Richard III's final Resting place

There seems to be a lot of debate on this. My own two penn'orth, for what
it's worth is that he should be interred in:

1 - Westminster Abbey with his queen.
2 - Sheriff Hutton with his son if space and other factors permit.
3 - York.

Who has the final say in this? Has our present monarch expressed any
opinion and if so, would it carry any weight?

From: David Conyers
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 6:32 AM
Subject: Richard III's final Resting place

> 1 - Westminster Abbey with his queen.
2 - Sheriff Hutton with his son if space and other factors permit.
3 - York.

Not Sheriff Hutton - it doesn't have enough security. Somebody would
immediately break the tomb open to take the replica crown and the gold inlay
from the top.

Someone called Tudor, perhaps - one of them stole the original crown after
all.

But seriously, if Richard is to be interred with such sentimental baggage
as a replica crown and gold inlay, then security would certainly be a
problem. What about a simple and dignified interment instead of all the
razzamatazz? Now I remember why both my wife and I left the society - too
much sentimentality!

On 5 March 2013 08:32, Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: David Conyers
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 6:32 AM
> Subject: Richard III's final Resting place
>
> > 1 - Westminster Abbey with his queen.
> 2 - Sheriff Hutton with his son if space and other factors permit.
> 3 - York.
>
> Not Sheriff Hutton - it doesn't have enough security. Somebody would
> immediately break the tomb open to take the replica crown and the gold
> inlay
> from the top.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
David

Also it is thought that the Sheriff Hutton tomb may not be that of Edward of Middleham.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: David Conyers
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 6:32 AM
> Subject: Richard III's final Resting place
>
> > 1 - Westminster Abbey with his queen.
> 2 - Sheriff Hutton with his son if space and other factors permit.
> 3 - York.
>
> Not Sheriff Hutton - it doesn't have enough security. Somebody would
> immediately break the tomb open to take the replica crown and the gold inlay
> from the top.
>

Hello David,
 
I've missed a lot of posts. Where's this idea of a crown come from, not the Society, surely?


________________________________
From: David Conyers <utrinque1951@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 9:13
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

 

Someone called Tudor, perhaps - one of them stole the original crown after
all.

But seriously, if Richard is to be interred with such sentimental baggage
as a replica crown and gold inlay, then security would certainly be a
problem. What about a simple and dignified interment instead of all the
razzamatazz? Now I remember why both my wife and I left the society - too
much sentimentality!

On 5 March 2013 08:32, Claire M Jordan whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: David Conyers
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 6:32 AM
> Subject: Richard III's final Resting place
>
> > 1 - Westminster Abbey with his queen.
> 2 - Sheriff Hutton with his son if space and other factors permit.
> 3 - York.
>
> Not Sheriff Hutton - it doesn't have enough security. Somebody would
> immediately break the tomb open to take the replica crown and the gold
> inlay
> from the top.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
David

And "definitely" not the Abbey, that hotbed of Tudor lovers.
 
which only leaves York - and Leicester .....

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 8:32
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

 
From: David Conyers
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 6:32 AM
Subject: Richard III's final Resting place

> 1 - Westminster Abbey with his queen.
2 - Sheriff Hutton with his son if space and other factors permit.
3 - York.

Not Sheriff Hutton - it doesn't have enough security. Somebody would
immediately break the tomb open to take the replica crown and the gold inlay
from the top.



Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2)
Recent Activity: * New Members 22 * New Photos 3 * New Files 2
Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.

I second your inquiry - who made this decision and how? Surely both sentimental and problematical in one.


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hello David,
>  
> I've missed a lot of posts. Where's this idea of a crown come from, not the Society, surely?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: David Conyers <utrinque1951@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 9:13
> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>  
>
> Someone called Tudor, perhaps - one of them stole the original crown after
> all.
>
> But seriously, if Richard is to be interred with such sentimental baggage
> as a replica crown and gold inlay, then security would certainly be a
> problem. What about a simple and dignified interment instead of all the
> razzamatazz? Now I remember why both my wife and I left the society - too
> much sentimentality!
>
> On 5 March 2013 08:32, Claire M Jordan whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> > From: David Conyers
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 6:32 AM
> > Subject: Richard III's final Resting place
> >
> > > 1 - Westminster Abbey with his queen.
> > 2 - Sheriff Hutton with his son if space and other factors permit.
> > 3 - York.
> >
> > Not Sheriff Hutton - it doesn't have enough security. Somebody would
> > immediately break the tomb open to take the replica crown and the gold
> > inlay
> > from the top.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: David Conyers
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place


> Now I remember why both my wife and I left the society - too
much sentimentality!

Don't confuse sentimentality with genuine sentiment. Even Neanderthals
buried their dead with garlands of flowers.

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Hello David,
>  
> I've missed a lot of posts. Where's this idea of a crown come from, not the Society, surely?

Carol responds:

It comes from a report in the Ricardian Recorder (one of the American branch's magazines) by a woman who attended a London speech by John Ashdown-Hill. She states that Michael Ibsen will provide a wooden coffin and that "a replica crown (as Richard's was lost) is being made by a medieval replica maker, to be buried with him." Nothing about its being placed on his fragile skull, though. Presumably, it would be placed beside him. I suspect, too, that it would not be made of precious metals.

I would link to the post that contains this file, but only members of the American branch forum could read it, mechanical (spelling/grammar) errors and all. (How the sender attached a .pdf file to a post in a Yahoo forum, I don't know. I can't copy and paste from it as I don't have a program that converts .pdf files to Word format.) But I've quoted the key sentence, and the source is J A-H's presentation to the London branch on an unspecified date in February.

Carol

>Carol responds:
>
>It comes from a report in the Ricardian Recorder (one of the American
>branch's magazines) by a woman who attended a London speech by John
>Ashdown-Hill. She states that Michael Ibsen will provide a wooden
>coffin and that "a replica crown (as Richard's was lost) is being made
>by a medieval replica maker, to be buried with him." Nothing about its
>being placed on his fragile skull, though. Presumably, it would be
>placed beside him. I suspect, too, that it would not be made of
>precious metals.
>
>I would link to the post that contains this file, but only members of
>the American branch forum could read it, mechanical (spelling/grammar)
>errors and all. (How the sender attached a .pdf file to a post in a
>Yahoo forum, I don't know. I can't copy and paste from it as I don't
>have a program that converts .pdf files to Word format.) But I've
>quoted the key sentence, and the source is J A-H's presentation to the
>London branch on an unspecified date in February.

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

Hi Carol

Hope you don't mind but just to clarify a couple of points -

The Ricardian Recorder is the Branches & Groups (Overseas & UK)
information newsletter that I send out to the B/Gs on behalf of the
Society (I'm B/G Liaison Officer)

The person who wrote the article is a man - Ashley Mantle

Yes you are right about it being a talk given to the London branch 9th
February entitled 'The Search for Richard lll' by John Ashdown-Hill.


Here is the relevant paragraph

"The floor was then open to questions which quickly turned to the
subject of the reinterment and his tomb. Richard will have a
wooden 'coffin' in which his bones will be laid, placed inside the
tomb, which is being made by 17th generation descendent Michael
Ibsen, whom is a furniture maker by trade. A replica crown (as
Richard's was lost) is being made by a medieval replica maker, to
be buried with him. The
tomb itself may be made from York Stone, and will have Roses and
other relevant symbols on the outer edge. The top of it will have an
in laid plaque. Images of the proposed tomb will be released to
members soon. When asked if the reinterment will be private or
open to the public, Phil said that the answers were as yet unknown,
but he hoped that the Society would be well represented. He said
that there might be a screen up in the Guildhall near the Cathedral,
so people who could not attend the service itself could still be part
of it."

HTH


Jac

> Hi Carol
>
> Hope you don't mind but just to clarify a couple of points -
>
> The Ricardian Recorder is the Branches & Groups (Overseas & UK)
> information newsletter that I send out to the B/Gs on behalf of the
> Society (I'm B/G Liaison Officer)
>
> The person who wrote the article is a man - Ashley Mantle
>
> Yes you are right about it being a talk given to the London branch 9th February entitled 'The Search for Richard lll' by John Ashdown-Hill.

[snip quoted paragraph]

Carol responds:

Hi, Jacqui. Thanks very much for those corrections and my apologies to Ashley. Here in the U.S., Ashley is primarily a woman's name (except for Ashley Wilkes in "Gone with the Wind"). The first time I heard of Evelyn Waugh, I thought that he was a woman, too!

How *do* you attach a file in Yahoo groups? I've never succeeded, and somewhere in the settings I'm sure it says you can't attach files. Do you have a special program that allows you to do it?

carol

You know, I wonder if it would be possible for Richard to have two funerals, as he had two coronations (of the second one really was a coronation - he certianly had some sort of second major ceremony)? It would add to the expense, but it might satisfy honour all round if his bones could be taken to York Minster and honoured in a grand ceremony, then taken back to Leicester for a second ceremony and interment. After all, it's common even in normal funerals I think to have a two-stage funeral with a big church service of remembrance, and then a second service to go with the actual burial or cremation.

I think that's a fine idea - but only if reversed. Richard would still be honoured in Leicester at a fine service, but then laid to rest in a place he knew well and had connections to, rather than in a church he didn't know and in a town he had minimal connection with.

If York needs to be given an honour because it's acknowledged by many thousands that this should be the place of his interment, then why is Leicester insistent that Leicester "the right place"?

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> You know, I wonder if it would be possible for Richard to have two funerals, as he had two coronations (of the second one really was a coronation - he certianly had some sort of second major ceremony)? It would add to the expense, but it might satisfy honour all round if his bones could be taken to York Minster and honoured in a grand ceremony, then taken back to Leicester for a second ceremony and interment. After all, it's common even in normal funerals I think to have a two-stage funeral with a big church service of remembrance, and then a second service to go with the actual burial or cremation.
>
>
>

Evelyn Waugh's wife was named Evelyn as well.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place




> Hi Carol
>
> Hope you don't mind but just to clarify a couple of points -
>
> The Ricardian Recorder is the Branches & Groups (Overseas & UK)
> information newsletter that I send out to the B/Gs on behalf of the
> Society (I'm B/G Liaison Officer)
>
> The person who wrote the article is a man - Ashley Mantle
>
> Yes you are right about it being a talk given to the London branch 9th February entitled 'The Search for Richard lll' by John Ashdown-Hill.

[snip quoted paragraph]

Carol responds:

Hi, Jacqui. Thanks very much for those corrections and my apologies to Ashley. Here in the U.S., Ashley is primarily a woman's name (except for Ashley Wilkes in "Gone with the Wind"). The first time I heard of Evelyn Waugh, I thought that he was a woman, too!

How *do* you attach a file in Yahoo groups? I've never succeeded, and somewhere in the settings I'm sure it says you can't attach files. Do you have a special program that allows you to do it?

carol

Wasn't the second ceremony his son's Investiture as Prince of Wales (you don't have to be in Wales - after all, you don't have to be Welsh!)
 
I'd say there's no chance of two "funerals" - too expensive and too much organisation.
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:14
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

 
You know, I wonder if it would be possible for Richard to have two funerals, as he had two coronations (of the second one really was a coronation - he certianly had some sort of second major ceremony)? It would add to the expense, but it might satisfy honour all round if his bones could be taken to York Minster and honoured in a grand ceremony, then taken back to Leicester for a second ceremony and interment. After all, it's common even in normal funerals I think to have a two-stage funeral with a big church service of remembrance, and then a second service to go with the actual burial or cremation.




Wasn't the

How confusing. 
 
And - totally OT I know -  I had a friend at college called Tricia.  Her brother was called Patrick and her parents were Patrick and Patricia.

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 8:53
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

 
Evelyn Waugh's wife was named Evelyn as well.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

> Hi Carol
>
> Hope you don't mind but just to clarify a couple of points -
>
> The Ricardian Recorder is the Branches & Groups (Overseas & UK)
> information newsletter that I send out to the B/Gs on behalf of the
> Society (I'm B/G Liaison Officer)
>
> The person who wrote the article is a man - Ashley Mantle
>
> Yes you are right about it being a talk given to the London branch 9th February entitled 'The Search for Richard lll' by John Ashdown-Hill.

[snip quoted paragraph]

Carol responds:

Hi, Jacqui. Thanks very much for those corrections and my apologies to Ashley. Here in the U.S., Ashley is primarily a woman's name (except for Ashley Wilkes in "Gone with the Wind"). The first time I heard of Evelyn Waugh, I thought that he was a woman, too!

How *do* you attach a file in Yahoo groups? I've never succeeded, and somewhere in the settings I'm sure it says you can't attach files. Do you have a special program that allows you to do it?

carol




How confus9ing

Also totally OT but is it calming down?  I can actually get through all the emails at last.



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 9:50
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place


 

How confusing. 
 
And - totally OT I know -  I had a friend at college called Tricia.  Her brother was called Patrick and her parents were Patrick and Patricia.

From: Stephen Lark mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 8:53
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

 
Evelyn Waugh's wife was named Evelyn as well.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

> Hi Carol
>
> Hope you don't mind but just to clarify a couple of points -
>
> The Ricardian Recorder is the Branches & Groups (Overseas & UK)
> information newsletter that I send out to the B/Gs on behalf of the
> Society (I'm B/G Liaison Officer)
>
> The person who wrote the article is a man - Ashley Mantle
>
> Yes you are right about it being a talk given to the London branch 9th February entitled 'The Search for Richard lll' by John Ashdown-Hill.

