declaration but as a rumor as he had done with the deaths of the "Princes" in 1483? The tactic had worked then; why not a second time (or a third if Tudor agents were responsible for the rumor that Richard had poisoned his wife and intended to marry his niece).
No rumors appear before 1502 when Tyrrell was executed. And, surely, if he knew that rumors were circulating that he had killed Edward's sons, he would not have accepted Henry's (duplicitous) offer of safe conduct. The rumors appear to have started only after his execution. Fabyan says nothing of a confession, nor does Vergil, so perhaps it was only the rumor that he had killed them that Fabyan had heard. And who but Henry would have circulated such a rumor?
I'm sure it's clear that I'm thinking as I type and that the only planned part of this post was the synopsis of Leas's article. However, I think I know what I think now if that makes sense!
Carol
However, since her only concern is to show that Henry "gave out" exactly nothing, she doesn't pursue the sources of the rumor that Tyrrell killed the "Princes." Vergil seems to be off the hook as the inventor of the rumor since the near-contemporary Chronicle also includes it as a possibility. Henry could still be the source of the rumor despite the absence of a published confession or declaration since Vergil began his work at Henry's suggestion around 1505 (at least, according to Wikipedia) and Tyrell had been executed three years before. Perhaps they agreed both upon a tale as Bacon would put it, or perhaps Henry only planted the suggestion and Vergil found his "evidence" in the Wardrobe accounts.
The Great Chronicle says only that Sir James Tyrell was reported to be the doer of the cruel deed but others report that another servant of King Richard's (name left blank in the manuscript) did it. So we have Sir James's name connected with the murder, but no trip to London and no timing of the murders to coincide with Richard's progress, both of which occur first in Vergil. It's possible that Vergil got the name Tyrell not from Henry (or from Morton's lost manuscript; Morton himself had died in 1500) but from the Great Chronicle, but if that's the case, where did Fabyan get it? From "reports" (read "rumor"), Fabyan admits, but how and when did that rumor start? Did Henry give it out, not as a declaration but as a rumor as he had done with the deaths of the "Princes" in 1483? The tactic had worked then; why not a second time (or a third if Tudor agents were responsible for the rumor that Richard had poisoned his wife and intended to marry his niece).
No rumors appear before 1502 when Tyrrell was executed. And, surely, if he knew that rumors were circulating that he had killed Edward's sons, he would not have accepted Henry's (duplicitous) offer of safe conduct. The rumors appear to have started only after his execution. Fabyan says nothing of a confession, nor does Vergil, so perhaps it was only the rumor that he had killed them that Fabyan had heard. And who but Henry would have circulated such a rumor?
I'm sure it's clear that I'm thinking as I type and that the only planned part of this post was the synopsis of Leas's article. However, I think I know what I think now if that makes sense!
Carol
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-13 12:08:10
I just lost my first attempt at this so I'll be brief.
First, once people were convinced Richard had killed the Princes, popular rumours and speculation about whom he had got to do the deed would be inventiable.
Second, the Great Chronicle was written in the early 1500s and completed 1512 (according to Annette Carson), so the bit about Tyrell and the Princes could have been added at any time up to 1512.
The GC shares a lost source document with Vitellius AXVI and The New Chronicles of England and France - the latter also attributed, without proof, to Robert Fabyan. So you would need to check whether Vitellius AXVI or the New Chronicles also carry the claim about Tyrell and the Princes. If not, then this would seem to be a late addition to the GC, and it might just, therefore, have been based on Vergil's account, which was also completed about 1512.
Marie
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> I uploaded "As the King Gave Out" to the Files. It's a short but interesting article which arrives at the conclusion that Henry VII never "gave out" anything regarding Tyrell's (imaginary) confession, that the confession originated with More, and that Bacon confused not only Markham) which I knew but Kendall (which I didn't remember) into thinking that the confession originated with Henry rather than with More. (Kendall even states that "a servant," presumably Dighton, was involved in the fabricated confession that Henry gave out (though Kendall does believe that Tyrell never confessed.) She points out one other reference to Tyrell besides Vergil that predates More, "The Great Chronicle of London." She provides no dates, but the Chronicle had to have been compiled before Fabyan died in 1513 (Henry died in 1509) and was not published until 1516 (according to the RIII Society webpage). So, according to Leas, no source mentioned Tyrell until after Henry's death. (I recommend the article to anyone interested in the topic. It confirms the trail of confusion that I traced from Vergil (Tyrell did it, no confession mentioned) through More (inventor of the confession) to Bacon (who thought that Henry had given out the "confession" reported in More), and she adds a few (to me) important details.
>
> However, since her only concern is to show that Henry "gave out" exactly nothing, she doesn't pursue the sources of the rumor that Tyrrell killed the "Princes." Vergil seems to be off the hook as the inventor of the rumor since the near-contemporary Chronicle also includes it as a possibility. Henry could still be the source of the rumor despite the absence of a published confession or declaration since Vergil began his work at Henry's suggestion around 1505 (at least, according to Wikipedia) and Tyrell had been executed three years before. Perhaps they agreed both upon a tale as Bacon would put it, or perhaps Henry only planted the suggestion and Vergil found his "evidence" in the Wardrobe accounts.
>
> The Great Chronicle says only that Sir James Tyrell was reported to be the doer of the cruel deed but others report that another servant of King Richard's (name left blank in the manuscript) did it. So we have Sir James's name connected with the murder, but no trip to London and no timing of the murders to coincide with Richard's progress, both of which occur first in Vergil. It's possible that Vergil got the name Tyrell not from Henry (or from Morton's lost manuscript; Morton himself had died in 1500) but from the Great Chronicle, but if that's the case, where did Fabyan get it? From "reports" (read "rumor"), Fabyan admits, but how and when did that rumor start? Did Henry give it out, not as a declaration but as a rumor as he had done with the deaths of the "Princes" in 1483? The tactic had worked then; why not a second time (or a third if Tudor agents were responsible for the rumor that Richard had poisoned his wife and intended to marry his niece).
>
> No rumors appear before 1502 when Tyrrell was executed. And, surely, if he knew that rumors were circulating that he had killed Edward's sons, he would not have accepted Henry's (duplicitous) offer of safe conduct. The rumors appear to have started only after his execution. Fabyan says nothing of a confession, nor does Vergil, so perhaps it was only the rumor that he had killed them that Fabyan had heard. And who but Henry would have circulated such a rumor?
>
> I'm sure it's clear that I'm thinking as I type and that the only planned part of this post was the synopsis of Leas's article. However, I think I know what I think now if that makes sense!
>
> Carol
>
First, once people were convinced Richard had killed the Princes, popular rumours and speculation about whom he had got to do the deed would be inventiable.
Second, the Great Chronicle was written in the early 1500s and completed 1512 (according to Annette Carson), so the bit about Tyrell and the Princes could have been added at any time up to 1512.
The GC shares a lost source document with Vitellius AXVI and The New Chronicles of England and France - the latter also attributed, without proof, to Robert Fabyan. So you would need to check whether Vitellius AXVI or the New Chronicles also carry the claim about Tyrell and the Princes. If not, then this would seem to be a late addition to the GC, and it might just, therefore, have been based on Vergil's account, which was also completed about 1512.
Marie
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> I uploaded "As the King Gave Out" to the Files. It's a short but interesting article which arrives at the conclusion that Henry VII never "gave out" anything regarding Tyrell's (imaginary) confession, that the confession originated with More, and that Bacon confused not only Markham) which I knew but Kendall (which I didn't remember) into thinking that the confession originated with Henry rather than with More. (Kendall even states that "a servant," presumably Dighton, was involved in the fabricated confession that Henry gave out (though Kendall does believe that Tyrell never confessed.) She points out one other reference to Tyrell besides Vergil that predates More, "The Great Chronicle of London." She provides no dates, but the Chronicle had to have been compiled before Fabyan died in 1513 (Henry died in 1509) and was not published until 1516 (according to the RIII Society webpage). So, according to Leas, no source mentioned Tyrell until after Henry's death. (I recommend the article to anyone interested in the topic. It confirms the trail of confusion that I traced from Vergil (Tyrell did it, no confession mentioned) through More (inventor of the confession) to Bacon (who thought that Henry had given out the "confession" reported in More), and she adds a few (to me) important details.
>
> However, since her only concern is to show that Henry "gave out" exactly nothing, she doesn't pursue the sources of the rumor that Tyrrell killed the "Princes." Vergil seems to be off the hook as the inventor of the rumor since the near-contemporary Chronicle also includes it as a possibility. Henry could still be the source of the rumor despite the absence of a published confession or declaration since Vergil began his work at Henry's suggestion around 1505 (at least, according to Wikipedia) and Tyrell had been executed three years before. Perhaps they agreed both upon a tale as Bacon would put it, or perhaps Henry only planted the suggestion and Vergil found his "evidence" in the Wardrobe accounts.
>
> The Great Chronicle says only that Sir James Tyrell was reported to be the doer of the cruel deed but others report that another servant of King Richard's (name left blank in the manuscript) did it. So we have Sir James's name connected with the murder, but no trip to London and no timing of the murders to coincide with Richard's progress, both of which occur first in Vergil. It's possible that Vergil got the name Tyrell not from Henry (or from Morton's lost manuscript; Morton himself had died in 1500) but from the Great Chronicle, but if that's the case, where did Fabyan get it? From "reports" (read "rumor"), Fabyan admits, but how and when did that rumor start? Did Henry give it out, not as a declaration but as a rumor as he had done with the deaths of the "Princes" in 1483? The tactic had worked then; why not a second time (or a third if Tudor agents were responsible for the rumor that Richard had poisoned his wife and intended to marry his niece).
>
> No rumors appear before 1502 when Tyrrell was executed. And, surely, if he knew that rumors were circulating that he had killed Edward's sons, he would not have accepted Henry's (duplicitous) offer of safe conduct. The rumors appear to have started only after his execution. Fabyan says nothing of a confession, nor does Vergil, so perhaps it was only the rumor that he had killed them that Fabyan had heard. And who but Henry would have circulated such a rumor?
>
> I'm sure it's clear that I'm thinking as I type and that the only planned part of this post was the synopsis of Leas's article. However, I think I know what I think now if that makes sense!
>
> Carol
>
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-13 16:51:01
Hi, Carol.
Could Margaret Beaufort also be considered a possible source for the rumor? Or any of the rumors attached to Richard?
~Weds
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
<snipped>
> ...Henry could still be the source of the rumor despite the absence of a published confession or declaration since Vergil began his work at Henry's suggestion around 1505 (at least, according to Wikipedia) and Tyrell had been executed three years before. Perhaps they agreed both upon a tale as Bacon would put it, or perhaps Henry only planted the suggestion and Vergil found his "evidence" in the Wardrobe accounts.
Could Margaret Beaufort also be considered a possible source for the rumor? Or any of the rumors attached to Richard?
~Weds
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
<snipped>
> ...Henry could still be the source of the rumor despite the absence of a published confession or declaration since Vergil began his work at Henry's suggestion around 1505 (at least, according to Wikipedia) and Tyrell had been executed three years before. Perhaps they agreed both upon a tale as Bacon would put it, or perhaps Henry only planted the suggestion and Vergil found his "evidence" in the Wardrobe accounts.
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-13 18:24:15
Marie wrote:
>
> First, once people were convinced Richard had killed the Princes, popular rumours and speculation about whom he had got to do the deed would be inventiable.
Carol responds:
And yet, the only name I know of is Tyrrell's. Fabyan leaves a bland for the other possibility. (Again, in case someone who hasn't followed the thread is reading this post, I don't think for a moment that Tyrrell did it. I'm trying to figure out who pinned the blame on him, which appears to have happened before Vergil brought in the trip to London, which I think would, from his point of view, constitute evidence. That it was only circumstantial evidence seems not to have occurred to him.)
Marie:
> Second, the Great Chronicle was written in the early 1500s and completed 1512 (according to Annette Carson), so the bit about Tyrell and the Princes could have been added at any time up to 1512.
Carol responds:
True, and that would be after not only Tyrrell's execution in 1502 but after Henry's death in 1509. But Charles Ross thinks that the chronicler (Fabyan) wrote his account of the events up to 1496 may have been composed around 1501-02 or even earlier.
http://books.google.com/books?id=SdkM5uyUau8C&pg=PR38&dq=Charles+Ross+Richard+III+Fabyan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Sc4bUZ3-O8zkigLvy4H4DQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Ross%20Richard%20III%20Fabyan&f=false
Ergh. Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/b4xhm23
1502, the execution date of Sir James Tyrrell, would fit my hypothesis perfectly. (To anyone who hasn't been following the thread, it's that Tyrrell is the perfect scapegoat for Tyrrell, despite the apparent evidence that Henry never "gave out" a trumped-up confession, at least not a public declaration of his guilt.) If the rumors begin before 1502, they probably have some other source. Henry probably wouldn't have spread the rumor until Tyrrell was safely dead. But. then, knowing Henry and his penchant for spreading rumors, it's possible that he did it right away, perhaps at the time of that notorious general pardon. (And no, for anyone who doesn't already know, I don't advocate the Markham/Tey hypothesis that Tryrrell did it on Henry's orders. I think Tyrrell is innocent, but in many ways, which I won't repeat here, he was the perfect scapegoat.)
Marie:
> The GC shares a lost source document with Vitellius AXVI and The New Chronicles of England and France - the latter also attributed, without proof, to Robert Fabyan. So you would need to check whether Vitellius AXVI or the New Chronicles also carry the claim about Tyrell and the Princes. If not, then this would seem to be a late addition to the GC, and it might just, therefore, have been based on Vergil's account, which was also completed about 1512.
Carol responds:
According to Ross, the Great Chronicle only states a general belief that Richard killed his nephews, with no mention of Tyrrell (xxxix. I should note that Ross, like Kendall, was misled by Bacon into believing that Henry "gave out" Tyrrell's trumped-up confession, which he calls "suitable but unconvincing" and places at the time of Tyrell's arrest (1501?) rather than his execution, May 6, 1502. (p. 103). Apparently, Vitellius is much more general. Ross doesn't quote it.
So, to the best of my knowledge, the first source noting a rumor (not a confession) to the effect that Tyrell did it is the Great Chronicle, which authorities state was published about 1512, just a bit earlier than the completion of Vergil's draft (which Leas gives as 1513). It's possible that the GC was Vergil's source (the "common source" seems not to have named Tyrrell) and that Vergil then hunted out the one bit of seeming evidence from the Wardrobe accounts.
But the rumor that both writers report is still unaccounted for. The most likely date would seem to be ca. 1502, but I don't see how the rumor would have grown out of nothing with no other candidates being named. Someone must have spread it deliberately, as we know happened with the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And who had better cause than Henry to do so? If he also happened to know, through the now-dead Morton that Sir James was at the Tower at what for Henry would be the "right" time, why not pass on that information to Vergil when he commissioned the Chronicle? Or Vergil, studiously searching for whatever facts he could find for a reign in which the records were scarce, may have fortuitously stumbled onto it and shaped his account accordingly. That sounds too much like coincidence to me.
Again, I'm just examining ideas and possible connections that I think are important in relation to the known character and propaganda needs of Henry VII.
I wholeheartedly agree with Susan Leas and Marie that "the king gave out" no official signed confession, trumped-up or otherwise, but the timing of the rumors (mentioned in both Vergil and the GC) and the fact that no other "murderer" is named suggests to me that Henry *did* give out a rumor at that time. Whoever "spake for the king," to use Bacon's slightly altered words, I'm willing to bet that it wasn't the supposed co-murderer, Dighton.
Carol
>
> First, once people were convinced Richard had killed the Princes, popular rumours and speculation about whom he had got to do the deed would be inventiable.
