Duke of Buckingham

This week I am interested in Buckingham, as is one of my new A level
girls, who was asking me the same thing I am about to ask today. (At
least I have got them thinking!) What evidence is there for
Buckingham and his wife not getting on? It is an idea widely
referred to by historians, but I don't recall seeing an original
source for this. Obviously this relationship must affect his
candidacy as the villain in the Princes' disappearance/murder.

I also read that the first definite tales of their deaths are
actually traceable to the early stages of Buckingham's revolt, and
one cannot help but make certain connections. Since it is also
distinctly possible that Buckingham was not interested in putting
Tudor on the throne, but his own bottom, in which case he not only
had a motive but this might also explain why Morton allegedly
escaped. If he had discovered that Buckingham wasn't going to play
Tudor's game then he would have had to leave.

Latly, and nothing to do with the above, whole new vistas arose last
night when I discovered something new to me: that after Buckingham
Stanley became Constable with acess to the Tower. Oh my, how the
pieces fall into place sometimes!

Brunhild

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> This week I am interested in Buckingham, as is one of my new A
level
> girls, who was asking me the same thing I am about to ask today.
(At
> least I have got them thinking!) What evidence is there for
> Buckingham and his wife not getting on? It is an idea widely
> referred to by historians, but I don't recall seeing an original
> source for this. Obviously this relationship must affect his
> candidacy as the villain in the Princes' disappearance/murder.

I don't know any original source either. If there is one I think it
would have to be a chronicle. I somehow doubt it.

I suspect it's just assumption based on the fact that Buckingham
sided with Richard, and his wife didn't attend Richard's coronation.
Certainly the Woodvilles didn't treat Buckingham well - he had no
place on Rivers' Council of Wales despite his interests in that
country and the fact that he was married to Rivers' sister. However,
it's just as likely she would have taken her husband's side over any
disgruntlements - after all, they affected her status too.

However, if for a minute we drop the assumption that Buckingham was
at daggers drawn with his wife and all her family, then some
interesting possiblities emerge.
For instance, how come Buckingham managed to turn up at Stony
Stratford the same day as Rivers, and Richard took action after R.
after he had spoken with Buck. alone? Had Richard arranged that with
him (again historians state this but I don't know the source)? or was
he actually following Rivers?
Because, you see,, assuming no reason to the contrary, if I were
Rivers planning a fast well-armed march on London with the King, and
resistance to any move on Gloucester's part to join them, then I
would probably turn for backing to my sister and her ambitious
husband, who had big estates to the SW of Ludlow, and more in the
west midlands, not too far off the route I was planning to take. In
which case Buckingham would have known a great deal about what the
Woodvilles had planned. That sort of inside knowledge might explain
how Richard managed to clean up so successfully on that occasion.

[Another question? Why didn't Rivers take a route that avoided
Richard's altogether - down the Severn road through Hereford to
Gloucester, then east through Oxford & Windsor to London?
Would it have been because it took him too close to Buckingham at
Brecon (west of Hereford)? because it left him unable to cut off
Richard's advance to the capital (was Buckingham to have been
involved in that?)? or because he was actually genuine about wanting
to join Richard to enter London? ]

Also, I'm intrigued by Catesby's remembering Buckingham's widow at
the time of his death. In his will, written 3 days after Bosworth and
one day before his execution, he made the following bequest/ request:

"Item, that my Lady of Buckingham have £100 to help her children, and
that she will see my Lord's debts paid and his will executed, And in
especial such land as should be amortised to the house of Pleshey*"

*the College of Pleshey in Essex, burial place of Buckingham's
grandparents


>
> I also read that the first definite tales of their deaths are
> actually traceable to the early stages of Buckingham's revolt, and
> one cannot help but make certain connections. Since it is also
> distinctly possible that Buckingham was not interested in putting
> Tudor on the throne, but his own bottom, in which case he not only
> had a motive but this might also explain why Morton allegedly
> escaped. If he had discovered that Buckingham wasn't going to play
> Tudor's game then he would have had to leave.

There's certainly no contemporary evidence that the rebellion was in
favour of Tudor at any stage.
It seems to me that the turth is that Henry Tudor emerged as a
candidate only AFTER Buckingham's rebellion, when he took his vow in
the cathedral to marry Elizabeth of York.