[snip quoted paragraph]

Carol responds:

Hi, Jacqui. Thanks very much for those corrections and my apologies to Ashley. Here in the U.S., Ashley is primarily a woman's name (except for Ashley Wilkes in "Gone with the Wind"). The first time I heard of Evelyn Waugh, I thought that he was a woman, too!

How *do* you attach a file in Yahoo groups? I've never succeeded, and somewhere in the settings I'm sure it says you can't attach files. Do you have a special program that allows you to do it?

carol



How confus9ing

I think there is mention somewhere, and I don't know the source, that when Richard visited York in August 1483 (he had a lengthy stay - Edward of Middleham was made Prince of Wales on 8th Sept there) - that there was a kind of ceremony where he was placed on a 'throne' in the minster, to be celebrated in York as the King. Not a "second coronation" but a formal public ceremony acknowledging him as king, maybe. Is this unique as an occasion? Anyone have any sources for this?

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Wasn't the second ceremony his son's Investiture as Prince of Wales (you don't have to be in Wales - after all, you don't have to be Welsh!)
>  
> I'd say there's no chance of two "funerals" - too expensive and too much organisation.
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:14
> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>  
> You know, I wonder if it would be possible for Richard to have two funerals, as he had two coronations (of the second one really was a coronation - he certianly had some sort of second major ceremony)? It would add to the expense, but it might satisfy honour all round if his bones could be taken to York Minster and honoured in a grand ceremony, then taken back to Leicester for a second ceremony and interment. After all, it's common even in normal funerals I think to have a two-stage funeral with a big church service of remembrance, and then a second service to go with the actual burial or cremation.
>
>
>
>
> Wasn't the
>
>
>

Oh there you go, it was actually in Croyland all along - Richard "at length arrived at York. Here, on a day appointed for repeating his coronation in the metropolitan church, he also presented his only son, Edward, whom, on the same day, he had elevated to the rank of Prince of Wales, with the insignia of the golden wand, and the wreath upon the head".

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I think there is mention somewhere, and I don't know the source, that when Richard visited York in August 1483 (he had a lengthy stay - Edward of Middleham was made Prince of Wales on 8th Sept there) - that there was a kind of ceremony where he was placed on a 'throne' in the minster, to be celebrated in York as the King. Not a "second coronation" but a formal public ceremony acknowledging him as king, maybe. Is this unique as an occasion? Anyone have any sources for this?
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Wasn't the second ceremony his son's Investiture as Prince of Wales (you don't have to be in Wales - after all, you don't have to be Welsh!)
> >  
> > I'd say there's no chance of two "funerals" - too expensive and too much organisation.
> > From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:14
> > Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
> >
> >  
> > You know, I wonder if it would be possible for Richard to have two funerals, as he had two coronations (of the second one really was a coronation - he certianly had some sort of second major ceremony)? It would add to the expense, but it might satisfy honour all round if his bones could be taken to York Minster and honoured in a grand ceremony, then taken back to Leicester for a second ceremony and interment. After all, it's common even in normal funerals I think to have a two-stage funeral with a big church service of remembrance, and then a second service to go with the actual burial or cremation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Wasn't the
> >
> >
> >
>

There are some nice bits in the York House Books about the Council there getting ready for the visit.



________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 10:10
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

 

Oh there you go, it was actually in Croyland all along - Richard "at length arrived at York. Here, on a day appointed for repeating his coronation in the metropolitan church, he also presented his only son, Edward, whom, on the same day, he had elevated to the rank of Prince of Wales, with the insignia of the golden wand, and the wreath upon the head".

--- In , colyngbourne wrote:
>
> I think there is mention somewhere, and I don't know the source, that when Richard visited York in August 1483 (he had a lengthy stay - Edward of Middleham was made Prince of Wales on 8th Sept there) - that there was a kind of ceremony where he was placed on a 'throne' in the minster, to be celebrated in York as the King. Not a "second coronation" but a formal public ceremony acknowledging him as king, maybe. Is this unique as an occasion? Anyone have any sources for this?
>
> --- In , liz williams wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Wasn't the second ceremony his son's Investiture as Prince of Wales (you don't have to be in Wales - after all, you don't have to be Welsh!)
> >  
> > I'd say there's no chance of two "funerals" - too expensive and too much organisation.
> > From: Claire M Jordan
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:14
> > Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
> >
> >  
> > You know, I wonder if it would be possible for Richard to have two funerals, as he had two coronations (of the second one really was a coronation - he certianly had some sort of second major ceremony)? It would add to the expense, but it might satisfy honour all round if his bones could be taken to York Minster and honoured in a grand ceremony, then taken back to Leicester for a second ceremony and interment. After all, it's common even in normal funerals I think to have a two-stage funeral with a big church service of remembrance, and then a second service to go with the actual burial or cremation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Wasn't the
> >
> >
> >
>

From: colyngbourne
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place


> Oh there you go, it was actually in Croyland all along - Richard "at
> length arrived at York. Here, on a day appointed for repeating his
> coronation in the metropolitan church, he also presented his only son,
> Edward, whom, on the same day, he had elevated to the rank of Prince of
> Wales, with the insignia of the golden wand, and the wreath upon the
> head".

Right, so we don't know whether there really was an element of second
coronation or whether Croyland got his wires crossed. But either way, the
important point is that he made sure that the grand ceremonials were split
between north and south and York got a share of the glory.

I'm warming towards the idea of him being buried in Leicester because it
means staying with his men, and imo Richard's burial should include, or be
rapidly followed by, the erection of a war memorial to all the dead of
Bosworth (assuming there isn't one already - it's nearly 30 years since I
was last there). That's something we do know for a fact that Richard would
want. But *if* he stays in Leicester then there should be a grand memorial
service in the north.

While that is an excellent idea, my first thought would be whether the remains would be robust enough for transshipment all over the country. I like the idea of a series of horse-and-wagon processions re-creating Richard's progress through the country when he first became King, but the same caveat applies there. In any case, a special service of remembrance, possibly coinciding with the reinterment, at religious institutions all over the country (York Minster especially) is, I would think, eminently possible.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> You know, I wonder if it would be possible for Richard to have two funerals, as he had two coronations (of the second one really was a coronation - he certianly had some sort of second major ceremony)? It would add to the expense, but it might satisfy honour all round if his bones could be taken to York Minster and honoured in a grand ceremony, then taken back to Leicester for a second ceremony and interment. After all, it's common even in normal funerals I think to have a two-stage funeral with a big church service of remembrance, and then a second service to go with the actual burial or cremation.
>
>
>

That must have made answering the phone a wearisome affair.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Evelyn Waugh's wife was named Evelyn as well.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:45 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
>
>
> > Hi Carol
> >
> > Hope you don't mind but just to clarify a couple of points -
> >
> > The Ricardian Recorder is the Branches & Groups (Overseas & UK)
> > information newsletter that I send out to the B/Gs on behalf of the
> > Society (I'm B/G Liaison Officer)
> >
> > The person who wrote the article is a man - Ashley Mantle
> >
> > Yes you are right about it being a talk given to the London branch 9th February entitled 'The Search for Richard lll' by John Ashdown-Hill.
>
> [snip quoted paragraph]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Jacqui. Thanks very much for those corrections and my apologies to Ashley. Here in the U.S., Ashley is primarily a woman's name (except for Ashley Wilkes in "Gone with the Wind"). The first time I heard of Evelyn Waugh, I thought that he was a woman, too!
>
> How *do* you attach a file in Yahoo groups? I've never succeeded, and somewhere in the settings I'm sure it says you can't attach files. Do you have a special program that allows you to do it?
>
> carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>Carol responds:
>
>Hi, Jacqui. Thanks very much for those corrections and my apologies to
>Ashley. Here in the U.S., Ashley is primarily a woman's name (except
>for Ashley Wilkes in "Gone with the Wind"). The first time I heard of
>Evelyn Waugh, I thought that he was a woman, too!

Hi Carol


*** Its because of Ashley Wilkes that I think of Ashley as a man's name
<G>
>
>How *do* you attach a file in Yahoo groups? I've never succeeded, and
>somewhere in the settings I'm sure it says you can't attach files. Do
>you have a special program that allows you to do it?

*** It looks like you go to Files, click on add file & that should do
it.........I hope! As I've never added any here I'm not sure - lots of
others here have though.

Jac

Yes, their butler asked if it were for "he-Evelyn or she-Evelyn".
----- Original Message -----
From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place



That must have made answering the phone a wearisome affair.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Evelyn Waugh's wife was named Evelyn as well.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:45 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
>
>
> > Hi Carol
> >
> > Hope you don't mind but just to clarify a couple of points -
> >
> > The Ricardian Recorder is the Branches & Groups (Overseas & UK)
> > information newsletter that I send out to the B/Gs on behalf of the
> > Society (I'm B/G Liaison Officer)
> >
> > The person who wrote the article is a man - Ashley Mantle
> >
> > Yes you are right about it being a talk given to the London branch 9th February entitled 'The Search for Richard lll' by John Ashdown-Hill.
>
> [snip quoted paragraph]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Jacqui. Thanks very much for those corrections and my apologies to Ashley. Here in the U.S., Ashley is primarily a woman's name (except for Ashley Wilkes in "Gone with the Wind"). The first time I heard of Evelyn Waugh, I thought that he was a woman, too!
>
> How *do* you attach a file in Yahoo groups? I've never succeeded, and somewhere in the settings I'm sure it says you can't attach files. Do you have a special program that allows you to do it?
>
> carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: jacqui
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place


> *** Its because of Ashley Wilkes that I think of Ashley as a man's name

I've always thought of Ashley as a boy's name. Americans seem to use many
of what in the UK are boys' names as girls' names. It was noticeable to me
as a Harry Potter fan that many US fen initially assumed Blaise Zabini must
be a girl and this was - uh, hello, Blaise is a *boy*'s name.... I was
astonished when I learned that in the US they actually called girls Robin,
although I've since met one British example. It may be to do with the fact
that as I understand it the birds called robins in the US are fairly unisex
whereas here we have the Robin Redbreast, the males of which are much
brighter-coloured and more noticeable and robinish than the females, so we
think of robin the bird as typically a male.

One which often causes confusion is Hilary which, even here, is nearly
always a girl's name and yet you do get a few male Hilarys and Hilaires.

Names are such a funny thing.....and how they go in cycles. I have friends whose girls children are named Sidney, Morgan, Madison. Looking back on our family tree most of the males in the 1800's had president's names, and we have one Virginia California. I think that is what is so confusing about English History when you come in as a novice, so many Edwards, Charles, Johns, Richards, etc.


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 6:52 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place



From: jacqui
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

> *** Its because of Ashley Wilkes that I think of Ashley as a man's name

I've always thought of Ashley as a boy's name. Americans seem to use many
of what in the UK are boys' names as girls' names. It was noticeable to me
as a Harry Potter fan that many US fen initially assumed Blaise Zabini must
be a girl and this was - uh, hello, Blaise is a *boy*'s name.... I was
astonished when I learned that in the US they actually called girls Robin,
although I've since met one British example. It may be to do with the fact
that as I understand it the birds called robins in the US are fairly unisex
whereas here we have the Robin Redbreast, the males of which are much
brighter-coloured and more noticeable and robinish than the females, so we
think of robin the bird as typically a male.

One which often causes confusion is Hilary which, even here, is nearly
always a girl's name and yet you do get a few male Hilarys and Hilaires.

   A thing he had in Common with Henry VII, they Both tried to launch a Son as Prince of Wales & Heir, Neither Achieved their parents aspiration. This Reminds us that it was Not Just Babies that died infancy, But Adolescence seems to have been a 'Dangerous Age'. Edward V & Edward VI both died young and in this broad area of life of course.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 10:10
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>Oh there you go, it was actually in Croyland all along - Richard "at length arrived at York. Here, on a day appointed for repeating his coronation in the metropolitan church, he also presented his only son, Edward, whom, on the same day, he had elevated to the rank of Prince of Wales, with the insignia of the golden wand, and the wreath upon the head".
>
>--- In , colyngbourne wrote:
>>
>> I think there is mention somewhere, and I don't know the source, that when Richard visited York in August 1483 (he had a lengthy stay - Edward of Middleham was made Prince of Wales on 8th Sept there) - that there was a kind of ceremony where he was placed on a 'throne' in the minster, to be celebrated in York as the King. Not a "second coronation" but a formal public ceremony acknowledging him as king, maybe. Is this unique as an occasion? Anyone have any sources for this?
>>
>> --- In , liz williams wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Wasn't the second ceremony his son's Investiture as Prince of Wales (you don't have to be in Wales - after all, you don't have to be Welsh!)
>> >  
>> > I'd say there's no chance of two "funerals" - too expensive and too much organisation.
>> > From: Claire M Jordan
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 3:14
>> > Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>> >
>> >  
>> > You know, I wonder if it would be possible for Richard to have two funerals, as he had two coronations (of the second one really was a coronation - he certianly had some sort of second major ceremony)? It would add to the expense, but it might satisfy honour all round if his bones could be taken to York Minster and honoured in a grand ceremony, then taken back to Leicester for a second ceremony and interment. After all, it's common even in normal funerals I think to have a two-stage funeral with a big church service of remembrance, and then a second service to go with the actual burial or cremation.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Wasn't the
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>

  Perhaps if this took place as a 'Memorial Service', If the interment was on the Day of Bosworth.Richard's Death?