Carol responds:
And yet, the only name I know of is Tyrrell's. Fabyan leaves a bland for the other possibility. (Again, in case someone who hasn't followed the thread is reading this post, I don't think for a moment that Tyrrell did it. I'm trying to figure out who pinned the blame on him, which appears to have happened before Vergil brought in the trip to London, which I think would, from his point of view, constitute evidence. That it was only circumstantial evidence seems not to have occurred to him.)
Marie:
> Second, the Great Chronicle was written in the early 1500s and completed 1512 (according to Annette Carson), so the bit about Tyrell and the Princes could have been added at any time up to 1512.
Carol responds:
True, and that would be after not only Tyrrell's execution in 1502 but after Henry's death in 1509. But Charles Ross thinks that the chronicler (Fabyan) wrote his account of the events up to 1496 may have been composed around 1501-02 or even earlier.
http://books.google.com/books?id=SdkM5uyUau8C&pg=PR38&dq=Charles+Ross+Richard+III+Fabyan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Sc4bUZ3-O8zkigLvy4H4DQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Ross%20Richard%20III%20Fabyan&f=false
Ergh. Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/b4xhm23
1502, the execution date of Sir James Tyrrell, would fit my hypothesis perfectly. (To anyone who hasn't been following the thread, it's that Tyrrell is the perfect scapegoat for Tyrrell, despite the apparent evidence that Henry never "gave out" a trumped-up confession, at least not a public declaration of his guilt.) If the rumors begin before 1502, they probably have some other source. Henry probably wouldn't have spread the rumor until Tyrrell was safely dead. But. then, knowing Henry and his penchant for spreading rumors, it's possible that he did it right away, perhaps at the time of that notorious general pardon. (And no, for anyone who doesn't already know, I don't advocate the Markham/Tey hypothesis that Tryrrell did it on Henry's orders. I think Tyrrell is innocent, but in many ways, which I won't repeat here, he was the perfect scapegoat.)
Marie:
> The GC shares a lost source document with Vitellius AXVI and The New Chronicles of England and France - the latter also attributed, without proof, to Robert Fabyan. So you would need to check whether Vitellius AXVI or the New Chronicles also carry the claim about Tyrell and the Princes. If not, then this would seem to be a late addition to the GC, and it might just, therefore, have been based on Vergil's account, which was also completed about 1512.
Carol responds:
According to Ross, the Great Chronicle only states a general belief that Richard killed his nephews, with no mention of Tyrrell (xxxix. I should note that Ross, like Kendall, was misled by Bacon into believing that Henry "gave out" Tyrrell's trumped-up confession, which he calls "suitable but unconvincing" and places at the time of Tyrell's arrest (1501?) rather than his execution, May 6, 1502. (p. 103). Apparently, Vitellius is much more general. Ross doesn't quote it.
So, to the best of my knowledge, the first source noting a rumor (not a confession) to the effect that Tyrell did it is the Great Chronicle, which authorities state was published about 1512, just a bit earlier than the completion of Vergil's draft (which Leas gives as 1513). It's possible that the GC was Vergil's source (the "common source" seems not to have named Tyrrell) and that Vergil then hunted out the one bit of seeming evidence from the Wardrobe accounts.
But the rumor that both writers report is still unaccounted for. The most likely date would seem to be ca. 1502, but I don't see how the rumor would have grown out of nothing with no other candidates being named. Someone must have spread it deliberately, as we know happened with the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And who had better cause than Henry to do so? If he also happened to know, through the now-dead Morton that Sir James was at the Tower at what for Henry would be the "right" time, why not pass on that information to Vergil when he commissioned the Chronicle? Or Vergil, studiously searching for whatever facts he could find for a reign in which the records were scarce, may have fortuitously stumbled onto it and shaped his account accordingly. That sounds too much like coincidence to me.
Again, I'm just examining ideas and possible connections that I think are important in relation to the known character and propaganda needs of Henry VII.
I wholeheartedly agree with Susan Leas and Marie that "the king gave out" no official signed confession, trumped-up or otherwise, but the timing of the rumors (mentioned in both Vergil and the GC) and the fact that no other "murderer" is named suggests to me that Henry *did* give out a rumor at that time. Whoever "spake for the king," to use Bacon's slightly altered words, I'm willing to bet that it wasn't the supposed co-murderer, Dighton.
Carol
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-13 20:14:45
Well, More adds Dighton, Forest and Grene. Whoever it was would have to have died. Just a thought - did Sir James and his wife have any children? a childless dead traitor would be really easy meat. If his journey to London was remembered, that would have been one very clear way in which the suspicions might have started.
More also mentions he had heard other stories.
How much was merely rumour picked up, and how much an explanation encouraged by the new king, is difficult to know but I do find it interesting that an explanation for the Princes' murder crops up so early in Henry VIII's reign.
Marie
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>
> Marie wrote:
> >
> > First, once people were convinced Richard had killed the Princes, popular rumours and speculation about whom he had got to do the deed would be inventiable.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> And yet, the only name I know of is Tyrrell's. Fabyan leaves a bland for the other possibility. (Again, in case someone who hasn't followed the thread is reading this post, I don't think for a moment that Tyrrell did it. I'm trying to figure out who pinned the blame on him, which appears to have happened before Vergil brought in the trip to London, which I think would, from his point of view, constitute evidence. That it was only circumstantial evidence seems not to have occurred to him.)
>
> Marie:
> > Second, the Great Chronicle was written in the early 1500s and completed 1512 (according to Annette Carson), so the bit about Tyrell and the Princes could have been added at any time up to 1512.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> True, and that would be after not only Tyrrell's execution in 1502 but after Henry's death in 1509. But Charles Ross thinks that the chronicler (Fabyan) wrote his account of the events up to 1496 may have been composed around 1501-02 or even earlier.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=SdkM5uyUau8C&pg=PR38&dq=Charles+Ross+Richard+III+Fabyan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Sc4bUZ3-O8zkigLvy4H4DQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Ross%20Richard%20III%20Fabyan&f=false
>
> Ergh. Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/b4xhm23
>
> 1502, the execution date of Sir James Tyrrell, would fit my hypothesis perfectly. (To anyone who hasn't been following the thread, it's that Tyrrell is the perfect scapegoat for Tyrrell, despite the apparent evidence that Henry never "gave out" a trumped-up confession, at least not a public declaration of his guilt.) If the rumors begin before 1502, they probably have some other source. Henry probably wouldn't have spread the rumor until Tyrrell was safely dead. But. then, knowing Henry and his penchant for spreading rumors, it's possible that he did it right away, perhaps at the time of that notorious general pardon. (And no, for anyone who doesn't already know, I don't advocate the Markham/Tey hypothesis that Tryrrell did it on Henry's orders. I think Tyrrell is innocent, but in many ways, which I won't repeat here, he was the perfect scapegoat.)
>
> Marie:
> > The GC shares a lost source document with Vitellius AXVI and The New Chronicles of England and France - the latter also attributed, without proof, to Robert Fabyan. So you would need to check whether Vitellius AXVI or the New Chronicles also carry the claim about Tyrell and the Princes. If not, then this would seem to be a late addition to the GC, and it might just, therefore, have been based on Vergil's account, which was also completed about 1512.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> According to Ross, the Great Chronicle only states a general belief that Richard killed his nephews, with no mention of Tyrrell (xxxix. I should note that Ross, like Kendall, was misled by Bacon into believing that Henry "gave out" Tyrrell's trumped-up confession, which he calls "suitable but unconvincing" and places at the time of Tyrell's arrest (1501?) rather than his execution, May 6, 1502. (p. 103). Apparently, Vitellius is much more general. Ross doesn't quote it.
>
> So, to the best of my knowledge, the first source noting a rumor (not a confession) to the effect that Tyrell did it is the Great Chronicle, which authorities state was published about 1512, just a bit earlier than the completion of Vergil's draft (which Leas gives as 1513). It's possible that the GC was Vergil's source (the "common source" seems not to have named Tyrrell) and that Vergil then hunted out the one bit of seeming evidence from the Wardrobe accounts.
>
> But the rumor that both writers report is still unaccounted for. The most likely date would seem to be ca. 1502, but I don't see how the rumor would have grown out of nothing with no other candidates being named. Someone must have spread it deliberately, as we know happened with the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And who had better cause than Henry to do so? If he also happened to know, through the now-dead Morton that Sir James was at the Tower at what for Henry would be the "right" time, why not pass on that information to Vergil when he commissioned the Chronicle? Or Vergil, studiously searching for whatever facts he could find for a reign in which the records were scarce, may have fortuitously stumbled onto it and shaped his account accordingly. That sounds too much like coincidence to me.
>
> Again, I'm just examining ideas and possible connections that I think are important in relation to the known character and propaganda needs of Henry VII.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with Susan Leas and Marie that "the king gave out" no official signed confession, trumped-up or otherwise, but the timing of the rumors (mentioned in both Vergil and the GC) and the fact that no other "murderer" is named suggests to me that Henry *did* give out a rumor at that time. Whoever "spake for the king," to use Bacon's slightly altered words, I'm willing to bet that it wasn't the supposed co-murderer, Dighton.
>
> Carol
>
More also mentions he had heard other stories.
How much was merely rumour picked up, and how much an explanation encouraged by the new king, is difficult to know but I do find it interesting that an explanation for the Princes' murder crops up so early in Henry VIII's reign.
Marie
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>
> Marie wrote:
> >
> > First, once people were convinced Richard had killed the Princes, popular rumours and speculation about whom he had got to do the deed would be inventiable.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> And yet, the only name I know of is Tyrrell's. Fabyan leaves a bland for the other possibility. (Again, in case someone who hasn't followed the thread is reading this post, I don't think for a moment that Tyrrell did it. I'm trying to figure out who pinned the blame on him, which appears to have happened before Vergil brought in the trip to London, which I think would, from his point of view, constitute evidence. That it was only circumstantial evidence seems not to have occurred to him.)
>
> Marie:
> > Second, the Great Chronicle was written in the early 1500s and completed 1512 (according to Annette Carson), so the bit about Tyrell and the Princes could have been added at any time up to 1512.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> True, and that would be after not only Tyrrell's execution in 1502 but after Henry's death in 1509. But Charles Ross thinks that the chronicler (Fabyan) wrote his account of the events up to 1496 may have been composed around 1501-02 or even earlier.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=SdkM5uyUau8C&pg=PR38&dq=Charles+Ross+Richard+III+Fabyan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Sc4bUZ3-O8zkigLvy4H4DQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Ross%20Richard%20III%20Fabyan&f=false
>
> Ergh. Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/b4xhm23
>
> 1502, the execution date of Sir James Tyrrell, would fit my hypothesis perfectly. (To anyone who hasn't been following the thread, it's that Tyrrell is the perfect scapegoat for Tyrrell, despite the apparent evidence that Henry never "gave out" a trumped-up confession, at least not a public declaration of his guilt.) If the rumors begin before 1502, they probably have some other source. Henry probably wouldn't have spread the rumor until Tyrrell was safely dead. But. then, knowing Henry and his penchant for spreading rumors, it's possible that he did it right away, perhaps at the time of that notorious general pardon. (And no, for anyone who doesn't already know, I don't advocate the Markham/Tey hypothesis that Tryrrell did it on Henry's orders. I think Tyrrell is innocent, but in many ways, which I won't repeat here, he was the perfect scapegoat.)
>
> Marie:
> > The GC shares a lost source document with Vitellius AXVI and The New Chronicles of England and France - the latter also attributed, without proof, to Robert Fabyan. So you would need to check whether Vitellius AXVI or the New Chronicles also carry the claim about Tyrell and the Princes. If not, then this would seem to be a late addition to the GC, and it might just, therefore, have been based on Vergil's account, which was also completed about 1512.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> According to Ross, the Great Chronicle only states a general belief that Richard killed his nephews, with no mention of Tyrrell (xxxix. I should note that Ross, like Kendall, was misled by Bacon into believing that Henry "gave out" Tyrrell's trumped-up confession, which he calls "suitable but unconvincing" and places at the time of Tyrell's arrest (1501?) rather than his execution, May 6, 1502. (p. 103). Apparently, Vitellius is much more general. Ross doesn't quote it.
>
> So, to the best of my knowledge, the first source noting a rumor (not a confession) to the effect that Tyrell did it is the Great Chronicle, which authorities state was published about 1512, just a bit earlier than the completion of Vergil's draft (which Leas gives as 1513). It's possible that the GC was Vergil's source (the "common source" seems not to have named Tyrrell) and that Vergil then hunted out the one bit of seeming evidence from the Wardrobe accounts.
>
> But the rumor that both writers report is still unaccounted for. The most likely date would seem to be ca. 1502, but I don't see how the rumor would have grown out of nothing with no other candidates being named. Someone must have spread it deliberately, as we know happened with the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And who had better cause than Henry to do so? If he also happened to know, through the now-dead Morton that Sir James was at the Tower at what for Henry would be the "right" time, why not pass on that information to Vergil when he commissioned the Chronicle? Or Vergil, studiously searching for whatever facts he could find for a reign in which the records were scarce, may have fortuitously stumbled onto it and shaped his account accordingly. That sounds too much like coincidence to me.
>
> Again, I'm just examining ideas and possible connections that I think are important in relation to the known character and propaganda needs of Henry VII.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with Susan Leas and Marie that "the king gave out" no official signed confession, trumped-up or otherwise, but the timing of the rumors (mentioned in both Vergil and the GC) and the fact that no other "murderer" is named suggests to me that Henry *did* give out a rumor at that time. Whoever "spake for the king," to use Bacon's slightly altered words, I'm willing to bet that it wasn't the supposed co-murderer, Dighton.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-13 20:24:46
I thought Sir James was arrested with his son...? Or am I losing the plot....again...Eileen
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> Well, More adds Dighton, Forest and Grene. Whoever it was would have to have died. Just a thought - did Sir James and his wife have any children? a childless dead traitor would be really easy meat. If his journey to London was remembered, that would have been one very clear way in which the suspicions might have started.
> More also mentions he had heard other stories.
> How much was merely rumour picked up, and how much an explanation encouraged by the new king, is difficult to know but I do find it interesting that an explanation for the Princes' murder crops up so early in Henry VIII's reign.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> > >
> > > First, once people were convinced Richard had killed the Princes, popular rumours and speculation about whom he had got to do the deed would be inventiable.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > And yet, the only name I know of is Tyrrell's. Fabyan leaves a bland for the other possibility. (Again, in case someone who hasn't followed the thread is reading this post, I don't think for a moment that Tyrrell did it. I'm trying to figure out who pinned the blame on him, which appears to have happened before Vergil brought in the trip to London, which I think would, from his point of view, constitute evidence. That it was only circumstantial evidence seems not to have occurred to him.)
> >
> > Marie:
> > > Second, the Great Chronicle was written in the early 1500s and completed 1512 (according to Annette Carson), so the bit about Tyrell and the Princes could have been added at any time up to 1512.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > True, and that would be after not only Tyrrell's execution in 1502 but after Henry's death in 1509. But Charles Ross thinks that the chronicler (Fabyan) wrote his account of the events up to 1496 may have been composed around 1501-02 or even earlier.
