Battlefield Site

Not sure if anyone is interested but I actually live on the real Battlefield site. I kind of knew that the battlefield was somewhere near me because of Peter Foss's "Field of Redemore: the Battle of Bosworth , 1485". The fields around me get waterlogged quite easily and there is a real problem with drainage. This supports the marshland presumption.



Just so you know the fields where the battle took place are just off the A5 on an old roman road (Fenn Lanes). The likely location of the battle stretches over farmland and probably an airfield as well. A group (not sure who) did some metal detecting here quite a while ago now, they found a lot of objects that are now displayed in the Bosworth Battefield centre.



I remember someone saying that where our house is now there used to be a huge bog, which is interesting. If our house wasn't on top of the bog, I wonder what they could have potentially have found.



I'm also quite surprised that this site's forum is just a Yahoo group! I thought it would have it's own forum board. I've just set a forum board up myself, it's very simple!



Anyway enjoy, hope this was somewhat interesting. If you need any information just ask.



Regards,

Zak

Dear Zak,

Thanks so much for the info! I live abroad and am planning to visit
Bosworth next year (and other places). If you don't mind, I'll get in touch
then as I would LOVE to visit the real site.

Kind regards,
Angela
South-Africa

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Zak Rowland-Jones
<zrowlandjones@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Not sure if anyone is interested but I actually live on the real
> Battlefield site. I kind of knew that the battlefield was somewhere near me
> because of Peter Foss's "Field of Redemore: the Battle of Bosworth , 1485".
> The fields around me get waterlogged quite easily and there is a real
> problem with drainage. This supports the marshland presumption.
>
> Just so you know the fields where the battle took place are just off the
> A5 on an old roman road (Fenn Lanes). The likely location of the battle
> stretches over farmland and probably an airfield as well. A group (not sure
> who) did some metal detecting here quite a while ago now, they found a lot
> of objects that are now displayed in the Bosworth Battefield centre.
>
> I remember someone saying that where our house is now there used to be a
> huge bog, which is interesting. If our house wasn't on top of the bog, I
> wonder what they could have potentially have found.
>
> I'm also quite surprised that this site's forum is just a Yahoo group! I
> thought it would have it's own forum board. I've just set a forum board up
> myself, it's very simple!
>
> Anyway enjoy, hope this was somewhat interesting. If you need any
> information just ask.
>
> Regards,
>
> Zak
>
>
>
>
>
>

Many thanks Zak, I live down the road at Rugby. May take a trip and peer over the fence. We have indeed all been struggling with Yahoo lately due to the increased volume.  Hilary



________________________________
From: Zak Rowland-Jones <zrowlandjones@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 10:28
Subject: Battlefield Site

 


Not sure if anyone is interested but I actually live on the real Battlefield site. I kind of knew that the battlefield was somewhere near me because of Peter Foss's "Field of Redemore: the Battle of Bosworth , 1485". The fields around me get waterlogged quite easily and there is a real problem with drainage. This supports the marshland presumption.

Just so you know the fields where the battle took place are just off the A5 on an old roman road (Fenn Lanes). The likely location of the battle stretches over farmland and probably an airfield as well. A group (not sure who) did some metal detecting here quite a while ago now, they found a lot of objects that are now displayed in the Bosworth Battefield centre.

I remember someone saying that where our house is now there used to be a huge bog, which is interesting. If our house wasn't on top of the bog, I wonder what they could have potentially have found.

I'm also quite surprised that this site's forum is just a Yahoo group! I thought it would have it's own forum board. I've just set a forum board up myself, it's very simple!

Anyway enjoy, hope this was somewhat interesting. If you need any information just ask.

Regards,

Zak

From: Zak Rowland-Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:28 AM
Subject: Battlefield Site


> Just so you know the fields where the battle took place are just off the
> A5 on an old roman road (Fenn Lanes). The likely location of the battle
> stretches over farmland and probably an airfield as well. A group (not
> sure who) did some metal detecting here quite a while ago now, they found
> a lot of objects that are now displayed in the Bosworth Battefield centre.