If a 'Chantry Chapel' has survived in York [As the one in Worcester Cathedral for Prince Arthur.] 

This Could have a plaque 'Inviting Prayers'. [Personally & In common with many others I Still favour York as the more appropriate burial site.]

Mary Queen of Scots Body was 'Translated' from Peterborough to a Tomb adjacent to her Protagonist Elizabeth in Westminster by her son James Ist.

 Elizabeth Ist chose to leave her mother in an 'Arrow Chest Coffin' in the Tower. 

 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 11:39
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>While that is an excellent idea, my first thought would be whether the remains would be robust enough for transshipment all over the country. I like the idea of a series of horse-and-wagon processions re-creating Richard's progress through the country when he first became King, but the same caveat applies there. In any case, a special service of remembrance, possibly coinciding with the reinterment, at religious institutions all over the country (York Minster especially) is, I would think, eminently possible.
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> You know, I wonder if it would be possible for Richard to have two funerals, as he had two coronations (of the second one really was a coronation - he certianly had some sort of second major ceremony)? It would add to the expense, but it might satisfy honour all round if his bones could be taken to York Minster and honoured in a grand ceremony, then taken back to Leicester for a second ceremony and interment. After all, it's common even in normal funerals I think to have a two-stage funeral with a big church service of remembrance, and then a second service to go with the actual burial or cremation.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Post-Conquest Burials of Monarchs
Name
Death
Place of burial
Images
William I (the Conqueror) 1087 Abbaye-aux-Hommes, Caen, Normandy
William II (Rufus) 1100 Winchester Cathedral
Henry I 1135 Reading Abbey, Berkshire  
Stephen 1154 Faversham Abbey, Kent
Empress Matilda 1167 Rouen Cathedral, Normandy, France
Henry II 1189 Fontevraud Abbey, Anjou, France
Richard I 1199 Fontevraud Abbey, Anjou, France
(His heart was buried at Rouen)
John 1216 Worcester Cathedral
Henry III of England 1272 Edward the Confessor's Chapel, Westminster Abbey[1]
Edward I 1307 Edward the Confessor's Chapel, Westminster Abbey[1]
Edward II 1327 Gloucester Cathedral
Edward III 1377 Edward the Confessor's Chapel, Westminster Abbey[1]
Richard II 1400 Edward the Confessor's Chapel, Westminster Abbey[1]
Henry IV 1413 Canterbury Cathedral
Henry V 1422 Westminster Abbey
Henry VI 1471 Windsor Castle (reburied in St George's Chapel 1484)
Edward IV 1483 St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle
Edward V ?1483 traditionally believed murdered
and buried secretly in the Tower of London
Richard III 1485 Church of the Grey Friars, Leicester. Bones re-discovered under a carpark in 2012 to be re-interred at Leicester Cathedral.
Henry VII 1509 Henry VII Lady Chapel, Westminster Abbey[2]
Henry VIII 1547 St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle
Edward VI 1553 Henry VII Lady Chapel, Westminster Abbey
Lady Jane Grey 1554 St Peter ad Vincula (London), Tower of London
Mary I 1558 Henry VII Lady Chapel, Westminster Abbey[2]
Elizabeth I 1603 Henry VII Lady Chapel, Westminster Abbey[2]
 
I hope the above might be Helpful?

Thank You Wikipedia.

Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 7:25
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>I think that's a fine idea - but only if reversed. Richard would still be honoured in Leicester at a fine service, but then laid to rest in a place he knew well and had connections to, rather than in a church he didn't know and in a town he had minimal connection with.
>
>If York needs to be given an honour because it's acknowledged by many thousands that this should be the place of his interment, then why is Leicester insistent that Leicester "the right place"?
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> You know, I wonder if it would be possible for Richard to have two funerals, as he had two coronations (of the second one really was a coronation - he certianly had some sort of second major ceremony)? It would add to the expense, but it might satisfy honour all round if his bones could be taken to York Minster and honoured in a grand ceremony, then taken back to Leicester for a second ceremony and interment. After all, it's common even in normal funerals I think to have a two-stage funeral with a big church service of remembrance, and then a second service to go with the actual burial or cremation.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Arthur, Anne Boleyn's body was buried (indeed in an arrow chest) in St Peter ad Vincula by the Tower. It was exhumed and reburied by the Victorians doing the floor there in the nineteenth century along with that of Margaret Pole, Clarence's daughter, also beheaded by H8. The latter was described as being that of an elderly, tall woman; so Margaret obviously took after her father (unless Isabel was tall too). H



________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 15:19
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

 

  Perhaps if this took place as a 'Memorial Service', If the interment was on the Day of Bosworth.Richard's Death?

If a 'Chantry Chapel' has survived in York [As the one in Worcester Cathedral for Prince Arthur.] 

This Could have a plaque 'Inviting Prayers'. [Personally & In common with many others I Still favour York as the more appropriate burial site.]

Mary Queen of Scots Body was 'Translated' from Peterborough to a Tomb adjacent to her Protagonist Elizabeth in Westminster by her son James Ist.

 Elizabeth Ist chose to leave her mother in an 'Arrow Chest Coffin' in the Tower. 

 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 11:39
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>While that is an excellent idea, my first thought would be whether the remains would be robust enough for transshipment all over the country. I like the idea of a series of horse-and-wagon processions re-creating Richard's progress through the country when he first became King, but the same caveat applies there. In any case, a special service of remembrance, possibly coinciding with the reinterment, at religious institutions all over the country (York Minster especially) is, I would think, eminently possible.
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> You know, I wonder if it would be possible for Richard to have two funerals, as he had two coronations (of the second one really was a coronation - he certianly had some sort of second major ceremony)? It would add to the expense, but it might satisfy honour all round if his bones could be taken to York Minster and honoured in a grand ceremony, then taken back to Leicester for a second ceremony and interment. After all, it's common even in normal funerals I think to have a two-stage funeral with a big church service of remembrance, and then a second service to go with the actual burial or cremation.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary, 
           Thanks for that, Seems a pity her daughter Elizabeth Ist] did not do it, 
perhaps the stigma of her own legitimacy was at stake?   [Let sleeping mothers Lie?] 

I do understand however that she wore a 'Ring' with a secret miniature of Anne Bolynne to her dying day.

This housed in a small museum in 'Chequers' the Prime Ministers Country Residence. 

   I live near Ormskirk in Lancashire, Recently members were seeking images of  various individuals of the Roses period, Whilst NOT a 'Portrait' the Lord Stanley of  'Bosworth Fame' [Or Infamy?], Is commemorated there by an 'Alabaster Effigy'  

See:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stanley_tombs,_Ormskirk_.jpg

Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.
P.S. 
Margaret Pole- The treatment of this 'Elderly woman' by Henry VIII was one of the most 'Shameful' 
of the whole period.



>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 17:04
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>Arthur, Anne Boleyn's body was buried (indeed in an arrow chest) in St Peter ad Vincula by the Tower. It was exhumed and reburied by the Victorians doing the floor there in the nineteenth century along with that of Margaret Pole, Clarence's daughter, also beheaded by H8. The latter was described as being that of an elderly, tall woman; so Margaret obviously took after her father (unless Isabel was tall too). H
>
>________________________________
>From: Arthurian lancastrian@...>
>To: "" >
>Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 15:19
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
> 
>
>  Perhaps if this took place as a 'Memorial Service', If the interment was on the Day of Bosworth.Richard's Death?
>
>If a 'Chantry Chapel' has survived in York [As the one in Worcester Cathedral for Prince Arthur.] 
>
>This Could have a plaque 'Inviting Prayers'. [Personally & In common with many others I Still favour York as the more appropriate burial site.]
>
>Mary Queen of Scots Body was 'Translated' from Peterborough to a Tomb adjacent to her Protagonist Elizabeth in Westminster by her son James Ist.
>
> Elizabeth Ist chose to leave her mother in an 'Arrow Chest Coffin' in the Tower. 
>
> 
>Kind Regards,
> 
>Arthur.
>
>>________________________________
>> From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...>
>>To:
>>Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 11:39
>>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>>
>>
>> 
>>While that is an excellent idea, my first thought would be whether the remains would be robust enough for transshipment all over the country. I like the idea of a series of horse-and-wagon processions re-creating Richard's progress through the country when he first became King, but the same caveat applies there. In any case, a special service of remembrance, possibly coinciding with the reinterment, at religious institutions all over the country (York Minster especially) is, I would think, eminently possible.
>>
>>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>>
>>> You know, I wonder if it would be possible for Richard to have two funerals, as he had two coronations (of the second one really was a coronation - he certianly had some sort of second major ceremony)? It would add to the expense, but it might satisfy honour all round if his bones could be taken to York Minster and honoured in a grand ceremony, then taken back to Leicester for a second ceremony and interment. After all, it's common even in normal funerals I think to have a two-stage funeral with a big church service of remembrance, and then a second service to go with the actual burial or cremation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> You know, I wonder if it would be possible for Richard to have two funerals, as he had two coronations (of the second one really was a coronation - he certianly had some sort of second major ceremony)? It would add to the expense, but it might satisfy honour all round if his bones could be taken to York Minster and honoured in a grand ceremony, then taken back to Leicester for a second ceremony and interment. After all, it's common even in normal funerals I think to have a two-stage funeral with a big church service of remembrance, and then a second service to go with the actual burial or cremation.

Carol responds:

He didn't have two coronations. That's one of the instances in which the Croyland chronicler (who wasn't present) is unreliable. Rous, who was present (and not yet anti-Richard) makes clear that the ceremony was an investiture of his son as Prince of Wales.

As for a funeral, someone high in the Anglican Church (was it the Archbishop of Canterbury? Can't remember) has stated that as it's inconceivable that Richard would have been buried without at least a cursory funeral service that the reburial service will be a memorial, not a funeral, service. There's nothing to prevent York from holding its own, possibly simultaneous, memorial service though I haven't seen the suggestion made in print. Sorry I don't have time to Google the article.

Carol

colyngbourne wrote:
>
> I think there is mention somewhere, and I don't know the source, that when Richard visited York in August 1483 (he had a lengthy stay - Edward of Middleham was made Prince of Wales on 8th Sept there) - that there was a kind of ceremony where he was placed on a 'throne' in the minster, to be celebrated in York as the King. Not a "second coronation" but a formal public ceremony acknowledging him as king, maybe. Is this unique as an occasion? Anyone have any sources for this?

Carol responds:

Are you thinking of his formal acceptance of the kingship in London about two weeks before the coronation? There would have been no throne in York Minster.

Here's the Croyland chronicler's version of the event. If you set aside the obvious malice and the exaggeration of the number of Richard's troops, you can get a general idea of what actually happened:

"For, having summoned armed men, in fearful and unheard-of numbers, from the north, Wales, and all other parts then subject to them, the said Protector Richard assumed the government of the kingdom, with the title of King, on the twentieth day of the aforesaid month of June; on the same day, at the great Hall of Westminster, obtruded himself into the marble chair. The colour for this act of usurpation, and his thus taking possession of the throne was the following: -- It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on the part of lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights."

http://www.r3.org/bookcase/croyland/croy7.html

He gets the date wrong as well since these events actually happened on June 25, the date for what would have been Edward V's Parliament.
IIRC, one of the chronicles, either the London Chronicle or the Great Chronicle, gives a more accurate and more objective account, but I don't have time to check now. You might want to check Kendall if you have it. BTW, I think we see right here the source of the chronicler's hostility. He must have been pro-Edward V and possibly pro-Woodville before switching loyalties (post-Bosworth) to Henry Tudor.

Carol

colyngbourne wrote:
>
> I think there is mention somewhere, and I don't know the source, that when Richard visited York in August 1483 (he had a lengthy stay - Edward of Middleham was made Prince of Wales on 8th Sept there) - that there was a kind of ceremony where he was placed on a 'throne' in the minster, to be celebrated in York as the King. Not a "second coronation" but a formal public ceremony acknowledging him as king, maybe. Is this unique as an occasion? Anyone have any sources for this?

Carol responds:

Are you thinking of his formal acceptance of the kingship in London about two weeks before the coronation? There would have been no throne in York Minster.

Here's the Croyland chronicler's version of the event. If you set aside the obvious malice and the exaggeration of the number of Richard's troops, you can get a general idea of what actually happened:

"For, having summoned armed men, in fearful and unheard-of numbers, from the north, Wales, and all other parts then subject to them, the said Protector Richard assumed the government of the kingdom, with the title of King, on the twentieth day of the aforesaid month of June; on the same day, at the great Hall of Westminster, obtruded himself into the marble chair. The colour for this act of usurpation, and his thus taking possession of the throne was the following: -- It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on the part of lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights."

http://www.r3.org/bookcase/croyland/croy7.html

He gets the date wrong as well since these events actually happened on June 25, the date for what would have been Edward V's Parliament.
IIRC, one of the chronicles, either the London Chronicle or the Great Chronicle, gives a more accurate and more objective account, but I don't have time to check now. You might want to check Kendall if you have it. BTW, I think we see right here the source of the chronicler's hostility. He must have been pro-Edward V and possibly pro-Woodville before switching loyalties (post-Bosworth) to Henry Tudor.

