Croyland Chroniclers

I am sure by now you guys are used to my ignorance! So do not be aggravated with this question: why do you guys think the Croyland Chroniclers were so hostile to Richard? Even Mancini for that matter? I am just troubled that the contemporary sources are so negative. Were there any other historians/chroniclers who were actually writing in Richard's favor?
Ishita


Sent from my iPad

Simply because it wrote up Richard's reign with hindsight and under the Tydder, the Continuator's name being unclear at present but not a friend of Richard.

----- Original Message -----
From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:55 AM
Subject: Croyland Chroniclers



I am sure by now you guys are used to my ignorance! So do not be aggravated with this question: why do you guys think the Croyland Chroniclers were so hostile to Richard? Even Mancini for that matter? I am just troubled that the contemporary sources are so negative. Were there any other historians/chroniclers who were actually writing in Richard's favor?
Ishita

Sent from my iPad

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> I am sure by now you guys are used to my ignorance! So do not be aggravated with this question: why do you guys think the Croyland Chroniclers were so hostile to Richard? Even Mancini for that matter? I am just troubled that the contemporary sources are so negative. Were there any other historians/chroniclers who were actually writing in Richard's favor?
> Ishita

Carol responds:

Only one chronicler, the second continuator, wrote about Richard (his whole portion of the chronicle being written in ten days, which would mean among other things that he didn't have time to check his facts. Margaret Beaufort was, if I understand correctly, a benefactress of the abbey, and, of course, Henry Tudor had recently been crowned king. It also appears that, even though the chronicler never suggested that Richard killed his nephews and only stated that a rumor had been spread to that effect, he didn't approve of Richard's deposing his nephew. He also appears to have had pro-Tudor informants, most probably Morton, as he knows information that no former minor official of Richard's turned Croyland monk could have had access to. Whoever he was, Williamson and others have conclusively shown that he couldn't have been Archbishop Russell, who was partially responsible for some of the policies that the chronicler criticized. Also, he makes errors on points that Russell would have known. Maybe he hoped for a promotion that he didn't get and instead of joining a rebellion, took out his sour grapes by writing a biased, incomplete, and in places inaccurate account of him in the abbey chronicle. Unfortunately, we have no pro-Richard chronicle to balance it out.

Carol

Sorry to be a nuisance. I made a point yesterday in a post that Richard was (quite legitimately) chasing the clergy for money they'd owed since Edward IV's time. This was still going on in 1485. In fact the more I look at his pursuance of owed taxes, the more I admire him for his diligence, the coffers were empty, I think we have no dispute about that from any historian. It goes back to his being a 'deputy' who new where the chinks were he was 'inheriting' and trying to put things right for the common good.

The clergy and some 'nobility' must have hated it and, MB apart, it wouldn't have been too hard to throw up a disgruntled cleric as the Continuator, or at least to prime one.

PS the more I look at the shear hard work he undertook in those two years the more I admire him. H

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > I am sure by now you guys are used to my ignorance! So do not be aggravated with this question: why do you guys think the Croyland Chroniclers were so hostile to Richard? Even Mancini for that matter? I am just troubled that the contemporary sources are so negative. Were there any other historians/chroniclers who were actually writing in Richard's favor?
> > Ishita
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Only one chronicler, the second continuator, wrote about Richard (his whole portion of the chronicle being written in ten days, which would mean among other things that he didn't have time to check his facts. Margaret Beaufort was, if I understand correctly, a benefactress of the abbey, and, of course, Henry Tudor had recently been crowned king. It also appears that, even though the chronicler never suggested that Richard killed his nephews and only stated that a rumor had been spread to that effect, he didn't approve of Richard's deposing his nephew. He also appears to have had pro-Tudor informants, most probably Morton, as he knows information that no former minor official of Richard's turned Croyland monk could have had access to. Whoever he was, Williamson and others have conclusively shown that he couldn't have been Archbishop Russell, who was partially responsible for some of the policies that the chronicler criticized. Also, he makes errors on points that Russell would have known. Maybe he hoped for a promotion that he didn't get and instead of joining a rebellion, took out his sour grapes by writing a biased, incomplete, and in places inaccurate account of him in the abbey chronicle. Unfortunately, we have no pro-Richard chronicle to balance it out.
>
> Carol
>

And I can spell knew - Sorry!!!



________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 15:29
Subject: Re: Croyland Chroniclers


 

Sorry to be a nuisance. I made a point yesterday in a post that Richard was (quite legitimately) chasing the clergy for money they'd owed since Edward IV's time. This was still going on in 1485. In fact the more I look at his pursuance of owed taxes, the more I admire him for his diligence, the coffers were empty, I think we have no dispute about that from any historian. It goes back to his being a 'deputy' who new where the chinks were he was 'inheriting' and trying to put things right for the common good.

The clergy and some 'nobility' must have hated it and, MB apart, it wouldn't have been too hard to throw up a disgruntled cleric as the Continuator, or at least to prime one.

PS the more I look at the shear hard work he undertook in those two years the more I admire him. H

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > I am sure by now you guys are used to my ignorance! So do not be aggravated with this question: why do you guys think the Croyland Chroniclers were so hostile to Richard? Even Mancini for that matter? I am just troubled that the contemporary sources are so negative. Were there any other historians/chroniclers who were actually writing in Richard's favor?
> > Ishita
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Only one chronicler, the second continuator, wrote about Richard (his whole portion of the chronicle being written in ten days, which would mean among other things that he didn't have time to check his facts. Margaret Beaufort was, if I understand correctly, a benefactress of the abbey, and, of course, Henry Tudor had recently been crowned king. It also appears that, even though the chronicler never suggested that Richard killed his nephews and only stated that a rumor had been spread to that effect, he didn't approve of Richard's deposing his nephew. He also appears to have had pro-Tudor informants, most probably Morton, as he knows information that no former minor official of Richard's turned Croyland monk could have had access to. Whoever he was, Williamson and others have conclusively shown that he couldn't have been Archbishop Russell, who was partially responsible for some of the policies that the chronicler criticized. Also, he makes errors on
points that Russell would have known. Maybe he hoped for a promotion that he didn't get and instead of joining a rebellion, took out his sour grapes by writing a biased, incomplete, and in places inaccurate account of him in the abbey chronicle. Unfortunately, we have no pro-Richard chronicle to balance it out.
>
> Carol
>

From: hjnatdat
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: Croyland Chroniclers


> PS the more I look at the shear hard work he undertook in those two years
> the more I admire him. H

There's a letter from one of the Stanleys which complains about the long
hours "Old Dick" has got all his admin. staff working, and I think it was
implied that Richard was working the same hours as his staff.