Richard's base must have been at a high point, otherwise he wouldn't have
been able to see Henry's position across the press of the battle. Looking
at Google Maps I take it we're saying that the king was at Ambien Hill and
then when he charged he was heading south-west? And the airfield is the one
which used to be by Stoke Golding?

The airfield is still in use along the Fenn lanes, just outside of Dadlington. If you see a crossroads on Google maps you're more than likely close by.




To:
From: whitehound@...
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:47:51 +0000
Subject: Re: Battlefield Site





From: Zak Rowland-Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:28 AM
Subject: Battlefield Site

> Just so you know the fields where the battle took place are just off the
> A5 on an old roman road (Fenn Lanes). The likely location of the battle
> stretches over farmland and probably an airfield as well. A group (not
> sure who) did some metal detecting here quite a while ago now, they found
> a lot of objects that are now displayed in the Bosworth Battefield centre.

Richard's base must have been at a high point, otherwise he wouldn't have
been able to see Henry's position across the press of the battle. Looking
at Google Maps I take it we're saying that the king was at Ambien Hill and
then when he charged he was heading south-west? And the airfield is the one
which used to be by Stoke Golding?

Thanks Zak. Definitely a trip out.



________________________________
From: Zak Rowland-Jones <zrowlandjones@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 13:26
Subject: RE: Battlefield Site


The airfield is still in use along the Fenn lanes, just outside of Dadlington. If you see a crossroads on Google maps you're more than likely close by.




To:
From: whitehound@...
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:47:51 +0000
Subject: Re: Battlefield Site

 



From: Zak Rowland-Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:28 AM
Subject: Battlefield Site

> Just so you know the fields where the battle took place are just off the
> A5 on an old roman road (Fenn Lanes). The likely location of the battle
> stretches over farmland and probably an airfield as well. A group (not
> sure who) did some metal detecting here quite a while ago now, they found
> a lot of objects that are now displayed in the Bosworth Battefield centre.

Richard's base must have been at a high point, otherwise he wouldn't have
been able to see Henry's position across the press of the battle. Looking
at Google Maps I take it we're saying that the king was at Ambien Hill and
then when he charged he was heading south-west? And the airfield is the one
which used to be by Stoke Golding?





                       





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: "Zak Rowland-Jones" <zrowlandjones@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:26 PM
Subject: RE: Battlefield Site


>
> The airfield is still in use along the Fenn lanes, just outside of
> Dadlington. If you see a crossroads on Google maps you're more than likely
> close by.

Yes, right, I see it, west-south-west of Ambien Hill, so if that's the
extreme edge of the battlefield and it clustered around Fenn Lanes, then the
battle was broadly south-west of Richard's position. In high summer the sun
rises a bit north of due east so at dawn the sun would have been almost
directly behind Richard and a little to his left, seen from the centre of
the battle. Where does that leave us in re. the near-contemporary
descriptions? Can we work out where Henry was?

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Battlefield Site


> Yes, right, I see it, west-south-west of Ambien Hill,

Sorry, my mistype, I meant to say south-south-west.

Sorry I am not an expert on the subject. My love is for Ancient Egyptian history but I will try and tell you some details that I know. Plus I am at work so I have to be quick. At the battlefield centre on Ambien hill they have a memorial for Richard, next to that is a wooden frame like structure (like a framed painting without the painting) and from that you have a perfect vantage point of our farm and the battlefield. Is it not possible then that Henry would have just set up camp along the Fenn Lanes or A5 on flat land? Though I am unsure of which direction Henry would have came from.



But if Richard was camped on Ambien Hill and Henry was camped near where the battle took place Richard would have had a perfect vantage point if the landscape was somewhat like it is today.




To:
From: whitehound@...
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:05:23 +0000
Subject: Re: Battlefield Site





From: "Zak Rowland-Jones" zrowlandjones@...>
To: >
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:26 PM
Subject: RE: Battlefield Site

>
> The airfield is still in use along the Fenn lanes, just outside of
> Dadlington. If you see a crossroads on Google maps you're more than likely
> close by.