Carol

No, I was thinking of the reference in Croyland itself to the moment in York whilst on progress, but also this is expanded upon by Caroline Halsted in her history (sorry if I am guessing Caroline is a woman?) with documentation of what happened. Nothing else contemporary but plenty in her pages concerning his progress to York and events in the city and minster in those days, quoting other sources. I don't have it on hand - I'm on laptop right now. But it seems a good possibility that a "quasi-second-coronation" in the style of Anglo-Saxon kings (and also Henry I, I think) took place in York. I think it's Halsted pp 158-164 or thereabouts. It certainly emphasises Richard's connection to the north and York.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
> Carol responds:
>
> Are you thinking of his formal acceptance of the kingship in London about two weeks before the coronation? There would have been no throne in York Minster.
>
> Here's the Croyland chronicler's version of the event. If you set aside the obvious malice and the exaggeration of the number of Richard's troops, you can get a general idea of what actually happened:
>
> "For, having summoned armed men, in fearful and unheard-of numbers, from the north, Wales, and all other parts then subject to them, the said Protector Richard assumed the government of the kingdom, with the title of King, on the twentieth day of the aforesaid month of June; on the same day, at the great Hall of Westminster, obtruded himself into the marble chair. The colour for this act of usurpation, and his thus taking possession of the throne was the following: -- It was set forth, by way of prayer, in an address in a certain roll of parchment, that the sons of king Edward were bastards, on the ground that he had contracted a marriage with one lady Eleanor Boteler, before his marriage to queen Elizabeth; and to which, the blood of his other brother, George, duke of Clarence, had been attainted; so that, at the present time, no certain and uncorrupted lineal blood could be found of Richard duke of York, except in the person of the said Richard, duke of Gloucester. For which reason, he was entreated, at the end of the said roll, on the part of lords and commons of the realm, to assume his lawful rights."
>
> http://www.r3.org/bookcase/croyland/croy7.html
>
> He gets the date wrong as well since these events actually happened on June 25, the date for what would have been Edward V's Parliament.
> IIRC, one of the chronicles, either the London Chronicle or the Great Chronicle, gives a more accurate and more objective account, but I don't have time to check now. You might want to check Kendall if you have it. BTW, I think we see right here the source of the chronicler's hostility. He must have been pro-Edward V and possibly pro-Woodville before switching loyalties (post-Bosworth) to Henry Tudor.
>
> Carol
>

From: colyngbourne
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place


> But it seems a good possibility that a "quasi-second-coronation" in the
> style of Anglo-Saxon kings (and also Henry I, I think) took place in York.

Or at least, if it was just the investiture of his son then it was done in
such a way that York got its own ceremony as grand and inportant *as if* it
had been a second coronation.

Yes, I think so. But the Halsted is very interesting on that time in York. The book is available for free download/read on Googlebooks.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: colyngbourne
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> > But it seems a good possibility that a "quasi-second-coronation" in the
> > style of Anglo-Saxon kings (and also Henry I, I think) took place in York.
>
> Or at least, if it was just the investiture of his son then it was done in
> such a way that York got its own ceremony as grand and inportant *as if* it
> had been a second coronation.
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Right, so we don't know whether there really was an element of second coronation or whether Croyland got his wires crossed. [snip]

Carol responds:

Kendall cites Foedera, XII, p. 200, the patent conferring knighthood on the Spanish ambassador Sasiola and the York Records as proof that the Croyland chronicler was wrong in describing that event (at which he was not present) as a second coronation.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to either Foedera, but Robert Davies, the editor of the York Records, argues that it is scarcely possible that Rous, Fabyan, or Vergil would fail to mention a second coronation had one taken place. Nor is it mentioned in any official document or private memento. (Davies says that Buck was the first to declare definitively that such a coronation occurred, but he was using the newly discovered Croyland Chronicle as his source.) Davies examined the perfectly preserved records of the Archbishop of York (Rotherham) and comments, "nothing whatever has been discovered in them bearing the slightest reference to the act of coronation which that prelate is reported [by CC and Buck] to have performed in York Minster. It is scarcely necessary to observe that no allusion to the supposed coronation has been met with in the archives of the corporation of York [which Davies is editing]." (p. 286)

It seems to me, as it does to Kendall, that Davies has definitively established that there was no second coronation--yet another Richard myth that can be put to rest.

Neil, can we add "Did Richard III have a second coronation at York" to the FAQ? We'll need someone who has access to Foedera to answer it.

Carol

jacqui wrote:
[snip]
>
> It looks like you go to Files, click on add file & that should do
> it.........I hope! As I've never added any here I'm not sure - lots of others here have though.
>
> Jac
>
Carol responds:

I don't mean adding a file to the Files. I mean how do you manage to attach files to a message in Yahoo groups? Normally, Yahoo rejects attachments, but you seem to do it with ease. Or at least, I thought it was you who attached the Ricardian Recorder to the message in the other forum. It showed up as a .pdf link in the message, which is supposed to be undoable.

Carol

<snip>
>Carol responds:
>
>I don't mean adding a file to the Files. I mean how do you manage to
>attach files to a message in Yahoo groups? Normally, Yahoo rejects
>attachments, but you seem to do it with ease. Or at least, I thought it
>was you who attached the Ricardian Recorder to the message in the other
>forum. It showed up as a .pdf link in the message, which is supposed to
>be undoable.

from Jac

*** Ah sorry, I misunderstood. I didn't think you could attach anything
to a Yahoo group message either. I usually put things on here as text,
copied from my original. I haven't put anything on any other forum. What
other forum? Do you mean the American Branch site?

Jac

Carol responds:

>Or at least, I thought it
>was you who attached the Ricardian Recorder to the message in the other
>forum. It showed up as a .pdf link in the message, which is supposed to
>be undoable.

Are you sure it wasn't just a hotlink to a pdf which was on the net?

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> No, I was thinking of the reference in Croyland itself to the moment in York whilst on progress, but also this is expanded upon by Caroline Halsted in her history (sorry if I am guessing Caroline is a woman?) with documentation of what happened. Nothing else contemporary but plenty in her pages concerning his progress to York and events in the city and minster in those days, quoting other sources. I don't have it on hand - I'm on laptop right now. But it seems a good possibility that a "quasi-second-coronation" in the style of Anglo-Saxon kings (and also Henry I, I think) took place in York. I think it's Halsted pp 158-164 or thereabouts. It certainly emphasises Richard's connection to the north and York.

Carol responds:

Caroline Halsted was definitely a woman and although her biography of Richard has been disparaged as sentimental, it's only the style of the times. She was quite thorough in her research given the materials available at the time but is almost certainly mistaken in her belief that Richard had a second coronation, as I showed in another post.

Large excerpts of the book are available on Google books. You can also link to an e-book from there.

Carol

Jacqui wrote:

> *** Ah sorry, I misunderstood. I didn't think you could attach anything to a Yahoo group message either. I usually put things on here as text, copied from my original. I haven't put anything on any other forum. What other forum? Do you mean the American Branch site?

Carol responds:

I mean the forum for the American branch: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richard3/?yguid=69059971 That's where I found the Ricardian Recorder message, which I thought was from you. Maybe you forwarded it to someone and that person posted it, attachment and all?

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> Are you sure it wasn't just a hotlink to a pdf which was on the net?
>
Carol responds:

Absolutely certain. It was an icon of a .pdf file just like the ones that appear in My Documents on a PC. And it opens as a .pdf but not as a website.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: attaching messages (Richard III's
final Resting place)


"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Are you sure it wasn't just a hotlink to a pdf which was on the net?
>
Carol responds:

> Absolutely certain. It was an icon of a .pdf file just like the ones that
> appear in My Documents on a PC.

I'm not sure that's signifiicant.

> And it opens as a .pdf but not as a website.

That's *not* significant afaik. You can hotlink to a pdf directly so it
just opens as a pdf. Do you have the oriignal post to hand so I can have a
look at its underlying html code?

I understand then, that she may have been mistaken, as perhaps was Croyland, but I did say "quasi-second coronation". Accounts of the events in the Minster seem to detail a very elaborate service, and this prior to the prince's investiture.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Caroline Halsted was definitely a woman and although her biography of Richard has been disparaged as sentimental, it's only the style of the times. She was quite thorough in her research given the materials available at the time but is almost certainly mistaken in her belief that Richard had a second coronation, as I showed in another post.
>
> Large excerpts of the book are available on Google books. You can also link to an e-book from there.
>
> Carol
>

There is some good stuff about the exhumation on some of the Anne Boleyn websites - they are calling for a proper burial for her too. They're generally quite sympathetic to us as they see the Tudors as the common enemy, in fact there are some very nice comments about Richard.



________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 17:56
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

 

Hilary, 
           Thanks for that, Seems a pity her daughter Elizabeth Ist] did not do it, 
perhaps the stigma of her own legitimacy was at stake?   [Let sleeping mothers Lie?] 

I do understand however that she wore a 'Ring' with a secret miniature of Anne Bolynne to her dying day.

This housed in a small museum in 'Chequers' the Prime Ministers Country Residence. 

   I live near Ormskirk in Lancashire, Recently members were seeking images of  various individuals of the Roses period, Whilst NOT a 'Portrait' the Lord Stanley of  'Bosworth Fame' [Or Infamy?], Is commemorated there by an 'Alabaster Effigy'  

See:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stanley_tombs,_Ormskirk_.jpg

Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.
P.S. 
Margaret Pole- The treatment of this 'Elderly woman' by Henry VIII was one of the most 'Shameful' 
of the whole period.

>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" >
>Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 17:04
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>Arthur, Anne Boleyn's body was buried (indeed in an arrow chest) in St Peter ad Vincula by the Tower. It was exhumed and reburied by the Victorians doing the floor there in the nineteenth century along with that of Margaret Pole, Clarence's daughter, also beheaded by H8. The latter was described as being that of an elderly, tall woman; so Margaret obviously took after her father (unless Isabel was tall too). H
>
>________________________________
>From: Arthurian lancastrian@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 15:19
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
> 
>
>  Perhaps if this took place as a 'Memorial Service', If the interment was on the Day of Bosworth.Richard's Death?
>
>If a 'Chantry Chapel' has survived in York [As the one in Worcester Cathedral for Prince Arthur.] 
>
>This Could have a plaque 'Inviting Prayers'. [Personally & In common with many others I Still favour York as the more appropriate burial site.]
>
>Mary Queen of Scots Body was 'Translated' from Peterborough to a Tomb adjacent to her Protagonist Elizabeth in Westminster by her son James Ist.
>
> Elizabeth Ist chose to leave her mother in an 'Arrow Chest Coffin' in the Tower. 
>
> 
>Kind Regards,
> 
>Arthur.
>
>>________________________________
>> From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...>
>>To:
>>Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013, 11:39
>>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>>
>>
>> 
>>While that is an excellent idea, my first thought would be whether the remains would be robust enough for transshipment all over the country. I like the idea of a series of horse-and-wagon processions re-creating Richard's progress through the country when he first became King, but the same caveat applies there. In any case, a special service of remembrance, possibly coinciding with the reinterment, at religious institutions all over the country (York Minster especially) is, I would think, eminently possible.
>>
>>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>>
>>> You know, I wonder if it would be possible for Richard to have two funerals, as he had two coronations (of the second one really was a coronation - he certianly had some sort of second major ceremony)? It would add to the expense, but it might satisfy honour all round if his bones could be taken to York Minster and honoured in a grand ceremony, then taken back to Leicester for a second ceremony and interment. After all, it's common even in normal funerals I think to have a two-stage funeral with a big church service of remembrance, and then a second service to go with the actual burial or cremation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> That's *not* significant afaik. You can hotlink to a pdf directly so it just opens as a pdf. Do you have the oriignal post to hand so I can have a look at its underlying html code?

Carol responds:

I've copied and pasted the original post but have no idea whether the .pdf will appear or not:


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: jacqui <r3@...>
To: r3@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:50 PM
Subject: Ricardian Recorder February 2013

Hi Everyone

I've attached the February issue of the Ricardian Recorder. I hope you find it interesting.

with best wishes

Jacqui
--

1 of 1 File(s)
Recorder February 2013.pdf

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: attaching messages (Richard III's
final Resting place)

> I've copied and pasted the original post but have no idea whether the .pdf
> will appear or not:

No, you'll need to actually forward the original post to my private email
address so I can dissect it, not copy and past it in. Copying and pasting it
has removed whatever link was in it.

colyngbourne wrote:

"I understand then, that she may have been mistaken, as perhaps was
Croyland, but I did say "quasi-second coronation". Accounts of the events in
the Minster seem to detail a very elaborate service, and this prior to the
prince's investiture."

Doug here:
My only reference is an extremely vague memory of television clips from
Prince Charles' Investiture, but would the ceremony have included a coronet,
say? That could, I should think, account for the belief that there *was* a
coronation in York - it's just that "coronation" was of Edward as Prince of
Wales and not Richard as King.

"investiture".
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place




colyngbourne wrote:

"I understand then, that she may have been mistaken, as perhaps was
Croyland, but I did say "quasi-second coronation". Accounts of the events in
the Minster seem to detail a very elaborate service, and this prior to the
prince's investiture."

Doug here:
My only reference is an extremely vague memory of television clips from
Prince Charles' Investiture, but would the ceremony have included a coronet,
say? That could, I should think, account for the belief that there *was* a
coronation in York - it's just that "coronation" was of Edward as Prince of
Wales and not Richard as King.

I'm thinking of a description which details a service held in the minster *before* the prince was invested as Prince of Wales. The service may have not been a "coronation" but was a symbolic reception of Richard as King into the minster. Something like that.