> >
> > http://books.google.com/books?id=SdkM5uyUau8C&pg=PR38&dq=Charles+Ross+Richard+III+Fabyan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Sc4bUZ3-O8zkigLvy4H4DQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Ross%20Richard%20III%20Fabyan&f=false
> >
> > Ergh. Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/b4xhm23
> >
> > 1502, the execution date of Sir James Tyrrell, would fit my hypothesis perfectly. (To anyone who hasn't been following the thread, it's that Tyrrell is the perfect scapegoat for Tyrrell, despite the apparent evidence that Henry never "gave out" a trumped-up confession, at least not a public declaration of his guilt.) If the rumors begin before 1502, they probably have some other source. Henry probably wouldn't have spread the rumor until Tyrrell was safely dead. But. then, knowing Henry and his penchant for spreading rumors, it's possible that he did it right away, perhaps at the time of that notorious general pardon. (And no, for anyone who doesn't already know, I don't advocate the Markham/Tey hypothesis that Tryrrell did it on Henry's orders. I think Tyrrell is innocent, but in many ways, which I won't repeat here, he was the perfect scapegoat.)
> >
> > Marie:
> > > The GC shares a lost source document with Vitellius AXVI and The New Chronicles of England and France - the latter also attributed, without proof, to Robert Fabyan. So you would need to check whether Vitellius AXVI or the New Chronicles also carry the claim about Tyrell and the Princes. If not, then this would seem to be a late addition to the GC, and it might just, therefore, have been based on Vergil's account, which was also completed about 1512.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > According to Ross, the Great Chronicle only states a general belief that Richard killed his nephews, with no mention of Tyrrell (xxxix. I should note that Ross, like Kendall, was misled by Bacon into believing that Henry "gave out" Tyrrell's trumped-up confession, which he calls "suitable but unconvincing" and places at the time of Tyrell's arrest (1501?) rather than his execution, May 6, 1502. (p. 103). Apparently, Vitellius is much more general. Ross doesn't quote it.
> >
> > So, to the best of my knowledge, the first source noting a rumor (not a confession) to the effect that Tyrell did it is the Great Chronicle, which authorities state was published about 1512, just a bit earlier than the completion of Vergil's draft (which Leas gives as 1513). It's possible that the GC was Vergil's source (the "common source" seems not to have named Tyrrell) and that Vergil then hunted out the one bit of seeming evidence from the Wardrobe accounts.
> >
> > But the rumor that both writers report is still unaccounted for. The most likely date would seem to be ca. 1502, but I don't see how the rumor would have grown out of nothing with no other candidates being named. Someone must have spread it deliberately, as we know happened with the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And who had better cause than Henry to do so? If he also happened to know, through the now-dead Morton that Sir James was at the Tower at what for Henry would be the "right" time, why not pass on that information to Vergil when he commissioned the Chronicle? Or Vergil, studiously searching for whatever facts he could find for a reign in which the records were scarce, may have fortuitously stumbled onto it and shaped his account accordingly. That sounds too much like coincidence to me.
> >
> > Again, I'm just examining ideas and possible connections that I think are important in relation to the known character and propaganda needs of Henry VII.
> >
> > I wholeheartedly agree with Susan Leas and Marie that "the king gave out" no official signed confession, trumped-up or otherwise, but the timing of the rumors (mentioned in both Vergil and the GC) and the fact that no other "murderer" is named suggests to me that Henry *did* give out a rumor at that time. Whoever "spake for the king," to use Bacon's slightly altered words, I'm willing to bet that it wasn't the supposed co-murderer, Dighton.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> Well, More adds Dighton, Forest and Grene. Whoever it was would have to have died. Just a thought - did Sir James and his wife have any children? a childless dead traitor would be really easy meat. If his journey to London was remembered, that would have been one very clear way in which the suspicions might have started.
> More also mentions he had heard other stories.
> How much was merely rumour picked up, and how much an explanation encouraged by the new king, is difficult to know but I do find it interesting that an explanation for the Princes' murder crops up so early in Henry VIII's reign.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> > >
> > > First, once people were convinced Richard had killed the Princes, popular rumours and speculation about whom he had got to do the deed would be inventiable.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > And yet, the only name I know of is Tyrrell's. Fabyan leaves a bland for the other possibility. (Again, in case someone who hasn't followed the thread is reading this post, I don't think for a moment that Tyrrell did it. I'm trying to figure out who pinned the blame on him, which appears to have happened before Vergil brought in the trip to London, which I think would, from his point of view, constitute evidence. That it was only circumstantial evidence seems not to have occurred to him.)
> >
> > Marie:
> > > Second, the Great Chronicle was written in the early 1500s and completed 1512 (according to Annette Carson), so the bit about Tyrell and the Princes could have been added at any time up to 1512.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > True, and that would be after not only Tyrrell's execution in 1502 but after Henry's death in 1509. But Charles Ross thinks that the chronicler (Fabyan) wrote his account of the events up to 1496 may have been composed around 1501-02 or even earlier.
> >
> > http://books.google.com/books?id=SdkM5uyUau8C&pg=PR38&dq=Charles+Ross+Richard+III+Fabyan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Sc4bUZ3-O8zkigLvy4H4DQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Ross%20Richard%20III%20Fabyan&f=false
> >
> > Ergh. Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/b4xhm23
> >
> > 1502, the execution date of Sir James Tyrrell, would fit my hypothesis perfectly. (To anyone who hasn't been following the thread, it's that Tyrrell is the perfect scapegoat for Tyrrell, despite the apparent evidence that Henry never "gave out" a trumped-up confession, at least not a public declaration of his guilt.) If the rumors begin before 1502, they probably have some other source. Henry probably wouldn't have spread the rumor until Tyrrell was safely dead. But. then, knowing Henry and his penchant for spreading rumors, it's possible that he did it right away, perhaps at the time of that notorious general pardon. (And no, for anyone who doesn't already know, I don't advocate the Markham/Tey hypothesis that Tryrrell did it on Henry's orders. I think Tyrrell is innocent, but in many ways, which I won't repeat here, he was the perfect scapegoat.)
> >
> > Marie:
> > > The GC shares a lost source document with Vitellius AXVI and The New Chronicles of England and France - the latter also attributed, without proof, to Robert Fabyan. So you would need to check whether Vitellius AXVI or the New Chronicles also carry the claim about Tyrell and the Princes. If not, then this would seem to be a late addition to the GC, and it might just, therefore, have been based on Vergil's account, which was also completed about 1512.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > According to Ross, the Great Chronicle only states a general belief that Richard killed his nephews, with no mention of Tyrrell (xxxix. I should note that Ross, like Kendall, was misled by Bacon into believing that Henry "gave out" Tyrrell's trumped-up confession, which he calls "suitable but unconvincing" and places at the time of Tyrell's arrest (1501?) rather than his execution, May 6, 1502. (p. 103). Apparently, Vitellius is much more general. Ross doesn't quote it.
> >
> > So, to the best of my knowledge, the first source noting a rumor (not a confession) to the effect that Tyrell did it is the Great Chronicle, which authorities state was published about 1512, just a bit earlier than the completion of Vergil's draft (which Leas gives as 1513). It's possible that the GC was Vergil's source (the "common source" seems not to have named Tyrrell) and that Vergil then hunted out the one bit of seeming evidence from the Wardrobe accounts.
> >
> > But the rumor that both writers report is still unaccounted for. The most likely date would seem to be ca. 1502, but I don't see how the rumor would have grown out of nothing with no other candidates being named. Someone must have spread it deliberately, as we know happened with the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And who had better cause than Henry to do so? If he also happened to know, through the now-dead Morton that Sir James was at the Tower at what for Henry would be the "right" time, why not pass on that information to Vergil when he commissioned the Chronicle? Or Vergil, studiously searching for whatever facts he could find for a reign in which the records were scarce, may have fortuitously stumbled onto it and shaped his account accordingly. That sounds too much like coincidence to me.
> >
> > Again, I'm just examining ideas and possible connections that I think are important in relation to the known character and propaganda needs of Henry VII.
> >
> > I wholeheartedly agree with Susan Leas and Marie that "the king gave out" no official signed confession, trumped-up or otherwise, but the timing of the rumors (mentioned in both Vergil and the GC) and the fact that no other "murderer" is named suggests to me that Henry *did* give out a rumor at that time. Whoever "spake for the king," to use Bacon's slightly altered words, I'm willing to bet that it wasn't the supposed co-murderer, Dighton.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-13 21:37:06
You may be right. I was merely asking a question.
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> I thought Sir James was arrested with his son...? Or am I losing the plot....again...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, More adds Dighton, Forest and Grene. Whoever it was would have to have died. Just a thought - did Sir James and his wife have any children? a childless dead traitor would be really easy meat. If his journey to London was remembered, that would have been one very clear way in which the suspicions might have started.
> > More also mentions he had heard other stories.
> > How much was merely rumour picked up, and how much an explanation encouraged by the new king, is difficult to know but I do find it interesting that an explanation for the Princes' murder crops up so early in Henry VIII's reign.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie wrote:
> > > >
> > > > First, once people were convinced Richard had killed the Princes, popular rumours and speculation about whom he had got to do the deed would be inventiable.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > And yet, the only name I know of is Tyrrell's. Fabyan leaves a bland for the other possibility. (Again, in case someone who hasn't followed the thread is reading this post, I don't think for a moment that Tyrrell did it. I'm trying to figure out who pinned the blame on him, which appears to have happened before Vergil brought in the trip to London, which I think would, from his point of view, constitute evidence. That it was only circumstantial evidence seems not to have occurred to him.)
> > >
> > > Marie:
> > > > Second, the Great Chronicle was written in the early 1500s and completed 1512 (according to Annette Carson), so the bit about Tyrell and the Princes could have been added at any time up to 1512.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > True, and that would be after not only Tyrrell's execution in 1502 but after Henry's death in 1509. But Charles Ross thinks that the chronicler (Fabyan) wrote his account of the events up to 1496 may have been composed around 1501-02 or even earlier.
> > >
> > > http://books.google.com/books?id=SdkM5uyUau8C&pg=PR38&dq=Charles+Ross+Richard+III+Fabyan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Sc4bUZ3-O8zkigLvy4H4DQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Ross%20Richard%20III%20Fabyan&f=false
> > >
> > > Ergh. Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/b4xhm23
> > >
> > > 1502, the execution date of Sir James Tyrrell, would fit my hypothesis perfectly. (To anyone who hasn't been following the thread, it's that Tyrrell is the perfect scapegoat for Tyrrell, despite the apparent evidence that Henry never "gave out" a trumped-up confession, at least not a public declaration of his guilt.) If the rumors begin before 1502, they probably have some other source. Henry probably wouldn't have spread the rumor until Tyrrell was safely dead. But. then, knowing Henry and his penchant for spreading rumors, it's possible that he did it right away, perhaps at the time of that notorious general pardon. (And no, for anyone who doesn't already know, I don't advocate the Markham/Tey hypothesis that Tryrrell did it on Henry's orders. I think Tyrrell is innocent, but in many ways, which I won't repeat here, he was the perfect scapegoat.)
> > >
> > > Marie:
> > > > The GC shares a lost source document with Vitellius AXVI and The New Chronicles of England and France - the latter also attributed, without proof, to Robert Fabyan. So you would need to check whether Vitellius AXVI or the New Chronicles also carry the claim about Tyrell and the Princes. If not, then this would seem to be a late addition to the GC, and it might just, therefore, have been based on Vergil's account, which was also completed about 1512.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > According to Ross, the Great Chronicle only states a general belief that Richard killed his nephews, with no mention of Tyrrell (xxxix. I should note that Ross, like Kendall, was misled by Bacon into believing that Henry "gave out" Tyrrell's trumped-up confession, which he calls "suitable but unconvincing" and places at the time of Tyrell's arrest (1501?) rather than his execution, May 6, 1502. (p. 103). Apparently, Vitellius is much more general. Ross doesn't quote it.
> > >
> > > So, to the best of my knowledge, the first source noting a rumor (not a confession) to the effect that Tyrell did it is the Great Chronicle, which authorities state was published about 1512, just a bit earlier than the completion of Vergil's draft (which Leas gives as 1513). It's possible that the GC was Vergil's source (the "common source" seems not to have named Tyrrell) and that Vergil then hunted out the one bit of seeming evidence from the Wardrobe accounts.
> > >
> > > But the rumor that both writers report is still unaccounted for. The most likely date would seem to be ca. 1502, but I don't see how the rumor would have grown out of nothing with no other candidates being named. Someone must have spread it deliberately, as we know happened with the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And who had better cause than Henry to do so? If he also happened to know, through the now-dead Morton that Sir James was at the Tower at what for Henry would be the "right" time, why not pass on that information to Vergil when he commissioned the Chronicle? Or Vergil, studiously searching for whatever facts he could find for a reign in which the records were scarce, may have fortuitously stumbled onto it and shaped his account accordingly. That sounds too much like coincidence to me.
> > >
> > > Again, I'm just examining ideas and possible connections that I think are important in relation to the known character and propaganda needs of Henry VII.
> > >
> > > I wholeheartedly agree with Susan Leas and Marie that "the king gave out" no official signed confession, trumped-up or otherwise, but the timing of the rumors (mentioned in both Vergil and the GC) and the fact that no other "murderer" is named suggests to me that Henry *did* give out a rumor at that time. Whoever "spake for the king," to use Bacon's slightly altered words, I'm willing to bet that it wasn't the supposed co-murderer, Dighton.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> I thought Sir James was arrested with his son...? Or am I losing the plot....again...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, More adds Dighton, Forest and Grene. Whoever it was would have to have died. Just a thought - did Sir James and his wife have any children? a childless dead traitor would be really easy meat. If his journey to London was remembered, that would have been one very clear way in which the suspicions might have started.
> > More also mentions he had heard other stories.
> > How much was merely rumour picked up, and how much an explanation encouraged by the new king, is difficult to know but I do find it interesting that an explanation for the Princes' murder crops up so early in Henry VIII's reign.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie wrote:
> > > >
> > > > First, once people were convinced Richard had killed the Princes, popular rumours and speculation about whom he had got to do the deed would be inventiable.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > And yet, the only name I know of is Tyrrell's. Fabyan leaves a bland for the other possibility. (Again, in case someone who hasn't followed the thread is reading this post, I don't think for a moment that Tyrrell did it. I'm trying to figure out who pinned the blame on him, which appears to have happened before Vergil brought in the trip to London, which I think would, from his point of view, constitute evidence. That it was only circumstantial evidence seems not to have occurred to him.)
> > >
> > > Marie:
> > > > Second, the Great Chronicle was written in the early 1500s and completed 1512 (according to Annette Carson), so the bit about Tyrell and the Princes could have been added at any time up to 1512.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > True, and that would be after not only Tyrrell's execution in 1502 but after Henry's death in 1509. But Charles Ross thinks that the chronicler (Fabyan) wrote his account of the events up to 1496 may have been composed around 1501-02 or even earlier.
> > >
> > > http://books.google.com/books?id=SdkM5uyUau8C&pg=PR38&dq=Charles+Ross+Richard+III+Fabyan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Sc4bUZ3-O8zkigLvy4H4DQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Ross%20Richard%20III%20Fabyan&f=false
> > >
> > > Ergh. Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/b4xhm23
> > >
> > > 1502, the execution date of Sir James Tyrrell, would fit my hypothesis perfectly. (To anyone who hasn't been following the thread, it's that Tyrrell is the perfect scapegoat for Tyrrell, despite the apparent evidence that Henry never "gave out" a trumped-up confession, at least not a public declaration of his guilt.) If the rumors begin before 1502, they probably have some other source. Henry probably wouldn't have spread the rumor until Tyrrell was safely dead. But. then, knowing Henry and his penchant for spreading rumors, it's possible that he did it right away, perhaps at the time of that notorious general pardon. (And no, for anyone who doesn't already know, I don't advocate the Markham/Tey hypothesis that Tryrrell did it on Henry's orders. I think Tyrrell is innocent, but in many ways, which I won't repeat here, he was the perfect scapegoat.)