Thank you Carol for all your hard work. I find your results fascinating. It gets us back to Kendall's view of Richard as an earnest worker-bee type (Old Dick, indeed!) I hope he went after Morton for his cash. Maire.

P.S.: I find it interesting that whenever a fact about Richard is discovered or rediscovered, it always seems to benefit his reputation. Am I wrong? Maire.

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry to be a nuisance. I made a point yesterday in a post that Richard was (quite legitimately) chasing the clergy for money they'd owed since Edward IV's time. This was still going on in 1485. In fact the more I look at his pursuance of owed taxes, the more I admire him for his diligence, the coffers were empty, I think we have no dispute about that from any historian. It goes back to his being a 'deputy' who new where the chinks were he was 'inheriting' and trying to put things right for the common good.
>
> The clergy and some 'nobility' must have hated it and, MB apart, it wouldn't have been too hard to throw up a disgruntled cleric as the Continuator, or at least to prime one.
>
> PS the more I look at the shear hard work he undertook in those two years the more I admire him. H
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > I am sure by now you guys are used to my ignorance! So do not be aggravated with this question: why do you guys think the Croyland Chroniclers were so hostile to Richard? Even Mancini for that matter? I am just troubled that the contemporary sources are so negative. Were there any other historians/chroniclers who were actually writing in Richard's favor?
> > > Ishita
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Only one chronicler, the second continuator, wrote about Richard (his whole portion of the chronicle being written in ten days, which would mean among other things that he didn't have time to check his facts. Margaret Beaufort was, if I understand correctly, a benefactress of the abbey, and, of course, Henry Tudor had recently been crowned king. It also appears that, even though the chronicler never suggested that Richard killed his nephews and only stated that a rumor had been spread to that effect, he didn't approve of Richard's deposing his nephew. He also appears to have had pro-Tudor informants, most probably Morton, as he knows information that no former minor official of Richard's turned Croyland monk could have had access to. Whoever he was, Williamson and others have conclusively shown that he couldn't have been Archbishop Russell, who was partially responsible for some of the policies that the chronicler criticized. Also, he makes errors on points that Russell would have known. Maybe he hoped for a promotion that he didn't get and instead of joining a rebellion, took out his sour grapes by writing a biased, incomplete, and in places inaccurate account of him in the abbey chronicle. Unfortunately, we have no pro-Richard chronicle to balance it out.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

I think it's rather nice. And I echo your thanks to Carol.



________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 15:39
Subject: Re: Croyland Chroniclers

 

Thank you Carol for all your hard work. I find your results fascinating. It gets us back to Kendall's view of Richard as an earnest worker-bee type (Old Dick, indeed!) I hope he went after Morton for his cash. Maire.

P.S.: I find it interesting that whenever a fact about Richard is discovered or rediscovered, it always seems to benefit his reputation. Am I wrong? Maire.

--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Sorry to be a nuisance. I made a point yesterday in a post that Richard was (quite legitimately) chasing the clergy for money they'd owed since Edward IV's time. This was still going on in 1485. In fact the more I look at his pursuance of owed taxes, the more I admire him for his diligence, the coffers were empty, I think we have no dispute about that from any historian. It goes back to his being a 'deputy' who new where the chinks were he was 'inheriting' and trying to put things right for the common good.
>
> The clergy and some 'nobility' must have hated it and, MB apart, it wouldn't have been too hard to throw up a disgruntled cleric as the Continuator, or at least to prime one.
>
> PS the more I look at the shear hard work he undertook in those two years the more I admire him. H
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > I am sure by now you guys are used to my ignorance! So do not be aggravated with this question: why do you guys think the Croyland Chroniclers were so hostile to Richard? Even Mancini for that matter? I am just troubled that the contemporary sources are so negative. Were there any other historians/chroniclers who were actually writing in Richard's favor?
> > > Ishita
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Only one chronicler, the second continuator, wrote about Richard (his whole portion of the chronicle being written in ten days, which would mean among other things that he didn't have time to check his facts. Margaret Beaufort was, if I understand correctly, a benefactress of the abbey, and, of course, Henry Tudor had recently been crowned king. It also appears that, even though the chronicler never suggested that Richard killed his nephews and only stated that a rumor had been spread to that effect, he didn't approve of Richard's deposing his nephew. He also appears to have had pro-Tudor informants, most probably Morton, as he knows information that no former minor official of Richard's turned Croyland monk could have had access to. Whoever he was, Williamson and others have conclusively shown that he couldn't have been Archbishop Russell, who was partially responsible for some of the policies that the chronicler criticized. Also, he makes errors on
points that Russell would have known. Maybe he hoped for a promotion that he didn't get and instead of joining a rebellion, took out his sour grapes by writing a biased, incomplete, and in places inaccurate account of him in the abbey chronicle. Unfortunately, we have no pro-Richard chronicle to balance it out.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Drawing once again on my tidbits from Spanish history as an example of
chroniclers and their objectivity:

In 1467, during the civil war in Castile between Enrique IV and his
half-brother Alfonso (Isabel the Catholic's younger brother), Alfonso
invaded Segovia and Enrique, with his allies, fled. in Enrique's company
was his chronicler, friar Diego Enriquez Castillo. With Alfonso was a
chronicler named Alfonso de Palencia, who was adamantly hostile to Enrique.