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> colyngbourne wrote:
>
> "I understand then, that she may have been mistaken, as perhaps was
> Croyland, but I did say "quasi-second coronation". Accounts of the events in
> the Minster seem to detail a very elaborate service, and this prior to the
> prince's investiture."
>
> Doug here:
> My only reference is an extremely vague memory of television clips from
> Prince Charles' Investiture, but would the ceremony have included a coronet,
> say? That could, I should think, account for the belief that there *was* a
> coronation in York - it's just that "coronation" was of Edward as Prince of
> Wales and not Richard as King.
>

<snipped>

>Carol responds:
>
>I mean the forum for the American branch:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richard3/?yguid=69059971 That's where I
>found the Ricardian Recorder message, which I thought was from you.
>Maybe you forwarded it to someone and that person posted it, attachment
>and all?

Jac here

Ah, yes that makes sense! . I sent it out to the American Branch as it
is the Branches newsletter & someone will have posted it on their site.
Mystery solved <G>

Jac

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 2:43 PM
> Subject: Re: attaching messages (Richard III's
> final Resting place)
>
> > I've copied and pasted the original post but have no idea whether the .pdf will appear or not:
>
> No, you'll need to actually forward the original post to my private email address so I can dissect it, not copy and past it in. Copying and pasting it has removed whatever link was in it.
>
Carol responds:

Yes; that's what I expected since normally Yahoo doesn't allow attachments. I don't think you'll be able to access the link since the American branch's forum is private and you need to be a member of the American branch to join, but here it is just in case:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richard3/message/6638

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: attaching messages (Richard III's
final Resting place)


> Yes; that's what I expected since normally Yahoo doesn't allow
> attachments. I don't think you'll be able to access the link since the
> American branch's forum is private and you need to be a member of the
> American branch to join, but here it is just in case:

No, you're right, I can't get it to load. And I presume you don't have it
as an email on your own PC. OK. Do the following for me:

Open that message in Internet Explorer.

Select "View" from the menu options along the top. A pull-down list of
further options will appear.

From that further list, click on "Source".

After a few seconds a page of html code will appear, of which you probably
will not understand one word. This will look like random characters and
acronyms such as "css" and lots and lots of angle brackets, all in plain
type highlighted in fruit-salad colours. Copy the whole thing, paste it
into an email and send it to me.

If you're using a Mac or a smart-phone and don't have access to IE, whatever
browser you are using will have a Source option somewhere but I don't know
where it is.

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I'm thinking of a description which details a service held in the minster *before* the prince was invested as Prince of Wales. The service may have not been a "coronation" but was a symbolic reception of Richard as King into the minster. Something like that.

Carol responds:

Without question, they welcomed him and Queen Anne with all the splendor they were capable of producing. But a second coronation would require the Archbishop of York (Rotherham, whom Richard had already stripped of the chancellorship for good reason) to crown and anoint him with the holy chrism--an act that Richard would probably consider it blasphemy to repeat. I know that other kings had second coronations (Halsted, IIRC, mentions Henry II), but there was no need in Richard's case. And why undermine his son's pleasure in a day dedicated to *him* by recrowning his father (and mother)? Of course, there would have been a magnificent religious service before such an important occasion. Edward of Middleham, they all hoped and believed, would some day be king himself.

Carol

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: attaching messages (Richard III's final Resting place)


> After a few seconds a page of html code will appear, of which you probably
will not understand one word. This will look like random characters and
acronyms such as "css" and lots and lots of angle brackets, all in plain
type highlighted in fruit-salad colours. Copy the whole thing, paste it
into an email and send it to me.


Right, got it, ta. It is as I suspected a hotlink to a file on the web - the actual address is:

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/20861994/727197907/name/Recorder+February+2013.pdf

and then the pdf icon has been attached to it as a link to an image file. The image file lives here:

http://l.yimg.com/kq/static/images/yg/img/doc/pdf16x16.gif

This tells us that it's possible to get an image to display inside a Yahoo message, provided the image is elsewhere on the net and you're just hotlinking to it.

"Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>[snip]
> This tells us that it's possible to get an image to display inside a Yahoo message, provided the image is elsewhere on the net and you're just hotlinking to it.

Carol responds:

Thanks for all your trouble. Now, what is a hot link and how could I hotlink to one supposing that I needed to?

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: attaching messages (Richard III's final Resting place)


> Thanks for all your trouble. Now, what is a hot link and how could I hotlink to one supposing that I needed to?

Right, Do you know what a URL is? It's the bit of code which tells you the address of a website, so e.g. my own website is www.whitehound.co.uk . You'll see that I've typed this website address, and then when I pressed the space-bar after typing it, my email programme that I'm using to type this message recognised that it was the code for a website URL and so it converted it into a hotlink: that is, the URL turned blue and now if you click on it you will be taken to that website address.

If you were to look at the source code for this message you would find that the HTML code for the hotlink looked like this:

[A href="http://www.whitehound.co.uk"]www.whitehound.co.uk[/A]

except that it would have angle-brackets, not square ones, but if I use angle brackets here odd things may happen. If you are working with the actual source code then the bit you actually see as the hotlink doesn't have to be the same as the URL, so for example:

[A href="http://www.whitehound.co.uk"]Claire's website[/A]

would show you the words "Claire's website" in blue but when you clicked on them it would take you to www.whitehound.co.uk.

Do not worry about how you attach the little pdf icon. You do not need to do it, and it would fry your brain.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Right, Do you know what a URL is? It's the bit of code which tells you the address of a website, so e.g. my own website is www.whitehound.co.uk . [snip]

Carol responds:

Yes, I know what a URL is (my mother calls them "earls"), but after that, you lost me. Thanks, anyway. All I wanted to know was how someone managed to attach a file in a Yahoo site, which I thought was impossible. I'm afraid I'm no more enlightened than I was when I started out.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: attaching messages (Richard III's
final Resting place)


> All I wanted to know was how someone managed to attach a file in a Yahoo
> site, which I thought was impossible. I'm afraid I'm no more enlightened
> than I was when I started out.

They didn't. They just included a link to the file in the text, but they
did things to the link to make it look pretty. But the actual file was
never attached to the email - it was elsewhere on the web.

Carol earlier:

> > All I wanted to know was how someone managed to attach a file in a Yahoo > site, which I thought was impossible. I'm afraid I'm no more enlightened > than I was when I started out.

Claire responded:
> They didn't. They just included a link to the file in the text, but they did things to the link to make it look pretty. But the actual file was never attached to the email - it was elsewhere on the web.
>
Carol again:

So it was just a URL in disguise? How disappointing. So we're back to what we already knew: you can't attach a file to a message in a Yahoo forum. Am I right this time?

Thanks again for all your trouble.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:08 AM
Subject: Re: attaching messages (Richard III's
final Resting place)


> So it was just a URL in disguise? How disappointing. So we're back to what
> we already knew: you can't attach a file to a message in a Yahoo forum. Am
> I right this time?

Yes.

> Thanks again for all your trouble.

's OK - fair exchange for all your hard work.

On another Yahoo forum which I frequent, it is possible to attach files to
messages, but they won't be preserved by Yahoo. If someone wants that file
s/he must receive the original message via e-mail. I'm not sure if files
attached to e-mails will "stick" if someone receives posts in digest mode -
I suspect not.

A J

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 8:08 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Carol earlier:
>
> > > All I wanted to know was how someone managed to attach a file in a
> Yahoo > site, which I thought was impossible. I'm afraid I'm no more
> enlightened > than I was when I started out.
>
> Claire responded:
> > They didn't. They just included a link to the file in the text, but they
> did things to the link to make it look pretty. But the actual file was
> never attached to the email - it was elsewhere on the web.
> >
> Carol again:
>
> So it was just a URL in disguise? How disappointing. So we're back to what
> we already knew: you can't attach a file to a message in a Yahoo forum. Am
> I right this time?
>
> Thanks again for all your trouble.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

   My understanding of 'Prince of Wales' Investitures was to 'Ensure the Succession' a Major part of the ceremony involved the kneeling of the 'New Prince' to Do Homage, 'I am your Liege-man etc'.

  Under Edward Ist the last 'Welsh Prince of Wales' Refused to do Homage, Edward had wanted to command the Welsh via their Prince under 'Feudal' rules to serve him 'Militarily' against the Scots.

Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2013, 16:11
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>I'm thinking of a description which details a service held in the minster *before* the prince was invested as Prince of Wales. The service may have not been a "coronation" but was a symbolic reception of Richard as King into the minster. Something like that.
>
>--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> colyngbourne wrote:
>>
>> "I understand then, that she may have been mistaken, as perhaps was
>> Croyland, but I did say "quasi-second coronation". Accounts of the events in
>> the Minster seem to detail a very elaborate service, and this prior to the
>> prince's investiture."
>>
>> Doug here:
>> My only reference is an extremely vague memory of television clips from
>> Prince Charles' Investiture, but would the ceremony have included a coronet,
>> say? That could, I should think, account for the belief that there *was* a
>> coronation in York - it's just that "coronation" was of Edward as Prince of
>> Wales and not Richard as King.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Of Subject a little but the City of Liverpool is to have the Plantagenet Society present at the First City 'St. Georges Day Celebrations See:  http://www.plantagenet.org.uk/  
And Culture Liverpool: http://uk.mg.bt.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.partner=bt-1&.rand=1b5uiffnbuhn9#mail

 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2013, 18:04
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>
>
>--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>>
>> I'm thinking of a description which details a service held in the minster *before* the prince was invested as Prince of Wales. The service may have not been a "coronation" but was a symbolic reception of Richard as King into the minster. Something like that.
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Without question, they welcomed him and Queen Anne with all the splendor they were capable of producing. But a second coronation would require the Archbishop of York (Rotherham, whom Richard had already stripped of the chancellorship for good reason) to crown and anoint him with the holy chrism--an act that Richard would probably consider it blasphemy to repeat. I know that other kings had second coronations (Halsted, IIRC, mentions Henry II), but there was no need in Richard's case. And why undermine his son's pleasure in a day dedicated to *him* by recrowning his father (and mother)? Of course, there would have been a magnificent religious service before such an important occasion. Edward of Middleham, they all hoped and believed, would some day be king himself.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

Stephen Lark wrote:

"investiture".

Doug here:
Well, *I* know that it was an investiture and not a coronation and so do
you, *but* it doesn't mean everyone who viewed it, or heard about it, knew
it was Edward being invested as Prince of Wales and *not* "crowned" Prince
of Wales. Which was why I wondered if a coronet, or some such object, was
involved in the investiture.
Add the placing of a coronet on Edward's head, if it happened, to the
unusually large number of dignitaries present in York and that, it seems to
me, *could* be where the idea of a second coronation came from.
Then add in the bias against "northerners" that existed and one has a really
great rumor to spread about how Richard was slighting everyone else in the
kingdom while showing favor to those semi-civilized northerners. I mean,
maybe he was even planning to move the capital to York! (that last is
snark!)
As so much of what has been said/written about Richard seems to have been
twisted, deliberatly or otherwise, from what *really* happened, I do think
that we need to examine what *has* been reported, even if that was reported
inaccurately, and try to find out if there was any basis of fact behind it.
Which could tell us whether the, inaccurate, story that's come down was just
a story that just grew in the telling, a report based on a mis- or
incomplete hearing of a speech or a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Doug

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

> Doug here:
Well, *I* know that it was an investiture and not a coronation and so do
you, *but* it doesn't mean everyone who viewed it, or heard about it, knew
it was Edward being invested as Prince of Wales and *not* "crowned" Prince
of Wales. Which was why I wondered if a coronet, or some such object, was
involved in the investiture.

Well, dukes wear coronets, so it seems likely.

colyngbourne wrote:

"I'm thinking of a description which details a service held in the minster
*before* the prince was invested as Prince of Wales. The service may have
not been a "coronation" but was a symbolic reception of Richard as King into
the minster. Something like that."

Once again, I can only go by what I've seen of modern monarchs in actions
(actually, only one "modern monarch" - the present Queen) and that is during
ceremonies involving some sort of action on the part of the monarch he/she
is usually seated; ie, coronations, openings of Parliament.
And, of course, the monarch would be escorted to that seat by some of the
assembled dignitaries. Whether there would then be some sort of announcement
along the lines of "Here is your annointed King or not I don't know (where's
a writer when one needs dialogue?).
What I was trying to get at was that it would be easy for even a well-wisher
who didn't know the ins-and-outs of such ceremonies to conflate the placing
of a coronet, or coronet-like object, on Edward's head as a symbol of his
becoming Prince of Wales with the earlier ceremonies welcoming Richard and
all those other dignitaries to York.
Which would be where the *idea* of a second coronation would then come from.
Is that clear or have I just rambled on?
Doug

  Short of ANOTHER Semi Miraculous Event like the discovery of Richard's Remains, 
It seems to me that his 'Funeral & Entombment' are the 'Last Major Chance'. to secure what Ricardians see as his 'Rightful' place in history.