> > >
> > > Marie:
> > > > The GC shares a lost source document with Vitellius AXVI and The New Chronicles of England and France - the latter also attributed, without proof, to Robert Fabyan. So you would need to check whether Vitellius AXVI or the New Chronicles also carry the claim about Tyrell and the Princes. If not, then this would seem to be a late addition to the GC, and it might just, therefore, have been based on Vergil's account, which was also completed about 1512.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > According to Ross, the Great Chronicle only states a general belief that Richard killed his nephews, with no mention of Tyrrell (xxxix. I should note that Ross, like Kendall, was misled by Bacon into believing that Henry "gave out" Tyrrell's trumped-up confession, which he calls "suitable but unconvincing" and places at the time of Tyrell's arrest (1501?) rather than his execution, May 6, 1502. (p. 103). Apparently, Vitellius is much more general. Ross doesn't quote it.
> > >
> > > So, to the best of my knowledge, the first source noting a rumor (not a confession) to the effect that Tyrell did it is the Great Chronicle, which authorities state was published about 1512, just a bit earlier than the completion of Vergil's draft (which Leas gives as 1513). It's possible that the GC was Vergil's source (the "common source" seems not to have named Tyrrell) and that Vergil then hunted out the one bit of seeming evidence from the Wardrobe accounts.
> > >
> > > But the rumor that both writers report is still unaccounted for. The most likely date would seem to be ca. 1502, but I don't see how the rumor would have grown out of nothing with no other candidates being named. Someone must have spread it deliberately, as we know happened with the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And who had better cause than Henry to do so? If he also happened to know, through the now-dead Morton that Sir James was at the Tower at what for Henry would be the "right" time, why not pass on that information to Vergil when he commissioned the Chronicle? Or Vergil, studiously searching for whatever facts he could find for a reign in which the records were scarce, may have fortuitously stumbled onto it and shaped his account accordingly. That sounds too much like coincidence to me.
> > >
> > > Again, I'm just examining ideas and possible connections that I think are important in relation to the known character and propaganda needs of Henry VII.
> > >
> > > I wholeheartedly agree with Susan Leas and Marie that "the king gave out" no official signed confession, trumped-up or otherwise, but the timing of the rumors (mentioned in both Vergil and the GC) and the fact that no other "murderer" is named suggests to me that Henry *did* give out a rumor at that time. Whoever "spake for the king," to use Bacon's slightly altered words, I'm willing to bet that it wasn't the supposed co-murderer, Dighton.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-13 23:24:50
--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol.
>
> Could Margaret Beaufort also be considered a possible source for the rumor? Or any of the rumors attached to Richard?
>
> ~Weds
Carol responds:
I mentioned her in association with Morton as one of Henry's associates who could have passed on the information to him that Sir James had been in London during Richard's progress, which might in turn have had some connection with the rumor spread soon afterward that the so-called Princes had disappeared. (Of course, that second rumor was spread only among the Yorkists who had planned to rescue the boys and reinstate Edward V, and later in France, and since "none knew how" they ostensibly died, it wouldn't have mentioned Tyrrell.)
But, yes, Margaret was supposedly under house arrest in her husband's care (another of Richard's mistakes), and she was in correspondence with both Morton and Henry, so she could have passed the information on Tyrrell (obtained through her spies) to either or both. Or Morton's spies could (and no doubt did) pass it on to him. If he knew about that trip to London, he and Morton together could theoretically have considered the opportunity of framing him at some opportune time. Or they might have just kept that information handy for future reference since Tyrrell was Richard's loyal man and therefore an enemy. (Again, I'm just speculating.)
But Henry could hardly "given out" the supposed information that he had killed the boys either directly to Vergil or as a rumor (the latter more likely since Fabyan had also heard of it) until he was rid of "pretenders" who might actually be one of Edward's sons. After that, he needed only to catch Tyrrell (whose continuing Yorkist sympathies he was no doubt aware of, especially if Tyrrell had known connections with either Margaret or Sir Edward Brampton, a question that I haven't checked into). The moment Henry had word of Tyrrell's involvement with Edmund de la Pole, he could (note that I didn't say "would") have hatched his plot to frame him for the murders based on his connections with Richard and that convenient visit to London. Morton was dead and could have had any direct share in this hypothetical plan, but Margaret died the same year as Henry (1509) and could theoretically have had a part in it.
All speculation, of course. But the spy network was real, the London visit later used as evidence or really "proof" of the murders was real, the rumors that Tyrrell did it (with no one else named) were real. It seems quite clear that Henry did not "give out" any signed confession or official declaration or anything of the sort, but somehow Fabyan and Vergil got the idea that he did it. For Fabyan, it's only a rumor, but for Vergil, it's a fact, and Vergil has Tyrrell riding sorrowfully to London after Brackenbury (who nevertheless must have let him into the Tower had it really happened!) refuses to kill the boys. More adds details found nowhere else which must be from his imagination (using in some cases, the names of real people) and invents the confession. Bacon supposes that *Henry* supplied these details to More, and "as the king gave out" (which suggests some skepticism on the part of Bacon regarding the story but not the existence of the supposed confession) becomes fact--Henry "gave out" the story that More invented after his death.
Marie and Susan Leas think that the king gave out exactly nothing. I think that it's all too convenient and Tyrrell (who may actually have helped the "Princes" escape is the perfect scapegoat, so it's just possible in my view that what the king gave out was a rumor which consisted solely of "Sir James Tyrrell killed the Princes on Richard III's orders." It snowballs from there. Just my theory, which the sources neither prove nor contradict.
Carol
>
> Hi, Carol.
>
> Could Margaret Beaufort also be considered a possible source for the rumor? Or any of the rumors attached to Richard?
>
> ~Weds
Carol responds:
I mentioned her in association with Morton as one of Henry's associates who could have passed on the information to him that Sir James had been in London during Richard's progress, which might in turn have had some connection with the rumor spread soon afterward that the so-called Princes had disappeared. (Of course, that second rumor was spread only among the Yorkists who had planned to rescue the boys and reinstate Edward V, and later in France, and since "none knew how" they ostensibly died, it wouldn't have mentioned Tyrrell.)
But, yes, Margaret was supposedly under house arrest in her husband's care (another of Richard's mistakes), and she was in correspondence with both Morton and Henry, so she could have passed the information on Tyrrell (obtained through her spies) to either or both. Or Morton's spies could (and no doubt did) pass it on to him. If he knew about that trip to London, he and Morton together could theoretically have considered the opportunity of framing him at some opportune time. Or they might have just kept that information handy for future reference since Tyrrell was Richard's loyal man and therefore an enemy. (Again, I'm just speculating.)
But Henry could hardly "given out" the supposed information that he had killed the boys either directly to Vergil or as a rumor (the latter more likely since Fabyan had also heard of it) until he was rid of "pretenders" who might actually be one of Edward's sons. After that, he needed only to catch Tyrrell (whose continuing Yorkist sympathies he was no doubt aware of, especially if Tyrrell had known connections with either Margaret or Sir Edward Brampton, a question that I haven't checked into). The moment Henry had word of Tyrrell's involvement with Edmund de la Pole, he could (note that I didn't say "would") have hatched his plot to frame him for the murders based on his connections with Richard and that convenient visit to London. Morton was dead and could have had any direct share in this hypothetical plan, but Margaret died the same year as Henry (1509) and could theoretically have had a part in it.
All speculation, of course. But the spy network was real, the London visit later used as evidence or really "proof" of the murders was real, the rumors that Tyrrell did it (with no one else named) were real. It seems quite clear that Henry did not "give out" any signed confession or official declaration or anything of the sort, but somehow Fabyan and Vergil got the idea that he did it. For Fabyan, it's only a rumor, but for Vergil, it's a fact, and Vergil has Tyrrell riding sorrowfully to London after Brackenbury (who nevertheless must have let him into the Tower had it really happened!) refuses to kill the boys. More adds details found nowhere else which must be from his imagination (using in some cases, the names of real people) and invents the confession. Bacon supposes that *Henry* supplied these details to More, and "as the king gave out" (which suggests some skepticism on the part of Bacon regarding the story but not the existence of the supposed confession) becomes fact--Henry "gave out" the story that More invented after his death.
Marie and Susan Leas think that the king gave out exactly nothing. I think that it's all too convenient and Tyrrell (who may actually have helped the "Princes" escape is the perfect scapegoat, so it's just possible in my view that what the king gave out was a rumor which consisted solely of "Sir James Tyrrell killed the Princes on Richard III's orders." It snowballs from there. Just my theory, which the sources neither prove nor contradict.
Carol
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-13 23:38:39
I think he did. I have a vague recollection of reading that his son Thomas? was arrested at the same time but eventually released. Audrey Williamson talks about the story in the Tyrrel family regarding the Princes being at Gipping and that the family never disclosed this before because they thought that if the Princes were at Gipping then the " the confession" was true and they were ashamed. Wasn't there a story about James Tyrrell being "pardoned twice by H7 at the beginning of his reign or should I say usurpation. Once before a journey to Sheriff Hutton for H7 and then when he arrived back. It is a long time since I read this and I can't remember where, possibly Audrey Williamson again.
Mary
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> Well, More adds Dighton, Forest and Grene. Whoever it was would have to have died. Just a thought - did Sir James and his wife have any children? a childless dead traitor would be really easy meat. If his journey to London was remembered, that would have been one very clear way in which the suspicions might have started.
> More also mentions he had heard other stories.
> How much was merely rumour picked up, and how much an explanation encouraged by the new king, is difficult to know but I do find it interesting that an explanation for the Princes' murder crops up so early in Henry VIII's reign.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> > >
> > > First, once people were convinced Richard had killed the Princes, popular rumours and speculation about whom he had got to do the deed would be inventiable.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > And yet, the only name I know of is Tyrrell's. Fabyan leaves a bland for the other possibility. (Again, in case someone who hasn't followed the thread is reading this post, I don't think for a moment that Tyrrell did it. I'm trying to figure out who pinned the blame on him, which appears to have happened before Vergil brought in the trip to London, which I think would, from his point of view, constitute evidence. That it was only circumstantial evidence seems not to have occurred to him.)
> >
> > Marie:
> > > Second, the Great Chronicle was written in the early 1500s and completed 1512 (according to Annette Carson), so the bit about Tyrell and the Princes could have been added at any time up to 1512.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > True, and that would be after not only Tyrrell's execution in 1502 but after Henry's death in 1509. But Charles Ross thinks that the chronicler (Fabyan) wrote his account of the events up to 1496 may have been composed around 1501-02 or even earlier.
> >
> > http://books.google.com/books?id=SdkM5uyUau8C&pg=PR38&dq=Charles+Ross+Richard+III+Fabyan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Sc4bUZ3-O8zkigLvy4H4DQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Ross%20Richard%20III%20Fabyan&f=false
> >
> > Ergh. Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/b4xhm23
> >
> > 1502, the execution date of Sir James Tyrrell, would fit my hypothesis perfectly. (To anyone who hasn't been following the thread, it's that Tyrrell is the perfect scapegoat for Tyrrell, despite the apparent evidence that Henry never "gave out" a trumped-up confession, at least not a public declaration of his guilt.) If the rumors begin before 1502, they probably have some other source. Henry probably wouldn't have spread the rumor until Tyrrell was safely dead. But. then, knowing Henry and his penchant for spreading rumors, it's possible that he did it right away, perhaps at the time of that notorious general pardon. (And no, for anyone who doesn't already know, I don't advocate the Markham/Tey hypothesis that Tryrrell did it on Henry's orders. I think Tyrrell is innocent, but in many ways, which I won't repeat here, he was the perfect scapegoat.)
> >
> > Marie:
> > > The GC shares a lost source document with Vitellius AXVI and The New Chronicles of England and France - the latter also attributed, without proof, to Robert Fabyan. So you would need to check whether Vitellius AXVI or the New Chronicles also carry the claim about Tyrell and the Princes. If not, then this would seem to be a late addition to the GC, and it might just, therefore, have been based on Vergil's account, which was also completed about 1512.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > According to Ross, the Great Chronicle only states a general belief that Richard killed his nephews, with no mention of Tyrrell (xxxix. I should note that Ross, like Kendall, was misled by Bacon into believing that Henry "gave out" Tyrrell's trumped-up confession, which he calls "suitable but unconvincing" and places at the time of Tyrell's arrest (1501?) rather than his execution, May 6, 1502. (p. 103). Apparently, Vitellius is much more general. Ross doesn't quote it.
> >
> > So, to the best of my knowledge, the first source noting a rumor (not a confession) to the effect that Tyrell did it is the Great Chronicle, which authorities state was published about 1512, just a bit earlier than the completion of Vergil's draft (which Leas gives as 1513). It's possible that the GC was Vergil's source (the "common source" seems not to have named Tyrrell) and that Vergil then hunted out the one bit of seeming evidence from the Wardrobe accounts.
> >
> > But the rumor that both writers report is still unaccounted for. The most likely date would seem to be ca. 1502, but I don't see how the rumor would have grown out of nothing with no other candidates being named. Someone must have spread it deliberately, as we know happened with the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And who had better cause than Henry to do so? If he also happened to know, through the now-dead Morton that Sir James was at the Tower at what for Henry would be the "right" time, why not pass on that information to Vergil when he commissioned the Chronicle? Or Vergil, studiously searching for whatever facts he could find for a reign in which the records were scarce, may have fortuitously stumbled onto it and shaped his account accordingly. That sounds too much like coincidence to me.
> >
> > Again, I'm just examining ideas and possible connections that I think are important in relation to the known character and propaganda needs of Henry VII.
> >
> > I wholeheartedly agree with Susan Leas and Marie that "the king gave out" no official signed confession, trumped-up or otherwise, but the timing of the rumors (mentioned in both Vergil and the GC) and the fact that no other "murderer" is named suggests to me that Henry *did* give out a rumor at that time. Whoever "spake for the king," to use Bacon's slightly altered words, I'm willing to bet that it wasn't the supposed co-murderer, Dighton.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Mary
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> Well, More adds Dighton, Forest and Grene. Whoever it was would have to have died. Just a thought - did Sir James and his wife have any children? a childless dead traitor would be really easy meat. If his journey to London was remembered, that would have been one very clear way in which the suspicions might have started.
> More also mentions he had heard other stories.
> How much was merely rumour picked up, and how much an explanation encouraged by the new king, is difficult to know but I do find it interesting that an explanation for the Princes' murder crops up so early in Henry VIII's reign.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> > >
> > > First, once people were convinced Richard had killed the Princes, popular rumours and speculation about whom he had got to do the deed would be inventiable.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > And yet, the only name I know of is Tyrrell's. Fabyan leaves a bland for the other possibility. (Again, in case someone who hasn't followed the thread is reading this post, I don't think for a moment that Tyrrell did it. I'm trying to figure out who pinned the blame on him, which appears to have happened before Vergil brought in the trip to London, which I think would, from his point of view, constitute evidence. That it was only circumstantial evidence seems not to have occurred to him.)
> >
> > Marie:
> > > Second, the Great Chronicle was written in the early 1500s and completed 1512 (according to Annette Carson), so the bit about Tyrell and the Princes could have been added at any time up to 1512.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > True, and that would be after not only Tyrrell's execution in 1502 but after Henry's death in 1509. But Charles Ross thinks that the chronicler (Fabyan) wrote his account of the events up to 1496 may have been composed around 1501-02 or even earlier.