Castillo left his chronicle in Segovia during the retreat. To paraphrase
Townsend Miller, from his bio of Enrique, for reasons best known to
himself, they were stored at a brothel. Alfonso's troops, in due course,
visited the brothel, discovered the chronicle and brought it the attention
of another powerful ally of Alfonso, the Archbishop of Toledo, whose name
was Carrillo. Well, Castillo got a safe-conduct to return to Segovia for
his belongings. Imagine his surprise when he was arrested and brought
before Carrillo, who tore into the chronicle and the chronicler for what he
claimed were abject lies.

Castillo was at first sentenced to death (not for the chronicle, but
because he was on the wrong side), but as he was a man of the cloth, he was
spared. However. He was informed that Palencia would take charge of his
chronicle and .... correct it. He ended up re-composing the work from
memory. But here were two chroniclers very clearly writing from their own
prejudices and loyalties. So Croyland's perspective is par for the course;
as this anecdote shows, you never knew if and when someone influential
could pick up your work and make you pay for it.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:39 AM, mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Thank you Carol for all your hard work. I find your results fascinating.
> It gets us back to Kendall's view of Richard as an earnest worker-bee type
> (Old Dick, indeed!) I hope he went after Morton for his cash. Maire.
>
> P.S.: I find it interesting that whenever a fact about Richard is
> discovered or rediscovered, it always seems to benefit his reputation. Am I
> wrong? Maire.
>
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> > Sorry to be a nuisance. I made a point yesterday in a post that Richard
> was (quite legitimately) chasing the clergy for money they'd owed since
> Edward IV's time. This was still going on in 1485. In fact the more I look
> at his pursuance of owed taxes, the more I admire him for his diligence,
> the coffers were empty, I think we have no dispute about that from any
> historian. It goes back to his being a 'deputy' who new where the chinks
> were he was 'inheriting' and trying to put things right for the common good.
> >
> > The clergy and some 'nobility' must have hated it and, MB apart, it
> wouldn't have been too hard to throw up a disgruntled cleric as the
> Continuator, or at least to prime one.
> >
> > PS the more I look at the shear hard work he undertook in those two
> years the more I admire him. H
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am sure by now you guys are used to my ignorance! So do not be
> aggravated with this question: why do you guys think the Croyland
> Chroniclers were so hostile to Richard? Even Mancini for that matter? I am
> just troubled that the contemporary sources are so negative. Were there any
> other historians/chroniclers who were actually writing in Richard's favor?
> > > > Ishita
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Only one chronicler, the second continuator, wrote about Richard (his
> whole portion of the chronicle being written in ten days, which would mean
> among other things that he didn't have time to check his facts. Margaret
> Beaufort was, if I understand correctly, a benefactress of the abbey, and,
> of course, Henry Tudor had recently been crowned king. It also appears
> that, even though the chronicler never suggested that Richard killed his
> nephews and only stated that a rumor had been spread to that effect, he
> didn't approve of Richard's deposing his nephew. He also appears to have
> had pro-Tudor informants, most probably Morton, as he knows information
> that no former minor official of Richard's turned Croyland monk could have
> had access to. Whoever he was, Williamson and others have conclusively
> shown that he couldn't have been Archbishop Russell, who was partially
> responsible for some of the policies that the chronicler criticized. Also,
> he makes errors on points that Russell would have known. Maybe he hoped for
> a promotion that he didn't get and instead of joining a rebellion, took out
> his sour grapes by writing a biased, incomplete, and in places inaccurate
> account of him in the abbey chronicle. Unfortunately, we have no
> pro-Richard chronicle to balance it out.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>

That is fascinating!


-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Maria Torres
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:11 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Croyland Chroniclers

Drawing once again on my tidbits from Spanish history as an example of chroniclers and their objectivity:

In 1467, during the civil war in Castile between Enrique IV and his half-brother Alfonso (Isabel the Catholic's younger brother), Alfonso invaded Segovia and Enrique, with his allies, fled. in Enrique's company was his chronicler, friar Diego Enriquez Castillo. With Alfonso was a chronicler named Alfonso de Palencia, who was adamantly hostile to Enrique.

Castillo left his chronicle in Segovia during the retreat. To paraphrase Townsend Miller, from his bio of Enrique, for reasons best known to himself, they were stored at a brothel. Alfonso's troops, in due course, visited the brothel, discovered the chronicle and brought it the attention of another powerful ally of Alfonso, the Archbishop of Toledo, whose name was Carrillo. Well, Castillo got a safe-conduct to return to Segovia for his belongings. Imagine his surprise when he was arrested and brought before Carrillo, who tore into the chronicle and the chronicler for what he claimed were abject lies.