Hopefully they will get this RIGHT!!  
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2013, 16:29
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>
>Stephen Lark wrote:
>
>"investiture".
>
>Doug here:
>Well, *I* know that it was an investiture and not a coronation and so do
>you, *but* it doesn't mean everyone who viewed it, or heard about it, knew
>it was Edward being invested as Prince of Wales and *not* "crowned" Prince
>of Wales. Which was why I wondered if a coronet, or some such object, was
>involved in the investiture.
>Add the placing of a coronet on Edward's head, if it happened, to the
>unusually large number of dignitaries present in York and that, it seems to
>me, *could* be where the idea of a second coronation came from.
>Then add in the bias against "northerners" that existed and one has a really
>great rumor to spread about how Richard was slighting everyone else in the
>kingdom while showing favor to those semi-civilized northerners. I mean,
>maybe he was even planning to move the capital to York! (that last is
>snark!)
>As so much of what has been said/written about Richard seems to have been
>twisted, deliberatly or otherwise, from what *really* happened, I do think
>that we need to examine what *has* been reported, even if that was reported
>inaccurately, and try to find out if there was any basis of fact behind it.
>Which could tell us whether the, inaccurate, story that's come down was just
>a story that just grew in the telling, a report based on a mis- or
>incomplete hearing of a speech or a deliberate attempt to mislead.
>Doug
>
>
>
>
>

Prince Charles definitely had a coronet at his investiture. Was the 1969 ceremony based on any established form or was it made up for that particular event?



--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
> > Doug here:
> Well, *I* know that it was an investiture and not a coronation and so do
> you, *but* it doesn't mean everyone who viewed it, or heard about it, knew
> it was Edward being invested as Prince of Wales and *not* "crowned" Prince
> of Wales. Which was why I wondered if a coronet, or some such object, was
> involved in the investiture.
>
> Well, dukes wear coronets, so it seems likely.
>

It was Largely devised by the Earl of Snowden.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 15:44
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>
>Prince Charles definitely had a coronet at his investiture. Was the 1969 ceremony based on any established form or was it made up for that particular event?
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>>
>> > Doug here:
>> Well, *I* know that it was an investiture and not a coronation and so do
>> you, *but* it doesn't mean everyone who viewed it, or heard about it, knew
>> it was Edward being invested as Prince of Wales and *not* "crowned" Prince
>> of Wales. Which was why I wondered if a coronet, or some such object, was
>> involved in the investiture.
>>
>> Well, dukes wear coronets, so it seems likely.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

I've always understood that most of the ceremony associated with the Investiture of the Prince of Wales was invented by David Lloyd George for Edward VIII's service. This doesn't mean that there weren't ceremonies of kinds for earlier princes, but I'd be wary of inferring too much from the 1969 (or 1911) ceremonies.  

--- On Fri, 8/3/13, Katherine <katherine.michaud@...> wrote:

From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
To:
Date: Friday, 8 March, 2013, 15:44
















 











Prince Charles definitely had a coronet at his investiture. Was the 1969 ceremony based on any established form or was it made up for that particular event?



--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

>

> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate

> To:

> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:29 PM

> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

>

> > Doug here:

> Well, *I* know that it was an investiture and not a coronation and so do

> you, *but* it doesn't mean everyone who viewed it, or heard about it, knew

> it was Edward being invested as Prince of Wales and *not* "crowned" Prince

> of Wales. Which was why I wondered if a coronet, or some such object, was

> involved in the investiture.

>

> Well, dukes wear coronets, so it seems likely.

>

I find this a very interesting and plausible thought, personally.

--- On Thu, 7/3/13, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
To:
Date: Thursday, 7 March, 2013, 16:42
















 











colyngbourne wrote:



"I'm thinking of a description which details a service held in the minster

*before* the prince was invested as Prince of Wales. The service may have

not been a "coronation" but was a symbolic reception of Richard as King into

the minster. Something like that."



Once again, I can only go by what I've seen of modern monarchs in actions

(actually, only one "modern monarch" - the present Queen) and that is during

ceremonies involving some sort of action on the part of the monarch he/she

is usually seated; ie, coronations, openings of Parliament.

And, of course, the monarch would be escorted to that seat by some of the

assembled dignitaries. Whether there would then be some sort of announcement

along the lines of "Here is your annointed King or not I don't know (where's

a writer when one needs dialogue?).

What I was trying to get at was that it would be easy for even a well-wisher

who didn't know the ins-and-outs of such ceremonies to conflate the placing

of a coronet, or coronet-like object, on Edward's head as a symbol of his

becoming Prince of Wales with the earlier ceremonies welcoming Richard and

all those other dignitaries to York.

Which would be where the *idea* of a second coronation would then come from.

Is that clear or have I just rambled on?

Doug

Thank you. I had a vague recollection that that was the case. Presumably he did check out precedent and other investitures.



--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> It was Largely devised by the Earl of Snowden.
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 15:44
> >Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >Prince Charles definitely had a coronet at his investiture. Was the 1969 ceremony based on any established form or was it made up for that particular event?
> >
> >--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:29 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
> >>
> >> > Doug here:
> >> Well, *I* know that it was an investiture and not a coronation and so do
> >> you, *but* it doesn't mean everyone who viewed it, or heard about it, knew
> >> it was Edward being invested as Prince of Wales and *not* "crowned" Prince
> >> of Wales. Which was why I wondered if a coronet, or some such object, was
> >> involved in the investiture.
> >>
> >> Well, dukes wear coronets, so it seems likely.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Yes, that was what I was thinking. As I replied to Arthur, I was pretty sure that it wasn't an ancient ceremony with an established format unlike the coronation ceremony, for example.

So, we haven't much to go on really.



--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:
>
> I've always understood that most of the ceremony associated with the Investiture of the Prince of Wales was invented by David Lloyd George for Edward VIII's service. This doesn't mean that there weren't ceremonies of kinds for earlier princes, but I'd be wary of inferring too much from the 1969 (or 1911) ceremonies.  
>
> --- On Fri, 8/3/13, Katherine <katherine.michaud@...> wrote:
>
> From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
> To:
> Date: Friday, 8 March, 2013, 15:44
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Prince Charles definitely had a coronet at his investiture. Was the 1969 ceremony based on any established form or was it made up for that particular event?
>
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
>
> > To:
>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:29 PM
>
> > Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
> >
>
> > > Doug here:
>
> > Well, *I* know that it was an investiture and not a coronation and so do
>
> > you, *but* it doesn't mean everyone who viewed it, or heard about it, knew
>
> > it was Edward being invested as Prince of Wales and *not* "crowned" Prince
>
> > of Wales. Which was why I wondered if a coronet, or some such object, was
>
> > involved in the investiture.
>
> >
>
> > Well, dukes wear coronets, so it seems likely.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Janet Ashtonrote:

"I've always understood that most of the ceremony associated with the
Investiture of the Prince of Wales was invented by David Lloyd George for
Edward VIII's service. This doesn't mean that there weren't ceremonies of
kinds for earlier princes, but I'd be wary of inferring too much from the
1969 (or 1911) ceremonies."

Doug here:
Oh shoot!
Well, until further evidence to the contrary comes to light, I'm going to
stay with the idea that it was Richard's reception at York Minster,
immediately followed by the Investiture of Edward as Prince of Wales *and*
the larger than usual number of non-northern dignitaries in attendance that
led to the mistaken* idea that there was a second coronation of Richard at
York. I won't think about whether the idea was just an honest mistake or a
deliberate attempt at misleading!
Sure, I won't...
Doug
--- On Fri, 8/3/13, Katherine <katherine.michaud@...> wrote:

From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
To:
Date: Friday, 8 March, 2013, 15:44




























Prince Charles definitely had a coronet at his investiture. Was the 1969
ceremony based on any established form or was it made up for that particular
event?



--- In , "Claire M Jordan"
<whitehound@...> wrote:

>

> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate

> To:

> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:29 PM

> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

>

> > Doug here:

> Well, *I* know that it was an investiture and not a coronation and so do

> you, *but* it doesn't mean everyone who viewed it, or heard about it, knew

> it was Edward being invested as Prince of Wales and *not* "crowned" Prince

> of Wales. Which was why I wondered if a coronet, or some such object, was

> involved in the investiture.

>

> Well, dukes wear coronets, so it seems likely.

>































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

Yahoo! Groups Links

As Regards 'Words' seems likely, the Coronet was a new [His?] design. 

He certainly designed the set.

There are 'Examples' of swearing 'Allegiance' pre-dating the Norman Conquest.

Harold was shown as 'Swearing on Relics' to William on the Bayeux Tapestry.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 16:12
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>Thank you. I had a vague recollection that that was the case. Presumably he did check out precedent and other investitures.
>
>--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>>
>> It was Largely devised by the Earl of Snowden.
>>  
>> Kind Regards,
>>  
>> Arthur.
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 15:44
>> >Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> >Prince Charles definitely had a coronet at his investiture. Was the 1969 ceremony based on any established form or was it made up for that particular event?
>> >
>> >--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
>> >> To:
>> >> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:29 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>> >>
>> >> > Doug here:
>> >> Well, *I* know that it was an investiture and not a coronation and so do
>> >> you, *but* it doesn't mean everyone who viewed it, or heard about it, knew
>> >> it was Edward being invested as Prince of Wales and *not* "crowned" Prince
>> >> of Wales. Which was why I wondered if a coronet, or some such object, was
>> >> involved in the investiture.
>> >>
>> >> Well, dukes wear coronets, so it seems likely.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Arthur wrote:
>
>    My understanding of 'Prince of Wales' Investitures was to 'Ensure the Succession' a Major part of the ceremony involved the kneeling of the 'New Prince' to Do Homage, 'I am your Liege-man etc'.
>
>   Under Edward Ist the last 'Welsh Prince of Wales' Refused to do Homage, Edward had wanted to command the Welsh via their Prince under 'Feudal' rules to serve him 'Militarily' against the Scots.

Carol responds:

Well, yes. But that Prince of Wales was a genuine Welsh prince, Llewellyn ap Gruffyd. Edward I then declared his baby son, the future Edward II, as Prince of Wales. The story goes that he held up the naked infant to the Welsh people and said, "Here is your prince," or something like that, promising, IIRC, that he would learn to speak the Welsh language. (I don't recall the source and don't know whether the story is true or just a legend.) But the custom of making the heir to the throne the Prince of Wales began with Edward I's son (the only one of a whole slew of sons to survive infancy). Whether any other king besides Edwards I and IV sent their sons off to Wales (or Ludlow) to be reared away from court and family, I don't know. It seems to have been a disastrous policy in both instances.

No time to verify details, so I could be wrong on all counts.

Carol

As Regards 'Words' seems likely, the Coronet was a new [His?] design. 

He certainly designed the set.

There are 'Examples' of swearing 'Allegiance' pre-dating the Norman Conquest.

Harold was shown as 'Swearing on Relics' to William on the Bayeux Tapestry.

The First 'English' Prince of Wales was [Later] Edward II. Edward I [Hammer of the Scots] was Firstly 'Hammer of the Welsh' He promised them a prince who spoke NO English, He then produced his son [Later Edward II] as a baby who could NOT speak!! [He is Buried @ Gloucester Cathedral.]

 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 16:17
>Subject: Re: Investiture of the Prince (WAS Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>Yes, that was what I was thinking. As I replied to Arthur, I was pretty sure that it wasn't an ancient ceremony with an established format unlike the coronation ceremony, for example.
>
>So, we haven't much to go on really.
>
>--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:
>>
>> I've always understood that most of the ceremony associated with the Investiture of the Prince of Wales was invented by David Lloyd George for Edward VIII's service. This doesn't mean that there weren't ceremonies of kinds for earlier princes, but I'd be wary of inferring too much from the 1969 (or 1911) ceremonies.  
>>
>> --- On Fri, 8/3/13, Katherine <katherine.michaud@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
>> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>> To:
>> Date: Friday, 8 March, 2013, 15:44
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Prince Charles definitely had a coronet at his investiture. Was the 1969 ceremony based on any established form or was it made up for that particular event?
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
>>
>> > To:
>>
>> > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:29 PM
>>
>> > Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > Doug here:
>>
>> > Well, *I* know that it was an investiture and not a coronation and so do
>>
>> > you, *but* it doesn't mean everyone who viewed it, or heard about it, knew
>>
>> > it was Edward being invested as Prince of Wales and *not* "crowned" Prince
>>
>> > of Wales. Which was why I wondered if a coronet, or some such object, was
>>
>> > involved in the investiture.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Well, dukes wear coronets, so it seems likely.
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Well, I did have a sneaky attempt to rouse Gloucester from its slumber, but this afternoon I received this from the relevant authority:-
Thank you for your enquiry concerning the future internment of King Richard III. I agree with you that this is a truly exciting historical discovery and one that has aroused considerable interest.


However, we have been informed today that York Minster have now publicly given their support for his body to be buried in Leicester.


Of course, we are very proud here in Gloucester that we do already have a king buried in our Cathedral.

But I wanted two kings here and thought the prize worth fighting for! Anyway, it looks as if it's to be Leicester. Once and for all.



Sandra

As I understand it ALL princes of Wales are CREATED, Not just Born. 
The Basic Idea being that the Prince, Agreed to carry the 'Loyalty of Wales' to the Monarch.

Edward Ist replaced the Last Native Prince of Wales because of a Failure to 'Swear Fealty'' 

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Wales
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur Wright.