> >
> > http://books.google.com/books?id=SdkM5uyUau8C&pg=PR38&dq=Charles+Ross+Richard+III+Fabyan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Sc4bUZ3-O8zkigLvy4H4DQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Ross%20Richard%20III%20Fabyan&f=false
> >
> > Ergh. Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/b4xhm23
> >
> > 1502, the execution date of Sir James Tyrrell, would fit my hypothesis perfectly. (To anyone who hasn't been following the thread, it's that Tyrrell is the perfect scapegoat for Tyrrell, despite the apparent evidence that Henry never "gave out" a trumped-up confession, at least not a public declaration of his guilt.) If the rumors begin before 1502, they probably have some other source. Henry probably wouldn't have spread the rumor until Tyrrell was safely dead. But. then, knowing Henry and his penchant for spreading rumors, it's possible that he did it right away, perhaps at the time of that notorious general pardon. (And no, for anyone who doesn't already know, I don't advocate the Markham/Tey hypothesis that Tryrrell did it on Henry's orders. I think Tyrrell is innocent, but in many ways, which I won't repeat here, he was the perfect scapegoat.)
> >
> > Marie:
> > > The GC shares a lost source document with Vitellius AXVI and The New Chronicles of England and France - the latter also attributed, without proof, to Robert Fabyan. So you would need to check whether Vitellius AXVI or the New Chronicles also carry the claim about Tyrell and the Princes. If not, then this would seem to be a late addition to the GC, and it might just, therefore, have been based on Vergil's account, which was also completed about 1512.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > According to Ross, the Great Chronicle only states a general belief that Richard killed his nephews, with no mention of Tyrrell (xxxix. I should note that Ross, like Kendall, was misled by Bacon into believing that Henry "gave out" Tyrrell's trumped-up confession, which he calls "suitable but unconvincing" and places at the time of Tyrell's arrest (1501?) rather than his execution, May 6, 1502. (p. 103). Apparently, Vitellius is much more general. Ross doesn't quote it.
> >
> > So, to the best of my knowledge, the first source noting a rumor (not a confession) to the effect that Tyrell did it is the Great Chronicle, which authorities state was published about 1512, just a bit earlier than the completion of Vergil's draft (which Leas gives as 1513). It's possible that the GC was Vergil's source (the "common source" seems not to have named Tyrrell) and that Vergil then hunted out the one bit of seeming evidence from the Wardrobe accounts.
> >
> > But the rumor that both writers report is still unaccounted for. The most likely date would seem to be ca. 1502, but I don't see how the rumor would have grown out of nothing with no other candidates being named. Someone must have spread it deliberately, as we know happened with the rumor that the "Princes" were dead. And who had better cause than Henry to do so? If he also happened to know, through the now-dead Morton that Sir James was at the Tower at what for Henry would be the "right" time, why not pass on that information to Vergil when he commissioned the Chronicle? Or Vergil, studiously searching for whatever facts he could find for a reign in which the records were scarce, may have fortuitously stumbled onto it and shaped his account accordingly. That sounds too much like coincidence to me.
> >
> > Again, I'm just examining ideas and possible connections that I think are important in relation to the known character and propaganda needs of Henry VII.
> >
> > I wholeheartedly agree with Susan Leas and Marie that "the king gave out" no official signed confession, trumped-up or otherwise, but the timing of the rumors (mentioned in both Vergil and the GC) and the fact that no other "murderer" is named suggests to me that Henry *did* give out a rumor at that time. Whoever "spake for the king," to use Bacon's slightly altered words, I'm willing to bet that it wasn't the supposed co-murderer, Dighton.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-14 05:00:24
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
Marie wrote:
> Well, More adds Dighton, Forest and Grene.
Carol responds:
Yes, More wrote a lot of things, some unprovable and some, like Richard in the privy, obviously parodic, and as we've discovered, he invented the confession. I haven't looked into the identity of those men, at least some of whom were real retainers of Richard's, but it seems they were slandered, too. But no one else mentions them, so they don't count as part of a rumor spread between 1502 (Tyrrell's death) and 1512 (completion of the Great Chronicle_.
Marie wrote:
Whoever it was would have to have died.
Carol:
Which leaves with Sir James since the Great Chronicle leaves only a blank in the manuscript for the other name, Vergil gives Sir James, and no other chronicle names anyone except Richard and even his involvement is reported as a general belief rather than a fact.
Marie:
Just a thought - did Sir James and his wife have any children? a childless dead traitor would be really easy meat. If his journey to London was remembered, that would have been one very clear way in which the suspicions might have started.
Carol responds:
Apparently he had both a wife and children if this source is reliable: http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/tyrell.htm Still, Henry could have spread the rumor without her knowing who started it or how. But whether they were still alive when the Great Chronicle was published, I don't know. It's even possible that his wife thought that her husband was guilty.
Marie wrote:
> More also mentions he had heard other stories.
Carol responds:
Well, he had certainly read Vergil's version, which he may have been parodying. He also heard that they had escaped. It's possible that he's laughingly exaggerating the most sentimental one, but I'm almost certain that most of the details are his own. He could have heard rumors that they were drowned or poisoned but didn't feel that those versions were sufficiently "dolorous."
Marie:
> How much was merely rumour picked up, and how much an explanation encouraged by the new king, is difficult to know but I do find it interesting that an explanation for the Princes' murder crops up so early in Henry VIII's reign.
>
Carol responds:
If you mean More, I doubt that he intended Henry VIII to see it. I think it was for his private amusement and that of his friends. If you mean Vergil, I think he added imagined details that he thought were at least plausible with melodramatic flourishes at the end that might well have been for the new king. If you mean More, I'm nore or less convinced by Alison Hanham's theory that the whole "history" was a parody. Alternatively, it was a humanistic moral tale that he made as maudlin as possible to make Richard look as evil as possible, but somehow that doesn't fit with the privy and all the other details that More alone supplied.
Fabyan was working from rumor, Vergil from rumor plus one verifiable fadt embroidered with melodrama, and More from rumor, Vergil, and a very fertile imagination that has misled historians from the time the work was published. He said that the story was a rumor, but rumors don't come equipped with imaginary dialogues and burials by dead priests with whom he could not have conversed. As for the "secret page" as source, I suspect that he's a fictional character. Either that or he's a very unreliable source who thinks that Sir James Tyrrell was a stranger to Richard looking for a job. More, having read Vergil's account, would of course know that was a lie. I personally think the lie was his own, just as the confession was his own invention.
Someone has probably done research into who Dighton, et al. were--probably retainers of Richard's whom More could safely name even if they were living because his work was not intended for circulation. Since More's story is so full of holes and lies, I'm not really interested in the supposed accessories to the crime. I just want to figure out when and why James Tyrrell was scapegoated, and I think I've discovered about all there is to know. Poking holes in More, who could not have invented the rumor, is another topic altogether.
Carol
>
Marie wrote:
> Well, More adds Dighton, Forest and Grene.
Carol responds:
Yes, More wrote a lot of things, some unprovable and some, like Richard in the privy, obviously parodic, and as we've discovered, he invented the confession. I haven't looked into the identity of those men, at least some of whom were real retainers of Richard's, but it seems they were slandered, too. But no one else mentions them, so they don't count as part of a rumor spread between 1502 (Tyrrell's death) and 1512 (completion of the Great Chronicle_.
Marie wrote:
Whoever it was would have to have died.
Carol:
Which leaves with Sir James since the Great Chronicle leaves only a blank in the manuscript for the other name, Vergil gives Sir James, and no other chronicle names anyone except Richard and even his involvement is reported as a general belief rather than a fact.
Marie:
Just a thought - did Sir James and his wife have any children? a childless dead traitor would be really easy meat. If his journey to London was remembered, that would have been one very clear way in which the suspicions might have started.
Carol responds:
Apparently he had both a wife and children if this source is reliable: http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/tyrell.htm Still, Henry could have spread the rumor without her knowing who started it or how. But whether they were still alive when the Great Chronicle was published, I don't know. It's even possible that his wife thought that her husband was guilty.
Marie wrote:
> More also mentions he had heard other stories.
Carol responds:
Well, he had certainly read Vergil's version, which he may have been parodying. He also heard that they had escaped. It's possible that he's laughingly exaggerating the most sentimental one, but I'm almost certain that most of the details are his own. He could have heard rumors that they were drowned or poisoned but didn't feel that those versions were sufficiently "dolorous."
Marie:
> How much was merely rumour picked up, and how much an explanation encouraged by the new king, is difficult to know but I do find it interesting that an explanation for the Princes' murder crops up so early in Henry VIII's reign.
>
Carol responds:
If you mean More, I doubt that he intended Henry VIII to see it. I think it was for his private amusement and that of his friends. If you mean Vergil, I think he added imagined details that he thought were at least plausible with melodramatic flourishes at the end that might well have been for the new king. If you mean More, I'm nore or less convinced by Alison Hanham's theory that the whole "history" was a parody. Alternatively, it was a humanistic moral tale that he made as maudlin as possible to make Richard look as evil as possible, but somehow that doesn't fit with the privy and all the other details that More alone supplied.
Fabyan was working from rumor, Vergil from rumor plus one verifiable fadt embroidered with melodrama, and More from rumor, Vergil, and a very fertile imagination that has misled historians from the time the work was published. He said that the story was a rumor, but rumors don't come equipped with imaginary dialogues and burials by dead priests with whom he could not have conversed. As for the "secret page" as source, I suspect that he's a fictional character. Either that or he's a very unreliable source who thinks that Sir James Tyrrell was a stranger to Richard looking for a job. More, having read Vergil's account, would of course know that was a lie. I personally think the lie was his own, just as the confession was his own invention.
Someone has probably done research into who Dighton, et al. were--probably retainers of Richard's whom More could safely name even if they were living because his work was not intended for circulation. Since More's story is so full of holes and lies, I'm not really interested in the supposed accessories to the crime. I just want to figure out when and why James Tyrrell was scapegoated, and I think I've discovered about all there is to know. Poking holes in More, who could not have invented the rumor, is another topic altogether.
Carol
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-14 05:14:52
EileenB wrote:
>
> I thought Sir James was arrested with his son...? Or am I losing the plot....again...Eileen
Carol responds:
I just realized that I've heard that, too, but don't recall the source. And we know that he had living descendants though they may have been descendants of an adopted son whom Audrey Williamson intervuewed. The problem is that the same accounts I've seen that mention his son also mention Dighton as his accomplice who also confessed, but the confession is More's invention and the son's involvement is only with Edmund de la Pole. No one accuses him of having any role in killing Edward's sons. I don't think he was born until the 1480s.
I suppose I could check Kendall and see if he mentions the son and what his source was. But he believes that Henry "gave out" a confession, so his sources may not be accurate, either.
If the son was as young as I think he was, he wouldn't have known whether his father killed the boys or not.
I'm too tired to pursue this any more tonight. I'll see what I can find, if anything. Or someone who's working on Tyrell in relation to the Perkin Warbeck story may be able to help us. I'm at the point where I don't trust anything I read!
Carol
>
> I thought Sir James was arrested with his son...? Or am I losing the plot....again...Eileen
Carol responds:
I just realized that I've heard that, too, but don't recall the source. And we know that he had living descendants though they may have been descendants of an adopted son whom Audrey Williamson intervuewed. The problem is that the same accounts I've seen that mention his son also mention Dighton as his accomplice who also confessed, but the confession is More's invention and the son's involvement is only with Edmund de la Pole. No one accuses him of having any role in killing Edward's sons. I don't think he was born until the 1480s.
I suppose I could check Kendall and see if he mentions the son and what his source was. But he believes that Henry "gave out" a confession, so his sources may not be accurate, either.
If the son was as young as I think he was, he wouldn't have known whether his father killed the boys or not.
I'm too tired to pursue this any more tonight. I'll see what I can find, if anything. Or someone who's working on Tyrell in relation to the Perkin Warbeck story may be able to help us. I'm at the point where I don't trust anything I read!
Carol
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-14 09:53:32
>
> Marie:
> > How much was merely rumour picked up, and how much an explanation encouraged by the new king, is difficult to know but I do find it interesting that an explanation for the Princes' murder crops up so early in Henry VIII's reign.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> If you mean More, I doubt that he intended Henry VIII to see it. I think it was for his private amusement and that of his friends. If you mean Vergil, I think he added imagined details that he thought were at least plausible with melodramatic flourishes at the end that might well have been for the new king. If you mean More, I'm nore or less convinced by Alison Hanham's theory that the whole "history" was a parody. Alternatively, it was a humanistic moral tale that he made as maudlin as possible to make Richard look as evil as possible, but somehow that doesn't fit with the privy and all the other details that More alone supplied.
>
> Fabyan was working from rumor, Vergil from rumor plus one verifiable fadt embroidered with melodrama, and More from rumor, Vergil, and a very fertile imagination that has misled historians from the time the work was published. He said that the story was a rumor, but rumors don't come equipped with imaginary dialogues and burials by dead priests with whom he could not have conversed. As for the "secret page" as source, I suspect that he's a fictional character. Either that or he's a very unreliable source who thinks that Sir James Tyrrell was a stranger to Richard looking for a job. More, having read Vergil's account, would of course know that was a lie. I personally think the lie was his own, just as the confession was his own invention.
Marie responds:
I didn't mean Vergil, More or Fabyan as such, but the rumour of Tyrell murdering the Princes itself. It could have been disseminated as state policy under Henry VIII - that is the point I was making.
I'm not convinced, for reasons I explained in my earlier post, that the story was first picked up in writing by Fabyan. Since the Great Chronicle's sister chronicles don't mention Tyrell and the Princes, I am more inclined to suspect it was a last-minute addition to the Great Chronicle; if so, it was likely based on Vergil. I think Vergil's position at court and the fact that he was writing for Henry VII must be taken into account when assessing the likely origin of the notion that Tyrell was the murderer.
>
> Someone has probably done research into who Dighton, et al. were--probably retainers of Richard's whom More could safely name even if they were living because his work was not intended for circulation.
Marie responds:
Indeed, they seem to have been. Which means that More used his office to delve into the records for names, just as Vergil - or someone feeding him information - delved into them to isolate Tyrell as having been in London at a convenient time.
Since More's story is so full of holes and lies, I'm not really interested in the supposed accessories to the crime.
Marie replies:
I agree about More, but other people have taken an interest in Miles Forest, as he was supposedly constable of Barnard Castle.
I just want to figure out when and why James Tyrrell was scapegoated, and I think I've discovered about all there is to know. Poking holes in More, who could not have invented the rumor, is another topic altogether.
Marie responds:
There are two aspects to the Tyrell business - the political exigencies of the early years of Henry VIII's reign, and Tyrell's own real story. Have you thought about trying to piece together all his movements during Richard's reign as far as the sources will allow?
> Marie:
> > How much was merely rumour picked up, and how much an explanation encouraged by the new king, is difficult to know but I do find it interesting that an explanation for the Princes' murder crops up so early in Henry VIII's reign.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> If you mean More, I doubt that he intended Henry VIII to see it. I think it was for his private amusement and that of his friends. If you mean Vergil, I think he added imagined details that he thought were at least plausible with melodramatic flourishes at the end that might well have been for the new king. If you mean More, I'm nore or less convinced by Alison Hanham's theory that the whole "history" was a parody. Alternatively, it was a humanistic moral tale that he made as maudlin as possible to make Richard look as evil as possible, but somehow that doesn't fit with the privy and all the other details that More alone supplied.
>
> Fabyan was working from rumor, Vergil from rumor plus one verifiable fadt embroidered with melodrama, and More from rumor, Vergil, and a very fertile imagination that has misled historians from the time the work was published. He said that the story was a rumor, but rumors don't come equipped with imaginary dialogues and burials by dead priests with whom he could not have conversed. As for the "secret page" as source, I suspect that he's a fictional character. Either that or he's a very unreliable source who thinks that Sir James Tyrrell was a stranger to Richard looking for a job. More, having read Vergil's account, would of course know that was a lie. I personally think the lie was his own, just as the confession was his own invention.