Castillo was at first sentenced to death (not for the chronicle, but because he was on the wrong side), but as he was a man of the cloth, he was spared. However. He was informed that Palencia would take charge of his chronicle and .... correct it. He ended up re-composing the work from memory. But here were two chroniclers very clearly writing from their own prejudices and loyalties. So Croyland's perspective is par for the course; as this anecdote shows, you never knew if and when someone influential could pick up your work and make you pay for it.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:39 AM, mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Thank you Carol for all your hard work. I find your results fascinating.
> It gets us back to Kendall's view of Richard as an earnest worker-bee
> type (Old Dick, indeed!) I hope he went after Morton for his cash. Maire.
>
> P.S.: I find it interesting that whenever a fact about Richard is
> discovered or rediscovered, it always seems to benefit his reputation.
> Am I wrong? Maire.
>
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> > Sorry to be a nuisance. I made a point yesterday in a post that
> > Richard
> was (quite legitimately) chasing the clergy for money they'd owed
> since Edward IV's time. This was still going on in 1485. In fact the
> more I look at his pursuance of owed taxes, the more I admire him for
> his diligence, the coffers were empty, I think we have no dispute
> about that from any historian. It goes back to his being a 'deputy'
> who new where the chinks were he was 'inheriting' and trying to put things right for the common good.
> >
> > The clergy and some 'nobility' must have hated it and, MB apart, it
> wouldn't have been too hard to throw up a disgruntled cleric as the
> Continuator, or at least to prime one.
> >
> > PS the more I look at the shear hard work he undertook in those two
> years the more I admire him. H
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am sure by now you guys are used to my ignorance! So do not be
> aggravated with this question: why do you guys think the Croyland
> Chroniclers were so hostile to Richard? Even Mancini for that matter?
> I am just troubled that the contemporary sources are so negative. Were
> there any other historians/chroniclers who were actually writing in Richard's favor?
> > > > Ishita
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Only one chronicler, the second continuator, wrote about Richard
> > > (his
> whole portion of the chronicle being written in ten days, which would
> mean among other things that he didn't have time to check his facts.
> Margaret Beaufort was, if I understand correctly, a benefactress of
> the abbey, and, of course, Henry Tudor had recently been crowned king.
> It also appears that, even though the chronicler never suggested that
> Richard killed his nephews and only stated that a rumor had been
> spread to that effect, he didn't approve of Richard's deposing his
> nephew. He also appears to have had pro-Tudor informants, most
> probably Morton, as he knows information that no former minor official
> of Richard's turned Croyland monk could have had access to. Whoever he
> was, Williamson and others have conclusively shown that he couldn't
> have been Archbishop Russell, who was partially responsible for some
> of the policies that the chronicler criticized. Also, he makes errors
> on points that Russell would have known. Maybe he hoped for a
> promotion that he didn't get and instead of joining a rebellion, took
> out his sour grapes by writing a biased, incomplete, and in places
> inaccurate account of him in the abbey chronicle. Unfortunately, we have no pro-Richard chronicle to balance it out.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry to be a nuisance. I made a point yesterday in a post that Richard was (quite legitimately) chasing the clergy for money they'd owed since Edward IV's time. This was still going on in 1485. In fact the more I look at his pursuance of owed taxes, the more I admire him for his diligence, the coffers were empty, I think we have no dispute about that from any historian. It goes back to his being a 'deputy' who new where the chinks were he was 'inheriting' and trying to put things right for the common good.
>
> The clergy and some 'nobility' must have hated it and, MB apart, it wouldn't have been too hard to throw up a disgruntled cleric as the Continuator, or at least to prime one.
>
> PS the more I look at the shear hard work he undertook in those two years the more I admire him. H

Carol responds:

That's one possibility. However, the Croyland chronicler complains that Richard squandered the treasure that Edward had so painstakingly accumulated, conveniently ignoring or being unaware of the Woodville thefts from the Tower, so I don't think that was the cause of his disgruntlement. He probably didn't even know about Richard's diligent efforts to collect old debts. If he thought that Richard was robbing Croyland of its wealth, he would certainly have said so.

Carol

Thanks for that! I really felt for Castillo - I used this incident as the
introductory chapter of a novel centering around the marriage of Isabel and
Fernando. The project was planned as a shared one with my father, who
translated the chapters into Spanish as I drafted them. We were going to
see if we could do a bi-lingual electronic publishing job. He passed away
a couple of years ago, and I've let the project stall at page 24.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> That is fascinating!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Maria Torres
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:11 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Croyland Chroniclers
>
> Drawing once again on my tidbits from Spanish history as an example of
> chroniclers and their objectivity:
>
> In 1467, during the civil war in Castile between Enrique IV and his
> half-brother Alfonso (Isabel the Catholic's younger brother), Alfonso
> invaded Segovia and Enrique, with his allies, fled. in Enrique's company
> was his chronicler, friar Diego Enriquez Castillo. With Alfonso was a
> chronicler named Alfonso de Palencia, who was adamantly hostile to Enrique.
>
> Castillo left his chronicle in Segovia during the retreat. To paraphrase
> Townsend Miller, from his bio of Enrique, for reasons best known to
> himself, they were stored at a brothel. Alfonso's troops, in due course,
> visited the brothel, discovered the chronicle and brought it the attention
> of another powerful ally of Alfonso, the Archbishop of Toledo, whose name
> was Carrillo. Well, Castillo got a safe-conduct to return to Segovia for
> his belongings. Imagine his surprise when he was arrested and brought
> before Carrillo, who tore into the chronicle and the chronicler for what he
> claimed were abject lies.
>
> Castillo was at first sentenced to death (not for the chronicle, but
> because he was on the wrong side), but as he was a man of the cloth, he was
> spared. However. He was informed that Palencia would take charge of his
> chronicle and .... correct it. He ended up re-composing the work from
> memory. But here were two chroniclers very clearly writing from their own
> prejudices and loyalties. So Croyland's perspective is par for the course;
> as this anecdote shows, you never knew if and when someone influential
> could pick up your work and make you pay for it.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:39 AM, mairemulholland
> mairemulholland@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Thank you Carol for all your hard work. I find your results fascinating.
> > It gets us back to Kendall's view of Richard as an earnest worker-bee
> > type (Old Dick, indeed!) I hope he went after Morton for his cash. Maire.
> >
> > P.S.: I find it interesting that whenever a fact about Richard is
> > discovered or rediscovered, it always seems to benefit his reputation.
> > Am I wrong? Maire.
> >
> >
> > --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry to be a nuisance. I made a point yesterday in a post that
> > > Richard
> > was (quite legitimately) chasing the clergy for money they'd owed
> > since Edward IV's time. This was still going on in 1485. In fact the
> > more I look at his pursuance of owed taxes, the more I admire him for
> > his diligence, the coffers were empty, I think we have no dispute
> > about that from any historian. It goes back to his being a 'deputy'
> > who new where the chinks were he was 'inheriting' and trying to put
> things right for the common good.
> > >
> > > The clergy and some 'nobility' must have hated it and, MB apart, it
> > wouldn't have been too hard to throw up a disgruntled cleric as the
> > Continuator, or at least to prime one.
> > >
> > > PS the more I look at the shear hard work he undertook in those two
> > years the more I admire him. H
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am sure by now you guys are used to my ignorance! So do not be
> > aggravated with this question: why do you guys think the Croyland
> > Chroniclers were so hostile to Richard? Even Mancini for that matter?
> > I am just troubled that the contemporary sources are so negative. Were
> > there any other historians/chroniclers who were actually writing in
> Richard's favor?
> > > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Only one chronicler, the second continuator, wrote about Richard
> > > > (his
> > whole portion of the chronicle being written in ten days, which would
> > mean among other things that he didn't have time to check his facts.
> > Margaret Beaufort was, if I understand correctly, a benefactress of
> > the abbey, and, of course, Henry Tudor had recently been crowned king.
> > It also appears that, even though the chronicler never suggested that
> > Richard killed his nephews and only stated that a rumor had been
> > spread to that effect, he didn't approve of Richard's deposing his
> > nephew. He also appears to have had pro-Tudor informants, most
> > probably Morton, as he knows information that no former minor official
> > of Richard's turned Croyland monk could have had access to. Whoever he
> > was, Williamson and others have conclusively shown that he couldn't
> > have been Archbishop Russell, who was partially responsible for some
> > of the policies that the chronicler criticized. Also, he makes errors
> > on points that Russell would have known. Maybe he hoped for a
> > promotion that he didn't get and instead of joining a rebellion, took
> > out his sour grapes by writing a biased, incomplete, and in places
> > inaccurate account of him in the abbey chronicle. Unfortunately, we have
> no pro-Richard chronicle to balance it out.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Oh my, what a loss for you. I hope some day you do take up that book again.