Yes, right, I see it, west-south-west of Ambien Hill, so if that's the
extreme edge of the battlefield and it clustered around Fenn Lanes, then the
battle was broadly south-west of Richard's position. In high summer the sun
rises a bit north of due east so at dawn the sun would have been almost
directly behind Richard and a little to his left, seen from the centre of
the battle. Where does that leave us in re. the near-contemporary
descriptions? Can we work out where Henry was?

If you get into Lancashire/Merseyside DO consider a look at Ormskirk Church. This is the site of the burial of  the first Earl of Derby, Who, as 'Lord Stanley' was, it seems, the man whose treachery [Or adherence to Henry] depending on one's viewpoint, seemingly swung the 'Battle of Bosworth' in favour of  his stepson, Henry Tudor.

Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Angela Lowe <angela.lowe4@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 11:11
>Subject: Re: Battlefield Site
>
>Dear Zak,
>
>Thanks so much for the info! I live abroad and am planning to visit
>Bosworth next year (and other places). If you don't mind, I'll get in touch
>then as I would LOVE to visit the real site.
>
>Kind regards,
>Angela
>South-Africa
>
>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Zak Rowland-Jones
><zrowlandjones@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>> Not sure if anyone is interested but I actually live on the real
>> Battlefield site. I kind of knew that the battlefield was somewhere near me
>> because of Peter Foss's "Field of Redemore: the Battle of Bosworth , 1485".
>> The fields around me get waterlogged quite easily and there is a real
>> problem with drainage. This supports the marshland presumption.
>>
>> Just so you know the fields where the battle took place are just off the
>> A5 on an old roman road (Fenn Lanes). The likely location of the battle
>> stretches over farmland and probably an airfield as well. A group (not sure
>> who) did some metal detecting here quite a while ago now, they found a lot
>> of objects that are now displayed in the Bosworth Battefield centre.
>>
>> I remember someone saying that where our house is now there used to be a
>> huge bog, which is interesting. If our house wasn't on top of the bog, I
>> wonder what they could have potentially have found.
>>
>> I'm also quite surprised that this site's forum is just a Yahoo group! I
>> thought it would have it's own forum board. I've just set a forum board up
>> myself, it's very simple!
>>
>> Anyway enjoy, hope this was somewhat interesting. If you need any
>> information just ask.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Zak
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Battlefield Site


> If you get into Lancashire/Merseyside DO consider a look at Ormskirk
> Church. This is the site of the burial of the first Earl of Derby, Who,
> as 'Lord Stanley' was, it seems, the man whose treachery [Or adherence to
> Henry]

Or loyalty to his wife - he was in a helluva position, and he seems not to
have moved until it looked like his wife's only child might actually be
killed, as opposed to driven back into exile.

Yes, IT DOES seem strange that, despite her inability to have children, Margaret Beaufort attracted him as a husband.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 16:06
>Subject: Re: Battlefield Site
>
>
> 
>From: Arthurian
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:31 PM
>Subject: Re: Battlefield Site
>
>> If you get into Lancashire/Merseyside DO consider a look at Ormskirk
>> Church. This is the site of the burial of the first Earl of Derby, Who,
>> as 'Lord Stanley' was, it seems, the man whose treachery [Or adherence to
>> Henry]
>
>Or loyalty to his wife - he was in a helluva position, and he seems not to
>have moved until it looked like his wife's only child might actually be
>killed, as opposed to driven back into exile.
>
>
>
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Or loyalty to his wife - he was in a helluva position, and he seems not to have moved until it looked like his wife's only child might actually be killed, as opposed to driven back into exile.

Carol responds:

If he actually cared about his wife's only child (Henry Tudor), wouldn't he have joined in the battle? Lord Stanley's record shows that he really only cared about himself. He had, after all, turned over his own son (a confessed traitor) to Richard, probably knowing that his son would be (rightly) executed for treason if Richard won the battle. And he was, after all, Richard's constable and wielded considerable power over him. I think he was just ambivalent (and he had a record of avoiding battle if he had the choice).

Carol

I think we may have the Stanleys confused, because the Stanley who attacked Richard is not the Stanley who was married to Margaret Beaufort.

1. Lord Thomas Stanley (married to Margaret Beaufort; the Tydder's step-father) sat out the battle with his little army and did nothing. He is the one who was Richard's Lord High Constable and King of Mann.