Marie responds:
I didn't mean Vergil, More or Fabyan as such, but the rumour of Tyrell murdering the Princes itself. It could have been disseminated as state policy under Henry VIII - that is the point I was making.
I'm not convinced, for reasons I explained in my earlier post, that the story was first picked up in writing by Fabyan. Since the Great Chronicle's sister chronicles don't mention Tyrell and the Princes, I am more inclined to suspect it was a last-minute addition to the Great Chronicle; if so, it was likely based on Vergil. I think Vergil's position at court and the fact that he was writing for Henry VII must be taken into account when assessing the likely origin of the notion that Tyrell was the murderer.
>
> Someone has probably done research into who Dighton, et al. were--probably retainers of Richard's whom More could safely name even if they were living because his work was not intended for circulation.
Marie responds:
Indeed, they seem to have been. Which means that More used his office to delve into the records for names, just as Vergil - or someone feeding him information - delved into them to isolate Tyrell as having been in London at a convenient time.
Since More's story is so full of holes and lies, I'm not really interested in the supposed accessories to the crime.
Marie replies:
I agree about More, but other people have taken an interest in Miles Forest, as he was supposedly constable of Barnard Castle.
I just want to figure out when and why James Tyrrell was scapegoated, and I think I've discovered about all there is to know. Poking holes in More, who could not have invented the rumor, is another topic altogether.
Marie responds:
There are two aspects to the Tyrell business - the political exigencies of the early years of Henry VIII's reign, and Tyrell's own real story. Have you thought about trying to piece together all his movements during Richard's reign as far as the sources will allow?
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-14 10:08:29
I don't know how much this helps but the brothers Tyrell were close to the Hautes - Sir Richard witnessed Tyrell's will - and the Hautes or some of them (James in particular) seem to have been close to the Woodvilles through descent. They are mentioned in all the Haute's wills, including that of Dame Katherine. Sir Richard, as we know, betrayed Richard with Buckingham and then fought for Henry at Bosworth. James (Haute) seems to have kept his head down and concentrated on acquiring land until he died in the early 1500s. I still can't get my head round it but there seems to be a link between Tyrell, Haute, Woodvilles and Catesby which I can't yet crack and of course in the case of the first three it could be Suffolk (which takes us back to Gipping).
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 9:53
Subject: Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
>
> Marie:
> > How much was merely rumour picked up, and how much an explanation encouraged by the new king, is difficult to know but I do find it interesting that an explanation for the Princes' murder crops up so early in Henry VIII's reign.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> If you mean More, I doubt that he intended Henry VIII to see it. I think it was for his private amusement and that of his friends. If you mean Vergil, I think he added imagined details that he thought were at least plausible with melodramatic flourishes at the end that might well have been for the new king. If you mean More, I'm nore or less convinced by Alison Hanham's theory that the whole "history" was a parody. Alternatively, it was a humanistic moral tale that he made as maudlin as possible to make Richard look as evil as possible, but somehow that doesn't fit with the privy and all the other details that More alone supplied.
>
> Fabyan was working from rumor, Vergil from rumor plus one verifiable fadt embroidered with melodrama, and More from rumor, Vergil, and a very fertile imagination that has misled historians from the time the work was published. He said that the story was a rumor, but rumors don't come equipped with imaginary dialogues and burials by dead priests with whom he could not have conversed. As for the "secret page" as source, I suspect that he's a fictional character. Either that or he's a very unreliable source who thinks that Sir James Tyrrell was a stranger to Richard looking for a job. More, having read Vergil's account, would of course know that was a lie. I personally think the lie was his own, just as the confession was his own invention.
Marie responds:
I didn't mean Vergil, More or Fabyan as such, but the rumour of Tyrell murdering the Princes itself. It could have been disseminated as state policy under Henry VIII - that is the point I was making.
I'm not convinced, for reasons I explained in my earlier post, that the story was first picked up in writing by Fabyan. Since the Great Chronicle's sister chronicles don't mention Tyrell and the Princes, I am more inclined to suspect it was a last-minute addition to the Great Chronicle; if so, it was likely based on Vergil. I think Vergil's position at court and the fact that he was writing for Henry VII must be taken into account when assessing the likely origin of the notion that Tyrell was the murderer.
>
> Someone has probably done research into who Dighton, et al. were--probably retainers of Richard's whom More could safely name even if they were living because his work was not intended for circulation.
Marie responds:
Indeed, they seem to have been. Which means that More used his office to delve into the records for names, just as Vergil - or someone feeding him information - delved into them to isolate Tyrell as having been in London at a convenient time.
Since More's story is so full of holes and lies, I'm not really interested in the supposed accessories to the crime.
Marie replies:
I agree about More, but other people have taken an interest in Miles Forest, as he was supposedly constable of Barnard Castle.
I just want to figure out when and why James Tyrrell was scapegoated, and I think I've discovered about all there is to know. Poking holes in More, who could not have invented the rumor, is another topic altogether.
Marie responds:
There are two aspects to the Tyrell business - the political exigencies of the early years of Henry VIII's reign, and Tyrell's own real story. Have you thought about trying to piece together all his movements during Richard's reign as far as the sources will allow?
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 9:53
Subject: Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
>
> Marie:
> > How much was merely rumour picked up, and how much an explanation encouraged by the new king, is difficult to know but I do find it interesting that an explanation for the Princes' murder crops up so early in Henry VIII's reign.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> If you mean More, I doubt that he intended Henry VIII to see it. I think it was for his private amusement and that of his friends. If you mean Vergil, I think he added imagined details that he thought were at least plausible with melodramatic flourishes at the end that might well have been for the new king. If you mean More, I'm nore or less convinced by Alison Hanham's theory that the whole "history" was a parody. Alternatively, it was a humanistic moral tale that he made as maudlin as possible to make Richard look as evil as possible, but somehow that doesn't fit with the privy and all the other details that More alone supplied.
>
> Fabyan was working from rumor, Vergil from rumor plus one verifiable fadt embroidered with melodrama, and More from rumor, Vergil, and a very fertile imagination that has misled historians from the time the work was published. He said that the story was a rumor, but rumors don't come equipped with imaginary dialogues and burials by dead priests with whom he could not have conversed. As for the "secret page" as source, I suspect that he's a fictional character. Either that or he's a very unreliable source who thinks that Sir James Tyrrell was a stranger to Richard looking for a job. More, having read Vergil's account, would of course know that was a lie. I personally think the lie was his own, just as the confession was his own invention.
Marie responds:
I didn't mean Vergil, More or Fabyan as such, but the rumour of Tyrell murdering the Princes itself. It could have been disseminated as state policy under Henry VIII - that is the point I was making.
I'm not convinced, for reasons I explained in my earlier post, that the story was first picked up in writing by Fabyan. Since the Great Chronicle's sister chronicles don't mention Tyrell and the Princes, I am more inclined to suspect it was a last-minute addition to the Great Chronicle; if so, it was likely based on Vergil. I think Vergil's position at court and the fact that he was writing for Henry VII must be taken into account when assessing the likely origin of the notion that Tyrell was the murderer.
>
> Someone has probably done research into who Dighton, et al. were--probably retainers of Richard's whom More could safely name even if they were living because his work was not intended for circulation.
Marie responds:
Indeed, they seem to have been. Which means that More used his office to delve into the records for names, just as Vergil - or someone feeding him information - delved into them to isolate Tyrell as having been in London at a convenient time.
Since More's story is so full of holes and lies, I'm not really interested in the supposed accessories to the crime.
Marie replies:
I agree about More, but other people have taken an interest in Miles Forest, as he was supposedly constable of Barnard Castle.
I just want to figure out when and why James Tyrrell was scapegoated, and I think I've discovered about all there is to know. Poking holes in More, who could not have invented the rumor, is another topic altogether.
Marie responds:
There are two aspects to the Tyrell business - the political exigencies of the early years of Henry VIII's reign, and Tyrell's own real story. Have you thought about trying to piece together all his movements during Richard's reign as far as the sources will allow?
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-14 16:44:18
Carol wrote:
//snip//
''I'm too tired to pursue this any more tonight. I'll see what I can find,
if anything. Or someone who's working on Tyrell in relation to the Perkin
Warbeck story may be able to help us. I'm at the point where I don't trust
anything I read!"
Doug here:
A thought did occur to me about possibly why Tyrrell was "chosen" - could it
have been sheer chance? A known Yorkist, recently executed, for whatever
reason, is (a short while) later discovered to have been in London during
the necessary time-frame and - voila! - HE did it!
Of course, even if someone's discovering Tyrrell's trip to London was
serendipitous, your tracing the HOW/WHY of his being "named" as the killer
of the boys is still worthwhile, if only to show how much the "history"
we've been taught - isn't.
I also want to add that I've found your posts on this extremely interesting
and look forward to any further ones. You've made it very easy to follow
your reasoning and I definitely appreciate it!
Doug
(Get a good night's rest, I'm looking forward to more! No, not him...)
//snip//
''I'm too tired to pursue this any more tonight. I'll see what I can find,
if anything. Or someone who's working on Tyrell in relation to the Perkin
Warbeck story may be able to help us. I'm at the point where I don't trust
anything I read!"
Doug here:
A thought did occur to me about possibly why Tyrrell was "chosen" - could it
have been sheer chance? A known Yorkist, recently executed, for whatever
reason, is (a short while) later discovered to have been in London during
the necessary time-frame and - voila! - HE did it!
Of course, even if someone's discovering Tyrrell's trip to London was
serendipitous, your tracing the HOW/WHY of his being "named" as the killer
of the boys is still worthwhile, if only to show how much the "history"
we've been taught - isn't.
I also want to add that I've found your posts on this extremely interesting
and look forward to any further ones. You've made it very easy to follow
your reasoning and I definitely appreciate it!
Doug
(Get a good night's rest, I'm looking forward to more! No, not him...)
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-14 22:14:17
James Tyrrell:
http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/tyrell.html
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/tyrell.htm
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 10:08
Subject: Re: Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
I don't know how much this helps but the brothers Tyrell were close to the Hautes - Sir Richard witnessed Tyrell's will - and the Hautes or some of them (James in particular) seem to have been close to the Woodvilles through descent. They are mentioned in all the Haute's wills, including that of Dame Katherine. Sir Richard, as we know, betrayed Richard with Buckingham and then fought for Henry at Bosworth. James (Haute) seems to have kept his head down and concentrated on acquiring land until he died in the early 1500s. I still can't get my head round it but there seems to be a link between Tyrell, Haute, Woodvilles and Catesby which I can't yet crack and of course in the case of the first three it could be Suffolk (which takes us back to Gipping).
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 9:53
Subject: Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
>
> Marie:
> > How much was merely rumour picked up, and how much an explanation encouraged by the new king, is difficult to know but I do find it interesting that an explanation for the Princes' murder crops up so early in Henry VIII's reign.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> If you mean More, I doubt that he intended Henry VIII to see it. I think it was for his private amusement and that of his friends. If you mean Vergil, I think he added imagined details that he thought were at least plausible with melodramatic flourishes at the end that might well have been for the new king. If you mean More, I'm nore or less convinced by Alison Hanham's theory that the whole "history" was a parody. Alternatively, it was a humanistic moral tale that he made as maudlin as possible to make Richard look as evil as possible, but somehow that doesn't fit with the privy and all the other details that More alone supplied.
>
> Fabyan was working from rumor, Vergil from rumor plus one verifiable fadt embroidered with melodrama, and More from rumor, Vergil, and a very fertile imagination that has misled historians from the time the work was published. He said that the story was a rumor, but rumors don't come equipped with imaginary dialogues and burials by dead priests with whom he could not have conversed. As for the "secret page" as source, I suspect that he's a fictional character. Either that or he's a very unreliable source who thinks that Sir James Tyrrell was a stranger to Richard looking for a job. More, having read Vergil's account, would of course know that was a lie. I personally think the lie was his own, just as the confession was his own invention.
Marie responds:
I didn't mean Vergil, More or Fabyan as such, but the rumour of Tyrell murdering the Princes itself. It could have been disseminated as state policy under Henry VIII - that is the point I was making.
I'm not convinced, for reasons I explained in my earlier post, that the story was first picked up in writing by Fabyan. Since the Great Chronicle's sister chronicles don't mention Tyrell and the Princes, I am more inclined to suspect it was a last-minute addition to the Great Chronicle; if so, it was likely based on Vergil. I think Vergil's position at court and the fact that he was writing for Henry VII must be taken into account when assessing the likely origin of the notion that Tyrell was the murderer.
>
> Someone has probably done research into who Dighton, et al. were--probably retainers of Richard's whom More could safely name even if they were living because his work was not intended for circulation.
Marie responds:
Indeed, they seem to have been. Which means that More used his office to delve into the records for names, just as Vergil - or someone feeding him information - delved into them to isolate Tyrell as having been in London at a convenient time.
Since More's story is so full of holes and lies, I'm not really interested in the supposed accessories to the crime.
Marie replies:
I agree about More, but other people have taken an interest in Miles Forest, as he was supposedly constable of Barnard Castle.
I just want to figure out when and why James Tyrrell was scapegoated, and I think I've discovered about all there is to know. Poking holes in More, who could not have invented the rumor, is another topic altogether.
Marie responds:
There are two aspects to the Tyrell business - the political exigencies of the early years of Henry VIII's reign, and Tyrell's own real story. Have you thought about trying to piece together all his movements during Richard's reign as far as the sources will allow?
http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/tyrell.html
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/tyrell.htm
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 10:08
Subject: Re: Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
I don't know how much this helps but the brothers Tyrell were close to the Hautes - Sir Richard witnessed Tyrell's will - and the Hautes or some of them (James in particular) seem to have been close to the Woodvilles through descent. They are mentioned in all the Haute's wills, including that of Dame Katherine. Sir Richard, as we know, betrayed Richard with Buckingham and then fought for Henry at Bosworth. James (Haute) seems to have kept his head down and concentrated on acquiring land until he died in the early 1500s. I still can't get my head round it but there seems to be a link between Tyrell, Haute, Woodvilles and Catesby which I can't yet crack and of course in the case of the first three it could be Suffolk (which takes us back to Gipping).
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 9:53
Subject: Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
>
> Marie:
> > How much was merely rumour picked up, and how much an explanation encouraged by the new king, is difficult to know but I do find it interesting that an explanation for the Princes' murder crops up so early in Henry VIII's reign.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> If you mean More, I doubt that he intended Henry VIII to see it. I think it was for his private amusement and that of his friends. If you mean Vergil, I think he added imagined details that he thought were at least plausible with melodramatic flourishes at the end that might well have been for the new king. If you mean More, I'm nore or less convinced by Alison Hanham's theory that the whole "history" was a parody. Alternatively, it was a humanistic moral tale that he made as maudlin as possible to make Richard look as evil as possible, but somehow that doesn't fit with the privy and all the other details that More alone supplied.
>
> Fabyan was working from rumor, Vergil from rumor plus one verifiable fadt embroidered with melodrama, and More from rumor, Vergil, and a very fertile imagination that has misled historians from the time the work was published. He said that the story was a rumor, but rumors don't come equipped with imaginary dialogues and burials by dead priests with whom he could not have conversed. As for the "secret page" as source, I suspect that he's a fictional character. Either that or he's a very unreliable source who thinks that Sir James Tyrrell was a stranger to Richard looking for a job. More, having read Vergil's account, would of course know that was a lie. I personally think the lie was his own, just as the confession was his own invention.
Marie responds:
I didn't mean Vergil, More or Fabyan as such, but the rumour of Tyrell murdering the Princes itself. It could have been disseminated as state policy under Henry VIII - that is the point I was making.