On Feb 22, 2013, at 1:49 PM, "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...> wrote:

> Thanks for that! I really felt for Castillo - I used this incident as the
> introductory chapter of a novel centering around the marriage of Isabel and
> Fernando. The project was planned as a shared one with my father, who
> translated the chapters into Spanish as I drafted them. We were going to
> see if we could do a bi-lingual electronic publishing job. He passed away
> a couple of years ago, and I've let the project stall at page 24.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> That is fascinating!
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [mailto:
>> ] On Behalf Of Maria Torres
>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:11 AM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Re: Croyland Chroniclers
>>
>> Drawing once again on my tidbits from Spanish history as an example of
>> chroniclers and their objectivity:
>>
>> In 1467, during the civil war in Castile between Enrique IV and his
>> half-brother Alfonso (Isabel the Catholic's younger brother), Alfonso
>> invaded Segovia and Enrique, with his allies, fled. in Enrique's company
>> was his chronicler, friar Diego Enriquez Castillo. With Alfonso was a
>> chronicler named Alfonso de Palencia, who was adamantly hostile to Enrique.
>>
>> Castillo left his chronicle in Segovia during the retreat. To paraphrase
>> Townsend Miller, from his bio of Enrique, for reasons best known to
>> himself, they were stored at a brothel. Alfonso's troops, in due course,
>> visited the brothel, discovered the chronicle and brought it the attention
>> of another powerful ally of Alfonso, the Archbishop of Toledo, whose name
>> was Carrillo. Well, Castillo got a safe-conduct to return to Segovia for
>> his belongings. Imagine his surprise when he was arrested and brought
>> before Carrillo, who tore into the chronicle and the chronicler for what he
>> claimed were abject lies.
>>
>> Castillo was at first sentenced to death (not for the chronicle, but
>> because he was on the wrong side), but as he was a man of the cloth, he was
>> spared. However. He was informed that Palencia would take charge of his
>> chronicle and .... correct it. He ended up re-composing the work from
>> memory. But here were two chroniclers very clearly writing from their own
>> prejudices and loyalties. So Croyland's perspective is par for the course;
>> as this anecdote shows, you never knew if and when someone influential
>> could pick up your work and make you pay for it.
>>
>> Maria
>> ejbronte@...
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:39 AM, mairemulholland
>> mairemulholland@...
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you Carol for all your hard work. I find your results fascinating.
>>> It gets us back to Kendall's view of Richard as an earnest worker-bee
>>> type (Old Dick, indeed!) I hope he went after Morton for his cash. Maire.
>>>
>>> P.S.: I find it interesting that whenever a fact about Richard is
>>> discovered or rediscovered, it always seems to benefit his reputation.
>>> Am I wrong? Maire.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to be a nuisance. I made a point yesterday in a post that
>>>> Richard
>>> was (quite legitimately) chasing the clergy for money they'd owed
>>> since Edward IV's time. This was still going on in 1485. In fact the
>>> more I look at his pursuance of owed taxes, the more I admire him for
>>> his diligence, the coffers were empty, I think we have no dispute
>>> about that from any historian. It goes back to his being a 'deputy'
>>> who new where the chinks were he was 'inheriting' and trying to put
>> things right for the common good.
>>>>
>>>> The clergy and some 'nobility' must have hated it and, MB apart, it
>>> wouldn't have been too hard to throw up a disgruntled cleric as the
>>> Continuator, or at least to prime one.
>>>>
>>>> PS the more I look at the shear hard work he undertook in those two
>>> years the more I admire him. H
>>>>
>>>> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am sure by now you guys are used to my ignorance! So do not be
>>> aggravated with this question: why do you guys think the Croyland
>>> Chroniclers were so hostile to Richard? Even Mancini for that matter?
>>> I am just troubled that the contemporary sources are so negative. Were
>>> there any other historians/chroniclers who were actually writing in
>> Richard's favor?
>>>>>> Ishita
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>>
>>>>> Only one chronicler, the second continuator, wrote about Richard
>>>>> (his
>>> whole portion of the chronicle being written in ten days, which would
>>> mean among other things that he didn't have time to check his facts.
>>> Margaret Beaufort was, if I understand correctly, a benefactress of
>>> the abbey, and, of course, Henry Tudor had recently been crowned king.
>>> It also appears that, even though the chronicler never suggested that
>>> Richard killed his nephews and only stated that a rumor had been
>>> spread to that effect, he didn't approve of Richard's deposing his
>>> nephew. He also appears to have had pro-Tudor informants, most
>>> probably Morton, as he knows information that no former minor official
>>> of Richard's turned Croyland monk could have had access to. Whoever he
>>> was, Williamson and others have conclusively shown that he couldn't
>>> have been Archbishop Russell, who was partially responsible for some
>>> of the policies that the chronicler criticized. Also, he makes errors
>>> on points that Russell would have known. Maybe he hoped for a
>>> promotion that he didn't get and instead of joining a rebellion, took
>>> out his sour grapes by writing a biased, incomplete, and in places
>>> inaccurate account of him in the abbey chronicle. Unfortunately, we have
>> no pro-Richard chronicle to balance it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I'm not saying that - and Croyland wasn't the main subject of Richard's collections. I'm saying that there could easily have been dissent amongst the Church and indeed the nobility about Richard's diligence in tax collection and our guy who wrote this could have been convinced by others that these collections were taking place because Richard had squandered money. It only had to be whispered in his ear by a highter authority such as MB or Russell.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 17:58
Subject: Re: Croyland Chroniclers