2. George, Lord Strange (the son of Sir William Stanley and the nephew of Lord Thomas) was caught trying to escape Nottingham Castle to go and join his father. Strange confessed that his father (Sir William) and himself were going to support Tudor. Strange insisted his uncle, Lord Thomas Stanley, was not involved with the Tudor.

3. After hearing Strange's confession, Richard declared Sir William Stanley a traitor (a few days before Bosworth) and notified the sheriffs of same.

4. Sir William Stanley (step-brother to the Tydder) and his little army are the ones who attacked Richard and his knights. In 1483 (under Edward's reigh, I think?) this Stanley was made Chief Justice of North Wales. After Richard III came to the throne he was awarded more land in North Wales for his loyal services.

~Weds


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> > Or loyalty to his wife - he was in a helluva position, and he seems not to have moved until it looked like his wife's only child might actually be killed, as opposed to driven back into exile.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> If he actually cared about his wife's only child (Henry Tudor), wouldn't he have joined in the battle? Lord Stanley's record shows that he really only cared about himself. He had, after all, turned over his own son (a confessed traitor) to Richard, probably knowing that his son would be (rightly) executed for treason if Richard won the battle. And he was, after all, Richard's constable and wielded considerable power over him. I think he was just ambivalent (and he had a record of avoiding battle if he had the choice).
>
> Carol
>

You are right that, as at previous battles, (Lord) Thomas Stanley is likely to have turned up with an armchair and a good book whilst Sir William fought. The records were probably fiddled after 1495, when Sir William had a few inches off the top.
However, Strange was Lord Stanley's son and they died in the same year.
----- Original Message -----
From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:23 PM
Subject: Sir William Stanley / Lord Thomas Stanley



I think we may have the Stanleys confused, because the Stanley who attacked Richard is not the Stanley who was married to Margaret Beaufort.

1. Lord Thomas Stanley (married to Margaret Beaufort; the Tydder's step-father) sat out the battle with his little army and did nothing. He is the one who was Richard's Lord High Constable and King of Mann.

2. George, Lord Strange (the son of Sir William Stanley and the nephew of Lord Thomas) was caught trying to escape Nottingham Castle to go and join his father. Strange confessed that his father (Sir William) and himself were going to support Tudor. Strange insisted his uncle, Lord Thomas Stanley, was not involved with the Tudor.

3. After hearing Strange's confession, Richard declared Sir William Stanley a traitor (a few days before Bosworth) and notified the sheriffs of same.

4. Sir William Stanley (step-brother to the Tydder) and his little army are the ones who attacked Richard and his knights. In 1483 (under Edward's reigh, I think?) this Stanley was made Chief Justice of North Wales. After Richard III came to the throne he was awarded more land in North Wales for his loyal services.

~Weds

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> > Or loyalty to his wife - he was in a helluva position, and he seems not to have moved until it looked like his wife's only child might actually be killed, as opposed to driven back into exile.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> If he actually cared about his wife's only child (Henry Tudor), wouldn't he have joined in the battle? Lord Stanley's record shows that he really only cared about himself. He had, after all, turned over his own son (a confessed traitor) to Richard, probably knowing that his son would be (rightly) executed for treason if Richard won the battle. And he was, after all, Richard's constable and wielded considerable power over him. I think he was just ambivalent (and he had a record of avoiding battle if he had the choice).
>
> Carol
>

From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Sir William Stanley / Lord Thomas
Stanley


> You are right that, as at previous battles, (Lord) Thomas Stanley is
> likely to have turned up with an armchair and a good book whilst Sir
> William fought. The records were probably fiddled after 1495, when Sir
> William had a few inches off the top.
However, Strange was Lord Stanley's son and they died in the same year.

Ah, I *thought* so! Wednesday had me worried. I'd always beleived that if
the "I have other sons" thing was true then it meant "My wife only has one
son", and that depended on Strange being Henry's step-brother.

Which one of them, Thomas or William, was it who referred to Richard as "Old
Dick"?