I'm not convinced, for reasons I explained in my earlier post, that the story was first picked up in writing by Fabyan. Since the Great Chronicle's sister chronicles don't mention Tyrell and the Princes, I am more inclined to suspect it was a last-minute addition to the Great Chronicle; if so, it was likely based on Vergil. I think Vergil's position at court and the fact that he was writing for Henry VII must be taken into account when assessing the likely origin of the notion that Tyrell was the murderer.
>
> Someone has probably done research into who Dighton, et al. were--probably retainers of Richard's whom More could safely name even if they were living because his work was not intended for circulation.
Marie responds:
Indeed, they seem to have been. Which means that More used his office to delve into the records for names, just as Vergil - or someone feeding him information - delved into them to isolate Tyrell as having been in London at a convenient time.
Since More's story is so full of holes and lies, I'm not really interested in the supposed accessories to the crime.
Marie replies:
I agree about More, but other people have taken an interest in Miles Forest, as he was supposedly constable of Barnard Castle.
I just want to figure out when and why James Tyrrell was scapegoated, and I think I've discovered about all there is to know. Poking holes in More, who could not have invented the rumor, is another topic altogether.
Marie responds:
There are two aspects to the Tyrell business - the political exigencies of the early years of Henry VIII's reign, and Tyrell's own real story. Have you thought about trying to piece together all his movements during Richard's reign as far as the sources will allow?
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-15 02:59:10
Mary wrote:
>
> I think he did. I have a vague recollection of reading that his son Thomas? was arrested at the same time but eventually released. Audrey Williamson talks about the story in the Tyrrel family regarding the Princes being at Gipping and that the family never disclosed this before because they thought that if the Princes were at Gipping then the " the confession" was true and they were ashamed. Wasn't there a story about James Tyrrell being "pardoned twice by H7 at the beginning of his reign or should I say usurpation. Once before a journey to Sheriff Hutton for H7 and then when he arrived back. It is a long time since I read this and I can't remember where, possibly Audrey Williamson again.
Carol responds:
Hi, Mary. Sir Clements Markham used the two general pardons to support his theory that Sir James Tyrrell had killed them, but for Henry, not Richard. Josephine Tey followed that theory in "Daughter of Time." That theory has since been discredited; in fact, a post on that theory started this whole thread. One problem is that both Markham and Tey believed Bacon's statement that "the king gave out" a confession by Tyrrell, an idea which we've pretty much disposed of. I still think that Henry started the rumor that Tyrrell did it, but there was certainly no published confession.
But Audrey Williamson's theory that Tyrrell took the boys to Gipping is another matter. If he did, and Henry suspected that he'd had something to do with the boys' escape, that would certainly provide another reason for him to frame Tyrrell, not by the confession invented by More but by spreading a rumor. But I don't want to repeat all the points we've already discussed. If you're seriously interested, you'll need to read the whole thread.
As for Tyrrell's son being involved with the Edmund de la Pole arrest, if anyone knows a reputable source, let me know. (If the source states that Dighton was involved or that there was a confession, we can be fairly sure that it's influenced by More or Bacon and is not reliable.
Carol
>
> I think he did. I have a vague recollection of reading that his son Thomas? was arrested at the same time but eventually released. Audrey Williamson talks about the story in the Tyrrel family regarding the Princes being at Gipping and that the family never disclosed this before because they thought that if the Princes were at Gipping then the " the confession" was true and they were ashamed. Wasn't there a story about James Tyrrell being "pardoned twice by H7 at the beginning of his reign or should I say usurpation. Once before a journey to Sheriff Hutton for H7 and then when he arrived back. It is a long time since I read this and I can't remember where, possibly Audrey Williamson again.
Carol responds:
Hi, Mary. Sir Clements Markham used the two general pardons to support his theory that Sir James Tyrrell had killed them, but for Henry, not Richard. Josephine Tey followed that theory in "Daughter of Time." That theory has since been discredited; in fact, a post on that theory started this whole thread. One problem is that both Markham and Tey believed Bacon's statement that "the king gave out" a confession by Tyrrell, an idea which we've pretty much disposed of. I still think that Henry started the rumor that Tyrrell did it, but there was certainly no published confession.
But Audrey Williamson's theory that Tyrrell took the boys to Gipping is another matter. If he did, and Henry suspected that he'd had something to do with the boys' escape, that would certainly provide another reason for him to frame Tyrrell, not by the confession invented by More but by spreading a rumor. But I don't want to repeat all the points we've already discussed. If you're seriously interested, you'll need to read the whole thread.
As for Tyrrell's son being involved with the Edmund de la Pole arrest, if anyone knows a reputable source, let me know. (If the source states that Dighton was involved or that there was a confession, we can be fairly sure that it's influenced by More or Bacon and is not reliable.
Carol
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-15 05:29:27
david rayner wrote:
>
> James Tyrrell:
>
> http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/tyrell.html
>
> http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/tyrell.htm
Carol responds:
Thanks for the links. I had bookmarked them both and read the second one (Luminarium), which didn't help my argument as the writer is unaware that the confession and Dighton's connection to Tyrrell are both More's inventions. I should have taken the trouble to read the first one (Tracy Bryce) since it would have saved some searching and answered the question about Tyrrell's son (who is connected only with Edmund de la Pole and not with the supposed murders in the Tower, so he's not really important to my hypothesis). Bryce doesn't consider the possibility of a rumor spread by Henry but does discuss Tyrrell's possible role in rescuing the "Princes." In any case, it's good to have both the Tracy Bryce and Susan Leas articles on hand for future reference. The Luminarium article is a little more traditional and apparently less researched.
BTW, I've yielded to temptation and bought both Bertram Fields' "Royal Blood" (mentioned in the Bryce article) and Peter Hammond's "The Road to Bosworth Field." I'm looking forward to reading them as soon as they arrive.
Carol
>
> James Tyrrell:
>
> http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/tyrell.html
>
> http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/tyrell.htm
Carol responds:
Thanks for the links. I had bookmarked them both and read the second one (Luminarium), which didn't help my argument as the writer is unaware that the confession and Dighton's connection to Tyrrell are both More's inventions. I should have taken the trouble to read the first one (Tracy Bryce) since it would have saved some searching and answered the question about Tyrrell's son (who is connected only with Edmund de la Pole and not with the supposed murders in the Tower, so he's not really important to my hypothesis). Bryce doesn't consider the possibility of a rumor spread by Henry but does discuss Tyrrell's possible role in rescuing the "Princes." In any case, it's good to have both the Tracy Bryce and Susan Leas articles on hand for future reference. The Luminarium article is a little more traditional and apparently less researched.
BTW, I've yielded to temptation and bought both Bertram Fields' "Royal Blood" (mentioned in the Bryce article) and Peter Hammond's "The Road to Bosworth Field." I'm looking forward to reading them as soon as they arrive.
Carol
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-15 18:47:30
From the DNB article on Tyrell:
Tyrell, Sir James (c.14551502), royal councillor, was the eldest son of William Tyrell of Gipping, Suffolk [seeTyrell family (per. c.1304c.1510)], and his wife, Margaret, daughter of Robert Darcy of Maldon in Essex. William was executed for his involvement with John de Vere, the earl of Oxford, in a conspiracy against Edward IV in February 1462, but he was not attainted, and the custody of his land and of his heir James was bought from Cecily Neville, dowager duchess of York, by William's widow and her feoffees for £50 in March 1463. In 1471 James fought for the Yorkists at Tewkesbury, where he was knighted by Edward IV. By the following winter he was in the service of Richard, duke of Gloucester. He became a ducal councillor and feoffee, and was used by Richard on sensitive business such as conducting the dowager countess of Warwick northwards in 1473. He served under the duke in the Scottish campaigns of 148082 and was made banneret by him.
He was the duke's nominee as chamberlain of the exchequer, and in November 1482 was commissioned to act in Gloucester's office of constable of England.
Tyrell acquired interests in the south-west through his marriage in 1469 to Anne, the daughter of John Arundel of Lanherne, Cornwall, and his first wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas, Lord Morley. He was knight of the shire for Cornwall in 1478, and in June 1483 he was elected for the abortive parliament of Edward V. After Gloucester's accession Tyrell became a knight of the body, and his name was put forward as a candidate for the Garter, although he was not chosen. He was master of the king's horse and of the henchmen. He played a role in the suppression of the rebellion of Henry Stafford, the duke of Buckingham, and was one of those who escorted the captured duke to the king at Salisbury. He was rewarded with the stewardship of the duchy of Cornwall for life and with the land that he had been disputing with his wife's half-brother, the rebel Thomas Arundel. But Richard employed him primarily in Wales, a connection already established in Edward IV's
reign, when Tyrell had been the duke's sheriff of Glamorgan and steward of Morgannwg. After Buckingham's execution, Tyrell was prominent among the royal servants who were given authority to seize and administer the duke's forfeited Welsh estates and to reassert authority over the crown lands in Wales.
In spite of Tyrell's importance in Wales, Richard made him lieutenant of Guînes on 22 January 1485, during the illness of John, Lord Mountjoy; the defection to Tudor of Mountjoy's brother James Blount in the previous autumn had compromised royal control of the Calais fortresses. Tyrell was specifically charged to fulfil the post in person, and to leave south Wales to his subordinatesan order that shows the limited circle of people upon whom Richard was now prepared to rely. Tyrell was accordingly out of England when Richard was defeated at Bosworth and was able to transfer his services to Henry VII, who kept him in office at Guînes. But he lost the importance he had enjoyed under Richard III, as well as his other gains from that king, including the disputed Arundel lands. He was evidently still not fully in the king's favour in 1486. A regrant in February of two of his Welsh offices proved only temporary, and in June and July Tyrell thought it worth
securing two royal pardons, one for himself and the other for himself and the Guînes garrison. But in December he was an ambassador to Maximilian, king of the Romans, and by 1488 he had again become a knight of the body. In February 1488 the king promised him compensation for his lost Welsh offices, valued by Tyrell at £3000 over three years. He was involved in the negotiations leading to the treaty of Étaples in 1492, and in 1495 he was one of the feoffees to the use of Henry VII's will.
Tyrell's downfall began obliquely. In 1499 Edmund de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, fled to Flanders and spent time with Tyrell at Guînes on the wayan episode later to be cited as the first of Tyrell's divers offences' against the king. Suffolk was persuaded to return to England, but fled again in the summer of 1501, and sought the help of Maximilian in making himself king. In the following spring Thomas Lovell was sent to Guînes to arrest Tyrell and a group of associates, including his son Thomas. James Tyrell was convicted of treason at the London Guildhall on 2 May and executed on 6 May. He was buried in the London church of the Austin friars, where his father was also buried. Tyrell was attainted on 25 January 1504, and the attainder was reversed on 19 April 1507.
It is as the murderer of the princes in the Tower'the sons of Edward IVthat Tyrell is now usually remembered. The identification rests on a confession that Tyrell was said to have made between his condemnation and execution. No copy of the confession survives, but according to the version circulating among subsequent writers, Richard commanded the constable of the Tower, Sir Robert Brackenbury, to have the princes killed, and when Brackenbury hesitated Tyrell was sent to do the job insteadsorrowfully', according to Polydore Vergil. The best-known version of the story is Thomas More's elaborately circumstantial account which is, however, demonstrably inaccurate in detail, notably in the lowly status assigned to Tyrell before the murder. Whatever its validity, the dissemination of Tyrell's confession' finally disposed of claims that the princes were still alive. If Tyrell's closeness to Richard III made him a plausible murderer, he
was also (from the Tudor point of view) a very convenient one.
Rosemary Horrox
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 5:29
Subject: Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
david rayner wrote:
>
> James Tyrrell:
>
> http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/tyrell.html
>
> http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/tyrell.htm
Carol responds:
Thanks for the links. I had bookmarked them both and read the second one (Luminarium), which didn't help my argument as the writer is unaware that the confession and Dighton's connection to Tyrrell are both More's inventions. I should have taken the trouble to read the first one (Tracy Bryce) since it would have saved some searching and answered the question about Tyrrell's son (who is connected only with Edmund de la Pole and not with the supposed murders in the Tower, so he's not really important to my hypothesis). Bryce doesn't consider the possibility of a rumor spread by Henry but does discuss Tyrrell's possible role in rescuing the "Princes." In any case, it's good to have both the Tracy Bryce and Susan Leas articles on hand for future reference. The Luminarium article is a little more traditional and apparently less researched.
BTW, I've yielded to temptation and bought both Bertram Fields' "Royal Blood" (mentioned in the Bryce article) and Peter Hammond's "The Road to Bosworth Field." I'm looking forward to reading them as soon as they arrive.
Carol
Tyrell, Sir James (c.14551502), royal councillor, was the eldest son of William Tyrell of Gipping, Suffolk [seeTyrell family (per. c.1304c.1510)], and his wife, Margaret, daughter of Robert Darcy of Maldon in Essex. William was executed for his involvement with John de Vere, the earl of Oxford, in a conspiracy against Edward IV in February 1462, but he was not attainted, and the custody of his land and of his heir James was bought from Cecily Neville, dowager duchess of York, by William's widow and her feoffees for £50 in March 1463. In 1471 James fought for the Yorkists at Tewkesbury, where he was knighted by Edward IV. By the following winter he was in the service of Richard, duke of Gloucester. He became a ducal councillor and feoffee, and was used by Richard on sensitive business such as conducting the dowager countess of Warwick northwards in 1473. He served under the duke in the Scottish campaigns of 148082 and was made banneret by him.
He was the duke's nominee as chamberlain of the exchequer, and in November 1482 was commissioned to act in Gloucester's office of constable of England.
Tyrell acquired interests in the south-west through his marriage in 1469 to Anne, the daughter of John Arundel of Lanherne, Cornwall, and his first wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas, Lord Morley. He was knight of the shire for Cornwall in 1478, and in June 1483 he was elected for the abortive parliament of Edward V. After Gloucester's accession Tyrell became a knight of the body, and his name was put forward as a candidate for the Garter, although he was not chosen. He was master of the king's horse and of the henchmen. He played a role in the suppression of the rebellion of Henry Stafford, the duke of Buckingham, and was one of those who escorted the captured duke to the king at Salisbury. He was rewarded with the stewardship of the duchy of Cornwall for life and with the land that he had been disputing with his wife's half-brother, the rebel Thomas Arundel. But Richard employed him primarily in Wales, a connection already established in Edward IV's
reign, when Tyrell had been the duke's sheriff of Glamorgan and steward of Morgannwg. After Buckingham's execution, Tyrell was prominent among the royal servants who were given authority to seize and administer the duke's forfeited Welsh estates and to reassert authority over the crown lands in Wales.
In spite of Tyrell's importance in Wales, Richard made him lieutenant of Guînes on 22 January 1485, during the illness of John, Lord Mountjoy; the defection to Tudor of Mountjoy's brother James Blount in the previous autumn had compromised royal control of the Calais fortresses. Tyrell was specifically charged to fulfil the post in person, and to leave south Wales to his subordinatesan order that shows the limited circle of people upon whom Richard was now prepared to rely. Tyrell was accordingly out of England when Richard was defeated at Bosworth and was able to transfer his services to Henry VII, who kept him in office at Guînes. But he lost the importance he had enjoyed under Richard III, as well as his other gains from that king, including the disputed Arundel lands. He was evidently still not fully in the king's favour in 1486. A regrant in February of two of his Welsh offices proved only temporary, and in June and July Tyrell thought it worth
securing two royal pardons, one for himself and the other for himself and the Guînes garrison. But in December he was an ambassador to Maximilian, king of the Romans, and by 1488 he had again become a knight of the body. In February 1488 the king promised him compensation for his lost Welsh offices, valued by Tyrell at £3000 over three years. He was involved in the negotiations leading to the treaty of Étaples in 1492, and in 1495 he was one of the feoffees to the use of Henry VII's will.