 



--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Sorry to be a nuisance. I made a point yesterday in a post that Richard was (quite legitimately) chasing the clergy for money they'd owed since Edward IV's time. This was still going on in 1485. In fact the more I look at his pursuance of owed taxes, the more I admire him for his diligence, the coffers were empty, I think we have no dispute about that from any historian. It goes back to his being a 'deputy' who new where the chinks were he was 'inheriting' and trying to put things right for the common good.
>
> The clergy and some 'nobility' must have hated it and, MB apart, it wouldn't have been too hard to throw up a disgruntled cleric as the Continuator, or at least to prime one.
>
> PS the more I look at the shear hard work he undertook in those two years the more I admire him. H

Carol responds:

That's one possibility. However, the Croyland chronicler complains that Richard squandered the treasure that Edward had so painstakingly accumulated, conveniently ignoring or being unaware of the Woodville thefts from the Tower, so I don't think that was the cause of his disgruntlement. He probably didn't even know about Richard's diligent efforts to collect old debts. If he thought that Richard was robbing Croyland of its wealth, he would certainly have said so.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I'm not saying that - and Croyland wasn't the main subject of Richard's collections. I'm saying that there could easily have been dissent amongst the Church and indeed the nobility about Richard's diligence in tax collection and our guy who wrote this could have been convinced by others that these collections were taking place because Richard had squandered money. It only had to be whispered in his ear by a highter authority such as MB or Russell.
>
Carol responds:

Hardly Russell, who was at least partially responsible for these same policies. Morton, that inveterate rumor spreader, quite possibly. Or MB, but that seems less likely as I doubt that women ever visited monasteries. But I think that our chronicler was much more concerned about other matters, in particular Richard's deposition of his nephew and possibly the Hastings affair. He believed the rumors about Richard's intending to marry his niece, which shows that he was not as well informed as many historians think, and he clearly had information relating to Tudor's whereabouts that only a Tudor source could have provided, which again points to Morton.

I'm not saying that taxes had nothing to do with it, only that if it did, it was apparently not the chronicler's only grievance. And that petition that I quoted from dated January 1484 clearly shows that the most influential clergy members, including his lord chancellor, Bishop Russell; Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury; and even Rotherham, Archbishop of York (a Woodville partisan during the Protectorate) shows that Richard, labeled "a most Catholic Prince" whose "most noble and blessed disposition" in all matters related to the public good was well known, was held in high regard by the most prestigious members of the clergy.

Apologies for the length and complexity of my sentences--that's how I think. I hope those sentences don't render my posts unintelligible.

BTW, my eyes, which are the opposite of myopic (far-sighted, as we say in the U.S.) are killing me and my posts blur in front of me as I type, another reason why they may appear incoherent or contain uncaught errors. Eyestrain from all this posting, probably.

Carol

Carol

Carol

Hi Ishita,

There are probably many reasons why all major chronicle sources are hostile. The first is the obvious one that pro-Richard chronicles would have been dangerous possessions after Bosworth, especially if they expressed a view about Henry Tudor's pretensions. Two very brief chronicles have turned up in recent decades, the Historical Notes of a London Citizen and the Frowyk chronicle. These are just brief political diary jottings but seem to be favourable to Richard as far as they go.
To look at what survives in details:-

1) Crowland. There are internal indications that most of the stuff on Richard's reign was written up after Bosworth, so it is almost bound to be hostile. Add to this the fact that Margaret Beaufort was a patron of the abbey.....

2) Mancini. Mancini's account is actually rather contradictory. The first half of it reports very favourably about Richard. Then there is a change of tone as events proceed. He seems to have written up most of the actual events of June 1483 after the event, probably in France, where he tells us he spoke to Edward V's physician Dr Argentine. You can tell there was a time lag between the events and the writing up because Mancini reverses the order of Hastings' execution and little York's delivery from sanctuary. We are often told that Mancini had been sent to England to report on events, but in fact we don't know why he came to England, only that his French patron, the Archbishop of Vienne, recalled him after Richard assumed the throne and asked him to write up a reort on what he had seen. My suspicion is that Mancini had not been in England as a political observer at all and hadn't been taking notes. He told the Archbishop that his MS was late (he finished it in mid December) because he had had to check a lot of his facts, including the names of many important persons.
Argentine certainly told Mancini that Edward V was depressed and fearing the worst (ie death), and he was probably also the person responsible for Mancini's account of the events at Stony Stratford.
Basically, Mancini's version was written for the French, who were suspicious of Richard, and his account of the Protectorate may have been based almost entirely on the report of Edward V's physisican (dismissed by Richard), who was later to be physician to Prince Arthur.

3) Rous originally wrote glowingly of Richard, then rewrote his works in a hostile tone for the benefit of the new regime. As with Mancini his Historia remains very inconsistent - great praise one minute and damning indictment the next.