People like Thomas Stanley usually managed to die with their boots on...in their own bed...safe and sound. Eileen

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> You are right that, as at previous battles, (Lord) Thomas Stanley is likely to have turned up with an armchair and a good book whilst Sir William fought. The records were probably fiddled after 1495, when Sir William had a few inches off the top.
> However, Strange was Lord Stanley's son and they died in the same year.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wednesday_mc
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:23 PM
> Subject: Sir William Stanley / Lord Thomas Stanley
>
>
>
> I think we may have the Stanleys confused, because the Stanley who attacked Richard is not the Stanley who was married to Margaret Beaufort.
>
> 1. Lord Thomas Stanley (married to Margaret Beaufort; the Tydder's step-father) sat out the battle with his little army and did nothing. He is the one who was Richard's Lord High Constable and King of Mann.
>
> 2. George, Lord Strange (the son of Sir William Stanley and the nephew of Lord Thomas) was caught trying to escape Nottingham Castle to go and join his father. Strange confessed that his father (Sir William) and himself were going to support Tudor. Strange insisted his uncle, Lord Thomas Stanley, was not involved with the Tudor.
>
> 3. After hearing Strange's confession, Richard declared Sir William Stanley a traitor (a few days before Bosworth) and notified the sheriffs of same.
>
> 4. Sir William Stanley (step-brother to the Tydder) and his little army are the ones who attacked Richard and his knights. In 1483 (under Edward's reigh, I think?) this Stanley was made Chief Justice of North Wales. After Richard III came to the throne he was awarded more land in North Wales for his loyal services.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > > Or loyalty to his wife - he was in a helluva position, and he seems not to have moved until it looked like his wife's only child might actually be killed, as opposed to driven back into exile.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > If he actually cared about his wife's only child (Henry Tudor), wouldn't he have joined in the battle? Lord Stanley's record shows that he really only cared about himself. He had, after all, turned over his own son (a confessed traitor) to Richard, probably knowing that his son would be (rightly) executed for treason if Richard won the battle. And he was, after all, Richard's constable and wielded considerable power over him. I think he was just ambivalent (and he had a record of avoiding battle if he had the choice).
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: Sir William Stanley / Lord Thomas
Stanley


> People like Thomas Stanley usually managed to die with their boots on...in
> their own bed...safe and sound. Eileen

I don't think many people die with their boots on *and* in bed.... Socks,
maybe.

I was reading some old messages a couple of weeks ago and came across this from 2003:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/2064

Michael Jones, again. The guy is everywhere.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Which one of them, Thomas or William, was it who referred to Richard as "Old
> Dick"?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/2064


>

From: Katherine
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Sir William Stanley / Lord Thomas
Stanley


> Which one of them, Thomas or William, was it who referred to Richard as
> "Old
> Dick"?

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/2064

Does being granted the lordship of Ridley in December *necessarily* mean
that he wasn't already in place? My impression - which is only very vague
here - was that things like this were sometimes formalised ex post facto.
They certainly are nowadays - I'm thinking of annoucements in the London
Gazette, the government's paper of record, which often follow months behind
whatever arrangement they're confirming.

I don't know. Someone with more expertise than me might have the answer to that. I only remembered it because I had read it so recently when I was looking for something else.

All these things, as we keep saying, are open to interpretation.



--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Katherine
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Sir William Stanley / Lord Thomas
> Stanley
>
>
> > Which one of them, Thomas or William, was it who referred to Richard as
> > "Old
> > Dick"?
>
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/2064
>
> Does being granted the lordship of Ridley in December *necessarily* mean
> that he wasn't already in place? My impression - which is only very vague
> here - was that things like this were sometimes formalised ex post facto.
> They certainly are nowadays - I'm thinking of annoucements in the London
> Gazette, the government's paper of record, which often follow months behind
> whatever arrangement they're confirming.
>

Wednesday wrote:
>
> I think we may have the Stanleys confused, because the Stanley who attacked Richard is not the Stanley who was married to Margaret Beaufort. [snip]

Carol responds:

Actually, no, Weds. I was trying to account for Lord Stanley's ambivalence in sitting out the battle and wasn't talking about the treacherous Sir William at all. I can't speak for Claire, though, and I'm sure that others found your post useful.

Carol