So, if EW ever agreed to her daughter marrying Tudor, it can only
have been between Buckingham's DEFEAT and Easter of 1848, by which
time she'd clearly made her mind up again that it was NOT what she
wanted after all. Certainly there were by the end of 1483 Woodville
exiles in Brittany with HT, and rumours on the continent that Richard
had murdered the boys, but Elizabeth, with her ear to the ground at
home, seems to have decided at least by Easter that they'd got it all
wrong. She gives Richard her daughters, and she writes to Dorset to
come back and make his peace with him. And that in a situation where
an invasion by Tudor that summer must have been expected.

>
> Latly, and nothing to do with the above, whole new vistas arose
last
> night when I discovered something new to me: that after Buckingham
> Stanley became Constable with acess to the Tower. Oh my, how the
> pieces fall into place sometimes!
>
> Brunhild

The more I think about Elizabeth Woodville and Dorset the more it
seems to me they can't have believed Richard murdered both the boys.
I don't buy Tim's idea that Henry VII only locked them up during the
1487 crisis because it was a handy excuse seeing as how he didn't
like them. Quite the opposite, I would have thought - that was a time
when he particularly needed the loyalty and support of the old
Edwardian affinity and couldn't afford to alienate them. I can only
think he had REASON to suspect they might be plotting against him.
And since the rebellion favoured Warwick and not one of their own I
think that says a great deal indeed.


Marie

>
> I don't know any original source either. If there is one I think
it
> would have to be a chronicle. I somehow doubt it.

Odd that they all seem to have latched onto it on such a slim
assumption, but that's historians for you - safety in numbers! LOL
>

>
> However, if for a minute we drop the assumption that Buckingham
was
> at daggers drawn with his wife and all her family, then some
> interesting possiblities emerge.

Just what I had been thinking!


> For instance, how come Buckingham managed to turn up at Stony
> Stratford the same day as Rivers, and Richard took action after R.
> after he had spoken with Buck. alone? Had Richard arranged that
with
> him (again historians state this but I don't know the source)? or
was
> he actually following Rivers?
> Because, you see,, assuming no reason to the contrary, if I were
> Rivers planning a fast well-armed march on London with the King,
and
> resistance to any move on Gloucester's part to join them, then I
> would probably turn for backing to my sister and her ambitious
> husband, who had big estates to the SW of Ludlow, and more in the
> west midlands, not too far off the route I was planning to take.
In
> which case Buckingham would have known a great deal about what the
> Woodvilles had planned. That sort of inside knowledge might
explain
> how Richard managed to clean up so successfully on that occasion.

I have been thinking much the same. It's one of the reasons why I
found the Buckingham's Revolt book so disappointing, it didn't
explore any of these interesting possibilities.
>
> [Another question? Why didn't Rivers take a route that avoided
> Richard's altogether - down the Severn road through Hereford to
> Gloucester, then east through Oxford & Windsor to London?
> Would it have been because it took him too close to Buckingham at
> Brecon (west of Hereford)? because it left him unable to cut off
> Richard's advance to the capital (was Buckingham to have been
> involved in that?)? or because he was actually genuine about
wanting
> to join Richard to enter London? ]

Another $64,000 question. Buck's Welsh interests and links with
Woodvilles do make him an obvious ally, and as the route doesn't
seem logical if one is trying to avoid the enemy and beat him to
London one has to wonder what - and whose - that motivation was.
>
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> There's certainly no contemporary evidence that the rebellion was
in
> favour of Tudor at any stage.
> It seems to me that the turth is that Henry Tudor emerged as a
> candidate only AFTER Buckingham's rebellion, when he took his vow
in
> the cathedral to marry Elizabeth of York.

Quite. We have only Mancini's suggestion of anything earlier and it
is not only unreliable for the language and contact problems but
for the almsot certain input of Morton. So if the rumours begin
during the rebellion, and if that rebellion is not aimed at putting
Tudor on the throne, then they either begin from Buckingham stirring
it for Richard or Tudor/Morton trying to get in on the act which
otjerwise looked set to be a one horse race - and that horse was not
Tudor. It was very important for Tudor that they be dead if he was
intending to marry their legitimated sister. The fact that so little
support for Tudor is recorded at this point suggests he is
peripheral.
>
> So, if EW ever agreed to her daughter marrying Tudor, it can only
> have been between Buckingham's DEFEAT and Easter of 1848, by which
> time she'd clearly made her mind up again that it was NOT what she
> wanted after all. Certainly there were by the end of 1483
Woodville
> exiles in Brittany with HT, and rumours on the continent that
Richard
> had murdered the boys, but Elizabeth, with her ear to the ground
at
> home, seems to have decided at least by Easter that they'd got it
all
> wrong. She gives Richard her daughters, and she writes to Dorset
to
> come back and make his peace with him.