Also, what may have been destroyed? The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle, or patron's book, for example, of which we only have 16th-century copies, stops abruptly after Isabel Neville's death. Did the original MS end there, or when it was taken from the Abbey (at the Dissolution?) were some of the later sections of it found to be unacceptable and torn out? How many other chronicles were ditched? Was the lost source of the three London chronicles Vitellius AXVI, the New Chronicles and the Great Chronicle as hostile to Richard as they are, or was it lost for political reasons?

Of course there are positive accounts of Richard, but they're not the public narrative accounts. They come in sources like the York civic records and contemporary letters (such as that of the Bishop of St Davids).

Written in haste so apologies for any factual slips,

marie




--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I am sure by now you guys are used to my ignorance! So do not be aggravated with this question: why do you guys think the Croyland Chroniclers were so hostile to Richard? Even Mancini for that matter? I am just troubled that the contemporary sources are so negative. Were there any other historians/chroniclers who were actually writing in Richard's favor?
> Ishita
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>

I meant to reply to your earlier post on that - it is fascinating. Which series of Exchequer docs have you been studying, and are you planning to write a paper or owt on the subject?
Marie

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry to be a nuisance. I made a point yesterday in a post that Richard was (quite legitimately) chasing the clergy for money they'd owed since Edward IV's time. This was still going on in 1485. In fact the more I look at his pursuance of owed taxes, the more I admire him for his diligence, the coffers were empty, I think we have no dispute about that from any historian. It goes back to his being a 'deputy' who new where the chinks were he was 'inheriting' and trying to put things right for the common good.
>
> The clergy and some 'nobility' must have hated it and, MB apart, it wouldn't have been too hard to throw up a disgruntled cleric as the Continuator, or at least to prime one.
>
> PS the more I look at the shear hard work he undertook in those two years the more I admire him. H
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > I am sure by now you guys are used to my ignorance! So do not be aggravated with this question: why do you guys think the Croyland Chroniclers were so hostile to Richard? Even Mancini for that matter? I am just troubled that the contemporary sources are so negative. Were there any other historians/chroniclers who were actually writing in Richard's favor?
> > > Ishita
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Only one chronicler, the second continuator, wrote about Richard (his whole portion of the chronicle being written in ten days, which would mean among other things that he didn't have time to check his facts. Margaret Beaufort was, if I understand correctly, a benefactress of the abbey, and, of course, Henry Tudor had recently been crowned king. It also appears that, even though the chronicler never suggested that Richard killed his nephews and only stated that a rumor had been spread to that effect, he didn't approve of Richard's deposing his nephew. He also appears to have had pro-Tudor informants, most probably Morton, as he knows information that no former minor official of Richard's turned Croyland monk could have had access to. Whoever he was, Williamson and others have conclusively shown that he couldn't have been Archbishop Russell, who was partially responsible for some of the policies that the chronicler criticized. Also, he makes errors on points that Russell would have known. Maybe he hoped for a promotion that he didn't get and instead of joining a rebellion, took out his sour grapes by writing a biased, incomplete, and in places inaccurate account of him in the abbey chronicle. Unfortunately, we have no pro-Richard chronicle to balance it out.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

I'm certainly not saying it was the only grievance, I just think we pay too much attention to what we think was 'headline news'. How many people were really interested in the fate of the Princes - my guess not many? If we were looking at later centuries we'd be saying what did the people think, were there years of bad harvest, how was trade doing etc etc. Taxes on the towns, taxes on the Church re-verberate down and cause a focus for discontent. Of course the top clergy would say good things to his face - but would they mean it? Richard was dabbling; in Ireland, in the ports where he forbade piracy except against English enemies, and in imposing back taxes that would have caused moans. After a few years' of lethargy on the part of Edward this administrative beaver had appeared and was chasing things up. One way to attack him is not head on but through gossip, rumour etc - just like the Press today. JUST my opinion.
 
And yes I can read your posts thanks. I've just come back to over 300 so am drowning. so apologies no hard feelings.  H  


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 22:09
Subject: Re: Croyland Chroniclers

 



Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I'm not saying that - and Croyland wasn't the main subject of Richard's collections. I'm saying that there could easily have been dissent amongst the Church and indeed the nobility about Richard's diligence in tax collection and our guy who wrote this could have been convinced by others that these collections were taking place because Richard had squandered money. It only had to be whispered in his ear by a highter authority such as MB or Russell.
>
Carol responds:

Hardly Russell, who was at least partially responsible for these same policies. Morton, that inveterate rumor spreader, quite possibly. Or MB, but that seems less likely as I doubt that women ever visited monasteries. But I think that our chronicler was much more concerned about other matters, in particular Richard's deposition of his nephew and possibly the Hastings affair. He believed the rumors about Richard's intending to marry his niece, which shows that he was not as well informed as many historians think, and he clearly had information relating to Tudor's whereabouts that only a Tudor source could have provided, which again points to Morton.

I'm not saying that taxes had nothing to do with it, only that if it did, it was apparently not the chronicler's only grievance. And that petition that I quoted from dated January 1484 clearly shows that the most influential clergy members, including his lord chancellor, Bishop Russell; Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury; and even Rotherham, Archbishop of York (a Woodville partisan during the Protectorate) shows that Richard, labeled "a most Catholic Prince" whose "most noble and blessed disposition" in all matters related to the public good was well known, was held in high regard by the most prestigious members of the clergy.

Apologies for the length and complexity of my sentences--that's how I think. I hope those sentences don't render my posts unintelligible.

BTW, my eyes, which are the opposite of myopic (far-sighted, as we say in the U.S.) are killing me and my posts blur in front of me as I type, another reason why they may appear incoherent or contain uncaught errors. Eyestrain from all this posting, probably.

Carol

Carol

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I'm certainly not saying it was the only grievance, I just think we pay too much attention to what we think was 'headline news'. How many people were really interested in the fate of the Princes - my guess not many? If we were looking at later centuries we'd be saying what did the people think, were there years of bad harvest, how was trade doing etc etc. Taxes on the towns, taxes on the Church re-verberate down and cause a focus for discontent. Of course the top clergy would say good things to his face - but would they mean it? Richard was dabbling; in Ireland, in the ports where he forbade piracy except against English enemies, and in imposing back taxes that would have caused moans. After a few years' of lethargy on the part of Edward this administrative beaver had appeared and was chasing things up. One way to attack him is not head on but through gossip, rumour etc - just like the Press today. JUST my opinion.