>________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2013, 17:24
>Subject: Re: Investiture of the Prince (WAS Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>
>Janet Ashtonrote:
>
>"I've always understood that most of the ceremony associated with the
>Investiture of the Prince of Wales was invented by David Lloyd George for
>Edward VIII's service. This doesn't mean that there weren't ceremonies of
>kinds for earlier princes, but I'd be wary of inferring too much from the
>1969 (or 1911) ceremonies."
>
>Doug here:
>Oh shoot!
>Well, until further evidence to the contrary comes to light, I'm going to
>stay with the idea that it was Richard's reception at York Minster,
>immediately followed by the Investiture of Edward as Prince of Wales *and*
>the larger than usual number of non-northern dignitaries in attendance that
>led to the mistaken* idea that there was a second coronation of Richard at
>York. I won't think about whether the idea was just an honest mistake or a
>deliberate attempt at misleading!
>Sure, I won't...
>Doug
>--- On Fri, 8/3/13, Katherine <katherine.michaud@...> wrote:
>
>From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>To:
>Date: Friday, 8 March, 2013, 15:44
>
>Prince Charles definitely had a coronet at his investiture. Was the 1969
>ceremony based on any established form or was it made up for that particular
>event?
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan"
><whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
>
>> To:
>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:29 PM
>
>> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>>
>
>> > Doug here:
>
>> Well, *I* know that it was an investiture and not a coronation and so do
>
>> you, *but* it doesn't mean everyone who viewed it, or heard about it, knew
>
>> it was Edward being invested as Prince of Wales and *not* "crowned" Prince
>
>> of Wales. Which was why I wondered if a coronet, or some such object, was
>
>> involved in the investiture.
>
>>
>
>> Well, dukes wear coronets, so it seems likely.
>
>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Ludlow, [Incidentally well worth a visit] was the Administrative 'Capital' of Wales. 

Prince Arthur [Tudor] was perhaps the best known resident. 

He died there & was buried @ Worcester in an interesting 'Chantry Chapel'.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 17:16
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>Arthur wrote:
>>
>>    My understanding of 'Prince of Wales' Investitures was to 'Ensure the Succession' a Major part of the ceremony involved the kneeling of the 'New Prince' to Do Homage, 'I am your Liege-man etc'.
>>
>>   Under Edward Ist the last 'Welsh Prince of Wales' Refused to do Homage, Edward had wanted to command the Welsh via their Prince under 'Feudal' rules to serve him 'Militarily' against the Scots.
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Well, yes. But that Prince of Wales was a genuine Welsh prince, Llewellyn ap Gruffyd. Edward I then declared his baby son, the future Edward II, as Prince of Wales. The story goes that he held up the naked infant to the Welsh people and said, "Here is your prince," or something like that, promising, IIRC, that he would learn to speak the Welsh language. (I don't recall the source and don't know whether the story is true or just a legend.) But the custom of making the heir to the throne the Prince of Wales began with Edward I's son (the only one of a whole slew of sons to survive infancy). Whether any other king besides Edwards I and IV sent their sons off to Wales (or Ludlow) to be reared away from court and family, I don't know. It seems to have been a disastrous policy in both instances.
>
>No time to verify details, so I could be wrong on all counts.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

Carol said:

Well, yes. But that Prince of Wales was a genuine Welsh prince, Llewellyn ap Gruffyd. Edward I then declared his baby son, the future Edward II, as Prince of Wales. The story goes that he held up the naked infant to the Welsh people and said, "Here is your prince," or something like that, promising, IIRC, that he would learn to speak the Welsh language. (I don't recall the source and don't know whether the story is true or just a legend.) But the custom of making the heir to the throne the Prince of Wales began with Edward I's son (the only one of a whole slew of sons to survive infancy). Whether any other king besides Edwards I and IV sent their sons off to Wales (or Ludlow) to be reared away from court and family, I don't know. It seems to have been a disastrous policy in both instances.

No time to verify details, so I could be wrong on all counts.

Liz replied:
 
DNB says
Edward II [Edward of Caernarfon] (12841327), king of England and lord of Ireland, and duke of Aquitaine, was born at Caernarfon Castle in north Wales on 25 April 1284, the youngest child of Edward I (12391307) and his first wife, Eleanor of Castile (12411290).
"Infancy and education
At the time of Edward's birth Caernarfon Castle was still under construction. Although there is no apparent foundation for the sixteenth-century statements that the young prince was presented to the Welsh as a native-born sovereign, there is evidence that Edward I deliberately arranged for his latest child to be born at Caernarfon in order to draw, for his own political advantage, on the supposed associations of the place in Welsh legend with imperial Rome."

 
 I also doubt very much if he was taught much (if any?) Welsh since his father imposed English laws and English became the language you had to speak to get anywhere.

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place


> The story goes that he held up the naked infant to the Welsh people and
> said, "Here is your prince," or something like that, promising, IIRC, that
> he would learn to speak the Welsh language.

The version I heard was that he promised them a prince who was born in Wales
and spoke no English (which was true because he was a pre-verbal infant) -
not that he would speak Welsh. In a way, Rhys ap Whatsit's treachery in
letting Henry Tudor pass over him was tit for tat for this bit of English
sharp practice - but hard on Richard, who seems to have been as honest as
sunlight.

Doug wrote:
> Well, *I* know that it was an investiture and not a coronation and so do you, *but* it doesn't mean everyone who viewed it, or heard about it, knew it was Edward being invested as Prince of Wales and *not* "crowned" Prince of Wales. Which was why I wondered if a coronet, or some such object, was involved in the investiture.
> Add the placing of a coronet on Edward's head, if it happened, to the unusually large number of dignitaries present in York and that, it seems to me, *could* be where the idea of a second coronation came from. [snip]

Carol responds:

No one thought that it was a "coronation" of Edward. Here's what the Croyland chronicler (who was not present) claimed:

"Being now desirous with all speed, to show in the north, where in former years, he had chiefly resided, the high and kingly station which he had by these means acquired, he entered the royal city of London, and passing through Windsor, Oxford, and Coventry, at length arrived at York. Here, on a day appointed for repeating his coronation in the metropolitan church, he also presented his only son, Edward, whom, on the same day, he had elevated to the rank of Prince of Wales, with the insignia of the golden wand, and the wreath upon the head; while, at the same time, he gave most gorgeous and sumptuous feasts and banquets, for the purpose of gaining the affections of the people. Nor were treasures by any means then wanting, with which to satisfy the desires of his haughty mind; since he had taken possession of all those which the most glorious king Edward, his deceased brother, had, by dint of the greatest care and scrupulousness amassed, as already stated, many years before, and had entrusted to the disposal of his executors as a means whereby to carry out the dispositions of his last will: all these he had seized, the very moment that he had contemplated the usurpation of the throne."

Note the absence of objectivity and the motives he attributes to Richard. You would need to see Foedera, Rous, and the York documents to get a better idea of what actually happened. The insignia of the golden wand and the wreath upon the head sound like authentic details that he could have heard from Rotherham, the archbishop of York.

Note also that he mistakenly has Richard seizing Edward's treasure, which had in fact been stolen by the Woodvilles, "at the very moment that he had contemplated the usurpation of the throne"--which shows just how unreliable the Croyland chronicler can be.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place


> Note also that he mistakenly has Richard seizing Edward's treasure, which
> had in fact been stolen by the Woodvilles, "at the very moment that he had
> contemplated the usurpation of the throne"--which shows just how
> unreliable the Croyland chronicler can be.

Though perhaps honestly so - you can see he might have heard "There was a
big row between Gloucester and the Queen about money going missing from the
treasury" and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

What venom!!
I don't think he attributed the stealing to Richard erroneously. He made a choice to heap it on his head even though he probably knew it that the EW camp was responsible!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 8, 2013, at 4:15 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 8:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
> > Note also that he mistakenly has Richard seizing Edward's treasure, which
> > had in fact been stolen by the Woodvilles, "at the very moment that he had
> > contemplated the usurpation of the throne"--which shows just how
> > unreliable the Croyland chronicler can be.
>
> Though perhaps honestly so - you can see he might have heard "There was a
> big row between Gloucester and the Queen about money going missing from the
> treasury" and jumped to the wrong conclusion.
>
>

Except the CC is often biased against Richard so it's not just a one-off. Of course it may be that whoever the chronicler was, he was fed the spin by his informant whoever that might have been but I expect it was common gossip that EW had raided the treasury.


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 21:15
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

 
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

> Note also that he mistakenly has Richard seizing Edward's treasure, which
> had in fact been stolen by the Woodvilles, "at the very moment that he had
> contemplated the usurpation of the throne"--which shows just how
> unreliable the Croyland chronicler can be.

Though perhaps honestly so - you can see he might have heard "There was a
big row between Gloucester and the Queen about money going missing from the
treasury" and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

I agree with you! I don't think we can know too much about the exact form of the ceremony (as to coronets etc), but the Croyland Chronicle indicates that there was a lot of to-do, and it was not well received in the south and west. :-) 
Infer what one will...:-)

--- On Thu, 7/3/13, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
Subject: Re: Investiture of the Prince (WAS Richard III's final Resting place
To:
Date: Thursday, 7 March, 2013, 17:24
















 











Janet Ashtonrote:



"I've always understood that most of the ceremony associated with the

Investiture of the Prince of Wales was invented by David Lloyd George for

Edward VIII's service. This doesn't mean that there weren't ceremonies of

kinds for earlier princes, but I'd be wary of inferring too much from the

1969 (or 1911) ceremonies."



Doug here:

Oh shoot!

Well, until further evidence to the contrary comes to light, I'm going to

stay with the idea that it was Richard's reception at York Minster,

immediately followed by the Investiture of Edward as Prince of Wales *and*

the larger than usual number of non-northern dignitaries in attendance that

led to the mistaken* idea that there was a second coronation of Richard at

York. I won't think about whether the idea was just an honest mistake or a

deliberate attempt at misleading!

Sure, I won't...

Doug

--- On Fri, 8/3/13, Katherine <katherine.michaud@...> wrote:



From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>

Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

To:

Date: Friday, 8 March, 2013, 15:44



Prince Charles definitely had a coronet at his investiture. Was the 1969

ceremony based on any established form or was it made up for that particular

event?



--- In , "Claire M Jordan"

<whitehound@...> wrote:



>



> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate



> To:



> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:29 PM



> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place



>



> > Doug here:



> Well, *I* know that it was an investiture and not a coronation and so do



> you, *but* it doesn't mean everyone who viewed it, or heard about it, knew



> it was Edward being invested as Prince of Wales and *not* "crowned" Prince



> of Wales. Which was why I wondered if a coronet, or some such object, was



> involved in the investiture.



>



> Well, dukes wear coronets, so it seems likely.



>







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



Yahoo! Groups Links

EDWARD I: Behold your Prince!

WALES: Behold our bums!

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> As I understand it ALL princes of Wales are CREATED, Not just Born. 
> The Basic Idea being that the Prince, Agreed to carry the 'Loyalty of Wales' to the Monarch.
>
> Edward Ist replaced the Last Native Prince of Wales because of a Failure to 'Swear Fealty'' 
>
> See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Wales
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur Wright.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2013, 17:24
> >Subject: Re: Investiture of the Prince (WAS Richard III's final Resting place
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >Janet Ashtonrote:
> >
> >"I've always understood that most of the ceremony associated with the
> >Investiture of the Prince of Wales was invented by David Lloyd George for
> >Edward VIII's service. This doesn't mean that there weren't ceremonies of
> >kinds for earlier princes, but I'd be wary of inferring too much from the
> >1969 (or 1911) ceremonies."
> >
> >Doug here:
> >Oh shoot!
> >Well, until further evidence to the contrary comes to light, I'm going to
> >stay with the idea that it was Richard's reception at York Minster,
> >immediately followed by the Investiture of Edward as Prince of Wales *and*
> >the larger than usual number of non-northern dignitaries in attendance that
> >led to the mistaken* idea that there was a second coronation of Richard at
> >York. I won't think about whether the idea was just an honest mistake or a
> >deliberate attempt at misleading!
> >Sure, I won't...
> >Doug
> >--- On Fri, 8/3/13, Katherine <katherine.michaud@...> wrote:
> >
> >From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
> >Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
> >To:
> >Date: Friday, 8 March, 2013, 15:44
> >
> >Prince Charles definitely had a coronet at his investiture. Was the 1969
> >ceremony based on any established form or was it made up for that particular
> >event?
> >
> >--- In , "Claire M Jordan"
> ><whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> >
> >> To:
> >
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:29 PM
> >
> >> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
> >
> >>
> >
> >> > Doug here:
> >
> >> Well, *I* know that it was an investiture and not a coronation and so do
> >
> >> you, *but* it doesn't mean everyone who viewed it, or heard about it, knew
> >
> >> it was Edward being invested as Prince of Wales and *not* "crowned" Prince
> >
> >> of Wales. Which was why I wondered if a coronet, or some such object, was
> >
> >> involved in the investiture.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Well, dukes wear coronets, so it seems likely.
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

"Katherine" wrote:
>
> Yes, that was what I was thinking. As I replied to Arthur, I was pretty sure that it wasn't an ancient ceremony with an established format unlike the coronation ceremony, for example.
>
> So, we haven't much to go on really.

Carol responds:

One reason for the lack of precedent is that most Princes of Wales were given the title as infants because they were born the sons of kings. Henry V was created Prince of Wales at his father's coronation, so there was no separate ceremony. Obviously, the Prince of Wales would not be anointed with chrism like a king (or even a queen consort), but the rest of the ceremony might have been similar (except for kingly regalia like the scepter and the blunt-tipped Sword of Mercy).

We do know that John of Gloucester was knighted at this ceremony. If I recall correctly, so was Edward. Earl of Warwick. I suspect that they were not alone.