And what mother would hand over her other children to the muderer of
her two boys? And certainly not one as suspect as Dorset unless she
has absolute faith a. Richard will not hurt hima nd b. Richard never
harmed the others.

And that in a situation where
> an invasion by Tudor that summer must have been expected.
>
> >

>
> The more I think about Elizabeth Woodville and Dorset the more it
> seems to me they can't have believed Richard murdered both the
boys.

No I don't think so. Add to that the alleged letter by E of Y that
she was in love with Richard and it makes even les sense as a
scenario.

> I don't buy Tim's idea that Henry VII only locked them up during
the
> 1487 crisis because it was a handy excuse seeing as how he didn't
> like them. Quite the opposite, I would have thought - that was a
time
> when he particularly needed the loyalty and support of the old
> Edwardian affinity and couldn't afford to alienate them. I can
only
> think he had REASON to suspect they might be plotting against him.
> And since the rebellion favoured Warwick and not one of their own
I
> think that says a great deal indeed.
>
>
> Marie

Her removal from court and into a convent when she should have been
an honoured mother-in-law is very suspicious, and certainly suggests
Henry caught her up to no good. He put Dorset - don't have the date
handy - under a huge recognizance, so clearly didn't trust him
either. Her burial - middle of the night, no guests - is also odd,
and makes you wonder just what his attitude was. The whole
clandestine thing is not what one expects for an ex-queen and royal
mother-in-law. And I can't see EW retiring to convent voluntarily,
myself.

I gather there is no reference to Buck being at the council meeting
which brought Hastings' career to a sudden end. Given his connection
to Jane Shore who was connected to Dorset and EW, and Buck's
connection to them through his wife, I am wondering if he was
involved in this too - maybe even getting rid of potential
opposition to his own later attempt on the throne.

It is very hard for new A level students to get the confidence to
enquire and query so one always feels really good when that first
breakthrough occurs, so their questioning of Buckingham was
interesting in that it must have stood out for them or they wouldn't
have raised it. I think it's one I'll be watching in the future!
Brunhild

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>

> I gather there is no reference to Buck being at the council meeting
> which brought Hastings' career to a sudden end. Given his
connection
> to Jane Shore who was connected to Dorset and EW, and Buck's
> connection to them through his wife, I am wondering if he was
> involved in this too - maybe even getting rid of potential
> opposition to his own later attempt on the throne.
>

I've just done a little quick research on this. I've managed to check
the contemporary Cely & Stallworthe letters, Croyland, Fabyan, Vergil
and More. Another I would have liked to check is Mancini, but
couldn't find.

It is true that most of these do not mention Buckingham, but Fabyan
and Vergil do both list him as being present.

Certainly Catesby was heavily implicated. He had a long-standing
relationship with Hastings, and it seems to have been his information
which condemned him. Actually, Catesby's lands were in
Leicestershire, which was Hastings' base county, and he managed
Hastings' affairs there. After Hastings' death he became the county's
major power.
Catesby's wife, Margaret Zouche, was the daughter of Margaret
Beaufort's half-sister Elizabeth St John, and Catesby also had a long-
standing professional relationship with Stanley. In December of 1483
Stanley granted him an annuity "for his good will and counsel past
and to come". You've probably read how in his will Catesby addressed
Lord Stanley almost hysterically, apparently hoping up to the last
moment that he would do something to save him. Stanley, of course,
was one of those arrested at the Tower, but was remarkably quickly
restored to favour. Did Catesby speak for him, perhaps? Certainly, he
was not exactly an old friend of Richard's.
I seem to recall that Catesby transferred his services from Hastings
to Buckingham (who of course had big interests in Staffordshire and
Warwickshire), so that he may have been informing to Richard via
Buckingham; certainly his will suggests a close tie there too. That
would certainly make for a very interesting situation. The
Stallworthe letter says all Hastings' men became Buckingham's men.
Whether or not that was the case, it indicates the way people saw the
issue at the time.

Buckingham may have been after the throne, or perhaps like Catesby
just trying to bring down a rival midlands power-base.