Carol responds:

I agree with you that the majority of Englishmen (and -women) neither knew nor cared about the so-called Princes in the Tower and that their main concern was their daily lives. Richard, as we know, was concerned about the common people and helped any poor man who came to him personally (as Langton, a priest, testified). Henry, on the other hand, was exceedingly unpopular--in part because of taxes.

But interesting as your discoveries are, Richard's attempts to collect taxes did not make him enemies among churchmen. The only priests who rebelled against him were Tudor supporters to begin with, Morton and Christopher Urswick. There is no question that the Croyland chronicler, also a priest (he identifies himself as a doctor of canon law), was unhappy with Richard and considered him a bad man, but his specific complaints relate to the "usurpation," Richard's supposed squandering of the treasury, Richard's lavish Christmas celebration with all its "vain changes of clothing" and frivolous pleasures, and the execution of Hastings. Not a single word about collecting taxes. And, of course, he was writing too late to hurt Richard (unless you count his use as a source by historians). Richard was already dead.

The rumors against Richard during his lifetime (his nephews had been killed, none knew how; he had poisoned his wife and planned to marry his niece) were clearly the work of political enemies, that is, Tudor partisans, the Woodville faction having been neutralized. The Croyland chronicler is reporting the rumors and believes the part about Richard intending to marry his niece, but that does not mean he helped to *spread* the rumors. In any case, he seems to have left the court by this time and to be reporting sometimes unreliable secondhand information by this point.

I know you didn't bring this up, but it's important in that it shows just who *was* discontented by Richard's rule. The people who rebelled against Richard were not priests who disliked his taxes (none ever complained that we know of and as I said, the priests openly and publicly praised him for his blessed conduct in dealing with various matters as the reason for their appeal to him) or people unhappy with his anti-piracy policies (the merchants of London, who benefited from these policies, were not among the rebels, either). Henry's army consisted pf French mercenaries (the French were afraid that Richard would take advantage of their minority kingship and make war on them), a group of Welshmen under Rhys ap Thomas (lured either by Henry's bribe or his propaganda), his own diehard Lancastrian followers, the same disaffected Yorkists that Richard had earlier removed from office but chosen not to execute after the Buckingham rebellion, and the followers of the traitor William Stanley. (Lord Stanley and Northumberland don't count as they apparently could not make up their minds.)

Taxation was not a cause for rebellion )or rumors) against Richard (though Henry did have to deal with at least one tax-related uprising). Displacement by his Northern followers was the chief cause of disgruntlement among former Yorkists who had served under Edward. But the common people of England were probably as surprised by the news that Henry Tudor had defeated Richard as they were that Richard had deposed his nephew. They probably shook their heads in wonderment, clucked their tongues a little, and went back to their daily lives.

Carol

Carol wrote:
//snip//
"There is no question that the Croyland chronicler, also a priest (he
identifies himself as a doctor of canon law), was unhappy with Richard and
considered him a bad man, but his specific complaints relate to the
"usurpation," Richard's supposed squandering of the treasury, Richard's
lavish Christmas celebration with all its "vain changes of clothing" and
frivolous pleasures, and the execution of Hastings. Not a single word about
collecting taxes."

Doug here:
There are a couple of references, however, to how those tax monies were
being spent. Perhaps that was as far as the "Chronicler" thought it wise to
go? I certainly agree that taxes, per se, were not likely to be a "direct"
cause of anyone supporting Tudor and that there's no direct evidence of it,
but couldn't Richard's actions to gather in over-due, etc taxes, influenced
someone already so inclined? Especially some of those "dissaffected
Yorkists" you mentioned later in your post? That is just complete
speculation on my part, however. I will say that, IF the fear of actually
having to pay the taxes they owed did help tip any disgruntled Yorkists
towards helping Tudor - boy, were they in for a surprise!
I "snipped" the rest of your post, but do want to say that I agree with your
summation.
Doug

The rumors against Richard during his lifetime (his nephews had been killed,
none knew how; he had poisoned his wife and planned to marry his niece) were
clearly the work of political enemies, that is, Tudor partisans, the
Woodville faction having been neutralized. The Croyland chronicler is
reporting the rumors and believes the part about Richard intending to marry
his niece, but that does not mean he helped to *spread* the rumors. In any
case, he seems to have left the court by this time and to be reporting
sometimes unreliable secondhand information by this point.

I know you didn't bring this up, but it's important in that it shows just
who *was* discontented by Richard's rule. The people who rebelled against
Richard were not priests who disliked his taxes (none ever complained that
we know of and as I said, the priests openly and publicly praised him for
his blessed conduct in dealing with various matters as the reason for their
appeal to him) or people unhappy with his anti-piracy policies (the
merchants of London, who benefited from these policies, were not among the
rebels, either). Henry's army consisted pf French mercenaries (the French
were afraid that Richard would take advantage of their minority kingship and
make war on them), a group of Welshmen under Rhys ap Thomas (lured either by
Henry's bribe or his propaganda), his own diehard Lancastrian followers, the
same disaffected Yorkists that Richard had earlier removed from office but
chosen not to execute after the Buckingham rebellion, and the followers of
the traitor William Stanley. (Lord Stanley and Northumberland don't count as
they apparently could not make up their minds.)

Taxation was not a cause for rebellion )or rumors) against Richard (though
Henry did have to deal with at least one tax-related uprising). Displacement
by his Northern followers was the chief cause of disgruntlement among former
Yorkists who had served under Edward. But the common people of England were
probably as surprised by the news that Henry Tudor had defeated Richard as
they were that Richard had deposed his nephew. They probably shook their
heads in wonderment, clucked their tongues a little, and went back to their
daily lives.

Carol



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links