The future Henry VIII must have been invested as Prince of Wales when he was not much older than Edward of Middleham. Possibly the details of that ceremony have survived and could give us some idea what Edward of Middleham's was like.

Carol

Coronets:

In Heraldry the 'Ranks' of the nobility are represented by different 'Coronets' Princes & Dukes @ the Top, Barons at the bottom. Earls are in the middle.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur .



>________________________________
> From: Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 22:49
>Subject: Re: Investiture of the Prince (WAS Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>I agree with you! I don't think we can know too much about the exact form of the ceremony (as to coronets etc), but the Croyland Chronicle indicates that there was a lot of to-do, and it was not well received in the south and west. :-) 
>Infer what one will...:-)
>
>--- On Thu, 7/3/13, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
>
>From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
>Subject: Re: Investiture of the Prince (WAS Richard III's final Resting place
>To:
>Date: Thursday, 7 March, 2013, 17:24
>
> 
>
>Janet Ashtonrote:
>
>"I've always understood that most of the ceremony associated with the
>
>Investiture of the Prince of Wales was invented by David Lloyd George for
>
>Edward VIII's service. This doesn't mean that there weren't ceremonies of
>
>kinds for earlier princes, but I'd be wary of inferring too much from the
>
>1969 (or 1911) ceremonies."
>
>Doug here:
>
>Oh shoot!
>
>Well, until further evidence to the contrary comes to light, I'm going to
>
>stay with the idea that it was Richard's reception at York Minster,
>
>immediately followed by the Investiture of Edward as Prince of Wales *and*
>
>the larger than usual number of non-northern dignitaries in attendance that
>
>led to the mistaken* idea that there was a second coronation of Richard at
>
>York. I won't think about whether the idea was just an honest mistake or a
>
>deliberate attempt at misleading!
>
>Sure, I won't...
>
>Doug
>
>--- On Fri, 8/3/13, Katherine <katherine.michaud@...> wrote:
>
>From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
>
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>To:
>
>Date: Friday, 8 March, 2013, 15:44
>
>Prince Charles definitely had a coronet at his investiture. Was the 1969
>
>ceremony based on any established form or was it made up for that particular
>
>event?
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan"
>
><whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
>
>> To:
>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:29 PM
>
>> Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>>
>
>> > Doug here:
>
>> Well, *I* know that it was an investiture and not a coronation and so do
>
>> you, *but* it doesn't mean everyone who viewed it, or heard about it, knew
>
>> it was Edward being invested as Prince of Wales and *not* "crowned" Prince
>
>> of Wales. Which was why I wondered if a coronet, or some such object, was
>
>> involved in the investiture.
>
>>
>
>> Well, dukes wear coronets, so it seems likely.
>
>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

  With regard to 'Nobility in General' we need to remember the 'Feudal System' was based on Land, it was 'Held' [I always think a bit like 'Pyramid Selling'] The king at the top, then Dukes & Princes, At the bottom was a 'Knights Fee' these individuals Swore Fealty to the king & for their lands they supplied a given number of men, some mounted, in wartime. 

  There is a scene in Shakespeare's Henry V [I think] were Falstaff signs up recruits for the king's war.

[Sorry to mention Shakespeare!!]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 23:27
>Subject: Re: Investiture of the Prince (WAS Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>"Katherine" wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that was what I was thinking. As I replied to Arthur, I was pretty sure that it wasn't an ancient ceremony with an established format unlike the coronation ceremony, for example.
>>
>> So, we haven't much to go on really.
>
>Carol responds:
>
>One reason for the lack of precedent is that most Princes of Wales were given the title as infants because they were born the sons of kings. Henry V was created Prince of Wales at his father's coronation, so there was no separate ceremony. Obviously, the Prince of Wales would not be anointed with chrism like a king (or even a queen consort), but the rest of the ceremony might have been similar (except for kingly regalia like the scepter and the blunt-tipped Sword of Mercy).
>
>We do know that John of Gloucester was knighted at this ceremony. If I recall correctly, so was Edward. Earl of Warwick. I suspect that they were not alone.
>
>The future Henry VIII must have been invested as Prince of Wales when he was not much older than Edward of Middleham. Possibly the details of that ceremony have survived and could give us some idea what Edward of Middleham's was like.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

The English nobility of Edward I and IIs time didn't speak any English - they spoke Norman French, just like their cousins in the Scottish and Irish nobility.

Before the 15th century, the Kingdom of England is a Norman-Angevin Empire; to refer to them as "English" is like calling the Duke of Wellington "Indian".


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 20:30
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place


 

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

> The story goes that he held up the naked infant to the Welsh people and
> said, "Here is your prince," or something like that, promising, IIRC, that
> he would learn to speak the Welsh language.

The version I heard was that he promised them a prince who was born in Wales
and spoke no English (which was true because he was a pre-verbal infant) -
not that he would speak Welsh. In a way, Rhys ap Whatsit's treachery in
letting Henry Tudor pass over him was tit for tat for this bit of English
sharp practice - but hard on Richard, who seems to have been as honest as
sunlight.

No of course you're right but the "people" spoke English and English is the language that Edward imposed upon the Welsh.
 
Equally Edward kept his promise (If the story is true which I doubt very much) because as you said, Edward II spoke Norman French not English


________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 20:39
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

 
The English nobility of Edward I and IIs time didn't speak any English - they spoke Norman French, just like their cousins in the Scottish and Irish nobility.

Before the 15th century, the Kingdom of England is a Norman-Angevin Empire; to refer to them as "English" is like calling the Duke of Wellington "Indian".

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 20:30
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place


 

From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place

> The story goes that he held up the naked infant to the Welsh people and
> said, "Here is your prince," or something like that, promising, IIRC, that
> he would learn to speak the Welsh language.

The version I heard was that he promised them a prince who was born in Wales
and spoke no English (which was true because he was a pre-verbal infant) -
not that he would speak Welsh. In a way, Rhys ap Whatsit's treachery in
letting Henry Tudor pass over him was tit for tat for this bit of English
sharp practice - but hard on Richard, who seems to have been as honest as
sunlight.

True or Not, I think the 'Joke' was regarding the Child being 'Pre-Lingual'.

A Joke which, IF true, was in 'Character' for our Pal Ted Ist, 'Maleus Scotorum'

 Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Saturday, 9 March 2013, 19:15
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>No of course you're right but the "people" spoke English and English is the language that Edward imposed upon the Welsh.
> 
>Equally Edward kept his promise (If the story is true which I doubt very much) because as you said, Edward II spoke Norman French not English
>
>________________________________
>From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 20:39
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
> 
>The English nobility of Edward I and IIs time didn't speak any English - they spoke Norman French, just like their cousins in the Scottish and Irish nobility.
>
>Before the 15th century, the Kingdom of England is a Norman-Angevin Empire; to refer to them as "English" is like calling the Duke of Wellington "Indian".
>
>________________________________
>From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 20:30
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
> 
>
>From: liz williams
>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 8:10 PM
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>> The story goes that he held up the naked infant to the Welsh people and
>> said, "Here is your prince," or something like that, promising, IIRC, that
>> he would learn to speak the Welsh language.
>
>The version I heard was that he promised them a prince who was born in Wales
>and spoke no English (which was true because he was a pre-verbal infant) -
>not that he would speak Welsh. In a way, Rhys ap Whatsit's treachery in
>letting Henry Tudor pass over him was tit for tat for this bit of English
>sharp practice - but hard on Richard, who seems to have been as honest as
>sunlight.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Carnarfon Castle Design was based on the walls of  Constantinople.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013, 20:10
>Subject: Re: Richard III's final Resting place
>
>
> 
>Carol said:
>
>Well, yes. But that Prince of Wales was a genuine Welsh prince, Llewellyn ap Gruffyd. Edward I then declared his baby son, the future Edward II, as Prince of Wales. The story goes that he held up the naked infant to the Welsh people and said, "Here is your prince," or something like that, promising, IIRC, that he would learn to speak the Welsh language. (I don't recall the source and don't know whether the story is true or just a legend.) But the custom of making the heir to the throne the Prince of Wales began with Edward I's son (the only one of a whole slew of sons to survive infancy). Whether any other king besides Edwards I and IV sent their sons off to Wales (or Ludlow) to be reared away from court and family, I don't know. It seems to have been a disastrous policy in both instances.
>
>No time to verify details, so I could be wrong on all counts.
>
>Liz replied:
> 
>DNB says
>Edward II [Edward of Caernarfon] (12841327), king of England and lord of Ireland, and duke of Aquitaine, was born at Caernarfon Castle in north Wales on 25 April 1284, the youngest child of Edward I (12391307) and his first wife, Eleanor of Castile (12411290).
>"Infancy and education
>At the time of Edward's birth Caernarfon Castle was still under construction. Although there is no apparent foundation for the sixteenth-century statements that the young prince was presented to the Welsh as a native-born sovereign, there is evidence that Edward I deliberately arranged for his latest child to be born at Caernarfon in order to draw, for his own political advantage, on the supposed associations of the place in Welsh legend with imperial Rome."
>
> 
> I also doubt very much if he was taught much (if any?) Welsh since his father imposed English laws and English became the language you had to speak to get anywhere.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Has anyone mentioned Tewkesbury Abbey as a possible burial site? George of Clarence is buried there, and Isabel Neville, his wife. Henry Beauchamp, 1st Duke of Warwick is also there, and his wife, a sister of the Kingmaker. Oh, and Edward of Westminster, of course. Edward IV rather blotted a copybook there in 1471, by storming in to capture those seeking sanctuary. It had to be closed to be cleansed afterward. Black mark in Richard's eyes? Anyway, it's a fitting site  and the abbey escapes the annual floods that seem to beset the town these days.

Sandra

Carol wrote:

"No one thought that it was a "coronation" of Edward. Here's what the
Croyland chronicler (who was not present) claimed:
"Being now desirous with all speed, to show in the north, where in former
years, he had chiefly resided, the high and kingly station which he had by
these means acquired, he entered the royal city of London, and passing
through Windsor, Oxford, and Coventry, at length arrived at York. Here, on a
day appointed for repeating his coronation in the metropolitan church, he
also presented his only son, Edward, whom, on the same day, he had elevated
to the rank of Prince of Wales, with the insignia of the golden wand, and
the wreath upon the head; while, at the same time, he gave most gorgeous and
sumptuous feasts and banquets, for the purpose of gaining the affections of
the people. Nor were treasures by any means then wanting, with which to
satisfy the desires of his haughty mind; since he had taken possession of
all those which the most glorious king Edward, his deceased brother, had, by
dint of the greatest care and scrupulousness amassed, as already stated,
many years before, and had entrusted to the disposal of his executors as a
means whereby to carry out the dispositions of his last will: all these he
had seized, the very moment that he had contemplated the usurpation of the
throne."
Note the absence of objectivity and the motives he attributes to Richard.
You would need to see Foedera, Rous, and the York documents to get a better
idea of what actually happened. The insignia of the golden wand and the
wreath upon the head sound like authentic details that he could have heard
from Rotherham, the archbishop of York.
Note also that he mistakenly has Richard seizing Edward's treasure, which
had in fact been stolen by the Woodvilles, "at the very moment that he had
contemplated the usurpation of the throne"--which shows just how unreliable
the Croyland chronicler can be."

Doug here:
Thanks for the CC extract. So it was a flat-out statement that there *was* a
second coronation. Which, if I understand correctly, is directly
contradicted by other sources that are, to say the least, not known for any
bias or any bias that would preclude including a second coronation had one
occurred.
*Somebody* sounds just a little miffed; perhaps a disappointed office
seeker, or someone in that person's retinue? It certainly would be nice to
discover just *who* the Third Continuator was!
Doug
(Sorry about the delay in replying. On Friday {11 Mar} my computer decided I
needed to spend some money on it and I just got it back today {13 Mar})

Janet Ashton wrote


"I agree with you! I don't think we can know too much about the exact form
of the ceremony (as to coronets etc), but the Croyland Chronicle indicates
that there was a lot of to-do, and it was not well received in the south and
west. :-)
Infer what one will...:-)"

Doug here:
As the ceremonies at York took place *before* "Buckingham's Rebellion",
perhaps the version of those events that were included in the CC was part of
the propaganda designed to stir up support for the rebellion? Perhaps
something along the lines of:
"This (the "coronation") is just the beginning! Richard's going to move the
capital to York, take away all our Court positions and give them to
(shudder), those *barbarians*!"
Self-interest *has* been known to trump common sense.
Doug
(Apologies for the delay in replying; my computer decided it needed some
R&R.)

"Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:

> As the ceremonies at York took place *before* "Buckingham's Rebellion", perhaps the version of those events that were included in the CC was part of the propaganda designed to stir up support for the rebellion? [snip]

Carol responds:

The whole second continuation was composed in ten days in 1486 or -87 (no time to check right now), so that can't be the case. Tudor was already king (which explains some but not all of the chronicler's treatment of Richard).

Carol

Carol wrote:

"The whole second continuation was composed in ten days in 1486 or -87 (no
time to check right now), so that can't be the case. Tudor was already king
(which explains some but not all of the chronicler's treatment of Richard)."

Doug here:
Thank you for the correction.
Well, there goes *that* idea! So, rather than pre-Tudor propaganda, it
becomes justification for Tudor's grabbing the throne. And yet another lie
by someone in a position to have know the truth.
Why do I get the feeling that HVII, and some of supporters, just weren't all
that confident? I know, rhetorical question!
Doug