Tyrell's downfall began obliquely. In 1499 Edmund de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, fled to Flanders and spent time with Tyrell at Guînes on the wayan episode later to be cited as the first of Tyrell's divers offences' against the king. Suffolk was persuaded to return to England, but fled again in the summer of 1501, and sought the help of Maximilian in making himself king. In the following spring Thomas Lovell was sent to Guînes to arrest Tyrell and a group of associates, including his son Thomas. James Tyrell was convicted of treason at the London Guildhall on 2 May and executed on 6 May. He was buried in the London church of the Austin friars, where his father was also buried. Tyrell was attainted on 25 January 1504, and the attainder was reversed on 19 April 1507.
It is as the murderer of the princes in the Tower'the sons of Edward IVthat Tyrell is now usually remembered. The identification rests on a confession that Tyrell was said to have made between his condemnation and execution. No copy of the confession survives, but according to the version circulating among subsequent writers, Richard commanded the constable of the Tower, Sir Robert Brackenbury, to have the princes killed, and when Brackenbury hesitated Tyrell was sent to do the job insteadsorrowfully', according to Polydore Vergil. The best-known version of the story is Thomas More's elaborately circumstantial account which is, however, demonstrably inaccurate in detail, notably in the lowly status assigned to Tyrell before the murder. Whatever its validity, the dissemination of Tyrell's confession' finally disposed of claims that the princes were still alive. If Tyrell's closeness to Richard III made him a plausible murderer, he
was also (from the Tudor point of view) a very convenient one.
Rosemary Horrox
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 5:29
Subject: Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
david rayner wrote:
>
> James Tyrrell:
>
> http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/tyrell.html
>
> http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/tyrell.htm
Carol responds:
Thanks for the links. I had bookmarked them both and read the second one (Luminarium), which didn't help my argument as the writer is unaware that the confession and Dighton's connection to Tyrrell are both More's inventions. I should have taken the trouble to read the first one (Tracy Bryce) since it would have saved some searching and answered the question about Tyrrell's son (who is connected only with Edmund de la Pole and not with the supposed murders in the Tower, so he's not really important to my hypothesis). Bryce doesn't consider the possibility of a rumor spread by Henry but does discuss Tyrrell's possible role in rescuing the "Princes." In any case, it's good to have both the Tracy Bryce and Susan Leas articles on hand for future reference. The Luminarium article is a little more traditional and apparently less researched.
BTW, I've yielded to temptation and bought both Bertram Fields' "Royal Blood" (mentioned in the Bryce article) and Peter Hammond's "The Road to Bosworth Field." I'm looking forward to reading them as soon as they arrive.
Carol
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-15 21:28:42
Thanks David, It's late but some interesting points here H
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 18:47
Subject: Re: Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
From the DNB article on Tyrell:
Tyrell, Sir James (c.14551502), royal councillor, was the eldest son of William Tyrell of Gipping, Suffolk [seeTyrell family (per. c.1304c.1510)], and his wife, Margaret, daughter of Robert Darcy of Maldon in Essex. William was executed for his involvement with John de Vere, the earl of Oxford, in a conspiracy against Edward IV in February 1462, but he was not attainted, and the custody of his land and of his heir James was bought from Cecily Neville, dowager duchess of York, by William's widow and her feoffees for £50 in March 1463. In 1471 James fought for the Yorkists at Tewkesbury, where he was knighted by Edward IV. By the following winter he was in the service of Richard, duke of Gloucester. He became a ducal councillor and feoffee, and was used by Richard on sensitive business such as conducting the dowager countess of Warwick northwards in 1473. He served under the duke in the Scottish campaigns of 148082 and was made banneret by him.
He was the duke's nominee as chamberlain of the exchequer, and in November 1482 was commissioned to act in Gloucester's office of constable of England.
Tyrell acquired interests in the south-west through his marriage in 1469 to Anne, the daughter of John Arundel of Lanherne, Cornwall, and his first wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas, Lord Morley. He was knight of the shire for Cornwall in 1478, and in June 1483 he was elected for the abortive parliament of Edward V. After Gloucester's accession Tyrell became a knight of the body, and his name was put forward as a candidate for the Garter, although he was not chosen. He was master of the king's horse and of the henchmen. He played a role in the suppression of the rebellion of Henry Stafford, the duke of Buckingham, and was one of those who escorted the captured duke to the king at Salisbury. He was rewarded with the stewardship of the duchy of Cornwall for life and with the land that he had been disputing with his wife's half-brother, the rebel Thomas Arundel. But Richard employed him primarily in Wales, a connection already established in Edward IV's
reign, when Tyrell had been the duke's sheriff of Glamorgan and steward of Morgannwg. After Buckingham's execution, Tyrell was prominent among the royal servants who were given authority to seize and administer the duke's forfeited Welsh estates and to reassert authority over the crown lands in Wales.
In spite of Tyrell's importance in Wales, Richard made him lieutenant of Guînes on 22 January 1485, during the illness of John, Lord Mountjoy; the defection to Tudor of Mountjoy's brother James Blount in the previous autumn had compromised royal control of the Calais fortresses. Tyrell was specifically charged to fulfil the post in person, and to leave south Wales to his subordinatesan order that shows the limited circle of people upon whom Richard was now prepared to rely. Tyrell was accordingly out of England when Richard was defeated at Bosworth and was able to transfer his services to Henry VII, who kept him in office at Guînes. But he lost the importance he had enjoyed under Richard III, as well as his other gains from that king, including the disputed Arundel lands. He was evidently still not fully in the king's favour in 1486. A regrant in February of two of his Welsh offices proved only temporary, and in June and July Tyrell thought it worth
securing two royal pardons, one for himself and the other for himself and the Guînes garrison. But in December he was an ambassador to Maximilian, king of the Romans, and by 1488 he had again become a knight of the body. In February 1488 the king promised him compensation for his lost Welsh offices, valued by Tyrell at £3000 over three years. He was involved in the negotiations leading to the treaty of Étaples in 1492, and in 1495 he was one of the feoffees to the use of Henry VII's will.
Tyrell's downfall began obliquely. In 1499 Edmund de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, fled to Flanders and spent time with Tyrell at Guînes on the wayan episode later to be cited as the first of Tyrell's divers offences' against the king. Suffolk was persuaded to return to England, but fled again in the summer of 1501, and sought the help of Maximilian in making himself king. In the following spring Thomas Lovell was sent to Guînes to arrest Tyrell and a group of associates, including his son Thomas. James Tyrell was convicted of treason at the London Guildhall on 2 May and executed on 6 May. He was buried in the London church of the Austin friars, where his father was also buried. Tyrell was attainted on 25 January 1504, and the attainder was reversed on 19 April 1507.
It is as the murderer of the princes in the Tower'the sons of Edward IVthat Tyrell is now usually remembered. The identification rests on a confession that Tyrell was said to have made between his condemnation and execution. No copy of the confession survives, but according to the version circulating among subsequent writers, Richard commanded the constable of the Tower, Sir Robert Brackenbury, to have the princes killed, and when Brackenbury hesitated Tyrell was sent to do the job insteadsorrowfully', according to Polydore Vergil. The best-known version of the story is Thomas More's elaborately circumstantial account which is, however, demonstrably inaccurate in detail, notably in the lowly status assigned to Tyrell before the murder. Whatever its validity, the dissemination of Tyrell's confession' finally disposed of claims that the princes were still alive. If Tyrell's closeness to Richard III made him a plausible murderer, he
was also (from the Tudor point of view) a very convenient one.
Rosemary Horrox
________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 5:29
Subject: Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
david rayner wrote:
>
> James Tyrrell:
>
> http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/tyrell.html
>
> http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/tyrell.htm
Carol responds:
Thanks for the links. I had bookmarked them both and read the second one (Luminarium), which didn't help my argument as the writer is unaware that the confession and Dighton's connection to Tyrrell are both More's inventions. I should have taken the trouble to read the first one (Tracy Bryce) since it would have saved some searching and answered the question about Tyrrell's son (who is connected only with Edmund de la Pole and not with the supposed murders in the Tower, so he's not really important to my hypothesis). Bryce doesn't consider the possibility of a rumor spread by Henry but does discuss Tyrrell's possible role in rescuing the "Princes." In any case, it's good to have both the Tracy Bryce and Susan Leas articles on hand for future reference. The Luminarium article is a little more traditional and apparently less researched.
BTW, I've yielded to temptation and bought both Bertram Fields' "Royal Blood" (mentioned in the Bryce article) and Peter Hammond's "The Road to Bosworth Field." I'm looking forward to reading them as soon as they arrive.
Carol
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 18:47
Subject: Re: Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
From the DNB article on Tyrell:
Tyrell, Sir James (c.14551502), royal councillor, was the eldest son of William Tyrell of Gipping, Suffolk [seeTyrell family (per. c.1304c.1510)], and his wife, Margaret, daughter of Robert Darcy of Maldon in Essex. William was executed for his involvement with John de Vere, the earl of Oxford, in a conspiracy against Edward IV in February 1462, but he was not attainted, and the custody of his land and of his heir James was bought from Cecily Neville, dowager duchess of York, by William's widow and her feoffees for £50 in March 1463. In 1471 James fought for the Yorkists at Tewkesbury, where he was knighted by Edward IV. By the following winter he was in the service of Richard, duke of Gloucester. He became a ducal councillor and feoffee, and was used by Richard on sensitive business such as conducting the dowager countess of Warwick northwards in 1473. He served under the duke in the Scottish campaigns of 148082 and was made banneret by him.
He was the duke's nominee as chamberlain of the exchequer, and in November 1482 was commissioned to act in Gloucester's office of constable of England.
Tyrell acquired interests in the south-west through his marriage in 1469 to Anne, the daughter of John Arundel of Lanherne, Cornwall, and his first wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas, Lord Morley. He was knight of the shire for Cornwall in 1478, and in June 1483 he was elected for the abortive parliament of Edward V. After Gloucester's accession Tyrell became a knight of the body, and his name was put forward as a candidate for the Garter, although he was not chosen. He was master of the king's horse and of the henchmen. He played a role in the suppression of the rebellion of Henry Stafford, the duke of Buckingham, and was one of those who escorted the captured duke to the king at Salisbury. He was rewarded with the stewardship of the duchy of Cornwall for life and with the land that he had been disputing with his wife's half-brother, the rebel Thomas Arundel. But Richard employed him primarily in Wales, a connection already established in Edward IV's
reign, when Tyrell had been the duke's sheriff of Glamorgan and steward of Morgannwg. After Buckingham's execution, Tyrell was prominent among the royal servants who were given authority to seize and administer the duke's forfeited Welsh estates and to reassert authority over the crown lands in Wales.
In spite of Tyrell's importance in Wales, Richard made him lieutenant of Guînes on 22 January 1485, during the illness of John, Lord Mountjoy; the defection to Tudor of Mountjoy's brother James Blount in the previous autumn had compromised royal control of the Calais fortresses. Tyrell was specifically charged to fulfil the post in person, and to leave south Wales to his subordinatesan order that shows the limited circle of people upon whom Richard was now prepared to rely. Tyrell was accordingly out of England when Richard was defeated at Bosworth and was able to transfer his services to Henry VII, who kept him in office at Guînes. But he lost the importance he had enjoyed under Richard III, as well as his other gains from that king, including the disputed Arundel lands. He was evidently still not fully in the king's favour in 1486. A regrant in February of two of his Welsh offices proved only temporary, and in June and July Tyrell thought it worth
securing two royal pardons, one for himself and the other for himself and the Guînes garrison. But in December he was an ambassador to Maximilian, king of the Romans, and by 1488 he had again become a knight of the body. In February 1488 the king promised him compensation for his lost Welsh offices, valued by Tyrell at £3000 over three years. He was involved in the negotiations leading to the treaty of Étaples in 1492, and in 1495 he was one of the feoffees to the use of Henry VII's will.
Tyrell's downfall began obliquely. In 1499 Edmund de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, fled to Flanders and spent time with Tyrell at Guînes on the wayan episode later to be cited as the first of Tyrell's divers offences' against the king. Suffolk was persuaded to return to England, but fled again in the summer of 1501, and sought the help of Maximilian in making himself king. In the following spring Thomas Lovell was sent to Guînes to arrest Tyrell and a group of associates, including his son Thomas. James Tyrell was convicted of treason at the London Guildhall on 2 May and executed on 6 May. He was buried in the London church of the Austin friars, where his father was also buried. Tyrell was attainted on 25 January 1504, and the attainder was reversed on 19 April 1507.
It is as the murderer of the princes in the Tower'the sons of Edward IVthat Tyrell is now usually remembered. The identification rests on a confession that Tyrell was said to have made between his condemnation and execution. No copy of the confession survives, but according to the version circulating among subsequent writers, Richard commanded the constable of the Tower, Sir Robert Brackenbury, to have the princes killed, and when Brackenbury hesitated Tyrell was sent to do the job insteadsorrowfully', according to Polydore Vergil. The best-known version of the story is Thomas More's elaborately circumstantial account which is, however, demonstrably inaccurate in detail, notably in the lowly status assigned to Tyrell before the murder. Whatever its validity, the dissemination of Tyrell's confession' finally disposed of claims that the princes were still alive. If Tyrell's closeness to Richard III made him a plausible murderer, he
was also (from the Tudor point of view) a very convenient one.
Rosemary Horrox
________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 5:29
Subject: Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
david rayner wrote:
>
> James Tyrrell:
>
> http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/tyrell.html
>
> http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/tyrell.htm
Carol responds:
Thanks for the links. I had bookmarked them both and read the second one (Luminarium), which didn't help my argument as the writer is unaware that the confession and Dighton's connection to Tyrrell are both More's inventions. I should have taken the trouble to read the first one (Tracy Bryce) since it would have saved some searching and answered the question about Tyrrell's son (who is connected only with Edmund de la Pole and not with the supposed murders in the Tower, so he's not really important to my hypothesis). Bryce doesn't consider the possibility of a rumor spread by Henry but does discuss Tyrrell's possible role in rescuing the "Princes." In any case, it's good to have both the Tracy Bryce and Susan Leas articles on hand for future reference. The Luminarium article is a little more traditional and apparently less researched.
BTW, I've yielded to temptation and bought both Bertram Fields' "Royal Blood" (mentioned in the Bryce article) and Peter Hammond's "The Road to Bosworth Field." I'm looking forward to reading them as soon as they arrive.
Carol
Re: Susan Leas's article "As the King Gave Out"
2013-02-16 02:23:31
david rayner wrote:
>
> From the DNB article on Tyrell:
[snip] Whatever its validity, the dissemination of Tyrell's ‘confession’ finally disposed of claims that the princes were still alive. If Tyrell's closeness to Richard III made him a plausible murderer, he was also (from the Tudor point of view) a very convenient one.
>
> Rosemary Horrox
Carol responds:
Thanks, David. I certainly agree that Tyrrell was "a very convenient [murderer]" from the Tudor point of view, but we have yet another very reputable historian thinking that Henry gave out a confession when More invented the whole story, confession and all. It seems that she hasn't read Susan Leas's article.
Carol
>
> From the DNB article on Tyrell:
[snip] Whatever its validity, the dissemination of Tyrell's ‘confession’ finally disposed of claims that the princes were still alive. If Tyrell's closeness to Richard III made him a plausible murderer, he was also (from the Tudor point of view) a very convenient one.
>
> Rosemary Horrox
Carol responds:
Thanks, David. I certainly agree that Tyrrell was "a very convenient [murderer]" from the Tudor point of view, but we have yet another very reputable historian thinking that Henry gave out a confession when More invented the whole story, confession and all. It seems that she hasn't read Susan Leas's article.
Carol
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.