However, what I find interesting about Catesby's will is that,
although it was very concerned to buy his way into heaven by, for
instance, putting right his past land acquisition misdeeds,
apologising to his wife for not always being nice to her, making
bequest to Buckingham's widow,... There is NO mention of Hastings. So
did he feel he had done nothing wrong there?

Marie

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> >>
> Another $64,000 question. Buck's Welsh interests and links with
> Woodvilles do make him an obvious ally, and as the route doesn't
> seem logical if one is trying to avoid the enemy and beat him to
> London one has to wonder what - and whose - that motivation was.

Just to make clear - the route via Gloucester and Oxford wasn't any
shorter - there is hardly anything in it, but if anything the
Northampton route may save about 5 miles, so perhaps had the edge in
terms of speed. However, it meant that Rivers and the boy king
risked their approach to London being interfered with by Gloucester.

But if they took the Oxford route they would have needed to be quick
enough to be sure Richard didn't get to London ahead of them. The
fact that, when Rivers stopped at Northampton, Edward V was only one
short day's ride ahead at Stony Stratford, suggests that maybe they
barely had the time to beat Richard to it. Certainly they didn't set
out immediately they heard of Edward's death, but then they did take
the time to gather a sizeable force. Rivers was not to know initially
that Hastings would write to Richard. He would have known Richard
would hear of his brother's death eventually but it is clear the
Woodvilles hoped to delay this as long as possible.

Either Rivers suspected nothing, or he thought Richard suspected
nothing. In the latter case, agreeing to meet him with the King would
have been a bait.
I tend to agree that Rivers may have been persuaded to the midlands
route by Buckingham, who would have been able to offer to bring in
men from his estates there. Indeed, I'm not sure that it is clear
Buckingham was at Brecon when Edward IV died. Historians tend to give
the impression he lived there permanently, but in fact he resided a
lot at his midlands seats such as Maxstoke.
Buckingham is a fascinating subject, and for me one of the hardest
folks to make complete sense of.

Marie

>
> Just to make clear - the route via Gloucester and Oxford wasn't
any
> shorter - there is hardly anything in it, but if anything the
> Northampton route may save about 5 miles, so perhaps had the edge
in
> terms of speed. However, it meant that Rivers and the boy king
> risked their approach to London being interfered with by
Gloucester.

My thoughts exactly.
>
> But if they took the Oxford route they would have needed to be
quick
> enough to be sure Richard didn't get to London ahead of them. The
> fact that, when Rivers stopped at Northampton, Edward V was only
one
> short day's ride ahead at Stony Stratford, suggests that maybe
they
> barely had the time to beat Richard to it. Certainly they didn't
set
> out immediately they heard of Edward's death, but then they did
take
> the time to gather a sizeable force. Rivers was not to know
initially
> that Hastings would write to Richard. He would have known Richard
> would hear of his brother's death eventually but it is clear the
> Woodvilles hoped to delay this as long as possible.
>
> Either Rivers suspected nothing, or he thought Richard suspected
> nothing. In the latter case, agreeing to meet him with the King
would
> have been a bait.
> I tend to agree that Rivers may have been persuaded to the
midlands
> route by Buckingham, who would have been able to offer to bring in
> men from his estates there. Indeed, I'm not sure that it is clear
> Buckingham was at Brecon when Edward IV died. Historians tend to
give
> the impression he lived there permanently, but in fact he resided
a
> lot at his midlands seats such as Maxstoke.
> Buckingham is a fascinating subject, and for me one of the hardest
> folks to make complete sense of.
>
> Marie

I was wondering if the fact that Elizabeth Woodville wrote to her
brother tellig him to limit the number of men he brought that we can
assume he had been slow on account of trying to raise more? Of
course if they had raced for London it would have given the game
away by arousing immediate suspicions. Nor would it have been
decorous in the circumstances of bereavement.I was looking at Buck's
family details in Wikepedia, a useful reference site.
Brunhild

>>
> I was wondering if the fact that Elizabeth Woodville wrote to her
> brother tellig him to limit the number of men he brought that we
can
> assume he had been slow on account of trying to raise more? Of
> course if they had raced for London it would have given the game
> away by arousing immediate suspicions. Nor would it have been
> decorous in the circumstances of bereavement.I was looking at
Buck's
> family details in Wikepedia, a useful reference site.
> Brunhild

The usual story is that the council objected to too many men. But
limiting his force to 2,000 is still extraordinary. A fact most
historians try to dismiss.
I've been thinking back to the troubled times of the 1450s, when the
rival lords used to cause consternation by turning up in London in
force - but the numbers quoted there are in the hundreds, not the
thousands. 2,000 was, as I said in an earlier message, the wing of an
army, not a retinue. And those were just Rivers' men. If the plan had
been for Buckingham's force to be on his side, that would have made
it several hundred more.

Certainly recruitment of that sort before battle normally took some
while, didn't it? Recently historians have tried to show that he
wasn't up to anything because he didn't make an immediate move from
Ludlow - but this is ignoring the time it would take to gather such a
force.

Given the extraordinary size of his 'meinie' (and the fact that
apparently it wasn't as big as originally planned), the idea that
Rivers waltzed along innocently to meet Richard, neither planning nor
expecting trouble, just doesn't hold.

The planned route, and the planned meeting with Richard, must have
had some purpose. Once Richard knew of his brother's death and had
written to Rivers, Rivers must have known he had to do something to
forestall him.

I think sheer comparison of the size of the two retinues shows which
of the two came along in all innocence, Rivers or Gloucester. Which
would appear to make Buckingham's arrival the pivotal factor. Which
brings us back to what Buckingham knew, or could persuade Richard he
knew, of Rivers' intentions.

Is this how you see it?

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> >>
> > I was wondering if the fact that Elizabeth Woodville wrote to
her
> > brother tellig him to limit the number of men he brought that we
> can
> > assume he had been slow on account of trying to raise more? Of
> > course if they had raced for London it would have given the game
> > away by arousing immediate suspicions. Nor would it have been
> > decorous in the circumstances of bereavement.I was looking at
> Buck's
> > family details in Wikepedia, a useful reference site.
> > Brunhild
>
> The usual story is that the council objected to too many men. But
> limiting his force to 2,000 is still extraordinary. A fact most
> historians try to dismiss.
> I've been thinking back to the troubled times of the 1450s, when
the
> rival lords used to cause consternation by turning up in London in
> force - but the numbers quoted there are in the hundreds, not the
> thousands. 2,000 was, as I said in an earlier message, the wing of
an
> army, not a retinue. And those were just Rivers' men. If the plan
had
> been for Buckingham's force to be on his side, that would have
made
> it several hundred more.
>
> Certainly recruitment of that sort before battle normally took
some
> while, didn't it? Recently historians have tried to show that he
> wasn't up to anything because he didn't make an immediate move
from
> Ludlow - but this is ignoring the time it would take to gather
such a
> force.
>
> Given the extraordinary size of his 'meinie' (and the fact that
> apparently it wasn't as big as originally planned), the idea that
> Rivers waltzed along innocently to meet Richard, neither planning
nor
> expecting trouble, just doesn't hold.
>
> The planned route, and the planned meeting with Richard, must have
> had some purpose. Once Richard knew of his brother's death and had
> written to Rivers, Rivers must have known he had to do something
to
> forestall him.
>
> I think sheer comparison of the size of the two retinues shows
which
> of the two came along in all innocence, Rivers or Gloucester.
Which
> would appear to make Buckingham's arrival the pivotal factor.
Which
> brings us back to what Buckingham knew, or could persuade Richard
he
> knew, of Rivers' intentions.
>
> Is this how you see it?
>
> Marie

Singing from the same song book here, Marie!
Brunhild

Sorry - still having problems with the forum so this may have been
answered by now,
but it's Mancini that provides us with a contemporaneous notion that
Buckingham
resented his wife - in 'chapter' 4 of Armstrong's original
translation, I believe
(from memory).

Regards - Lorraine



What evidence is there for
> > Buckingham and his wife not getting on? It is an idea widely
> > referred to by historians, but I don't recall seeing an original
> > source for this. Obviously this relationship must affect his
> > candidacy as the villain in the Princes' disappearance/murder.
>
> I don't know any original source either. If there is one I think it
> would have to be a chronicle. I somehow doubt it.
>
> I suspect it's just assumption based on the fact that Buckingham
> sided with Richard, and his wife didn't attend Richard's
coronation.
> Certainly the Woodvilles didn't treat Buckingham well - he had no
> place on Rivers' Council of Wales despite his interests in that
> country and the fact that he was married to Rivers' sister.
However,
> it's just as likely she would have taken her husband's side over
any
> disgruntlements - after all, they affected her status too.
>

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Sorry - still having problems with the forum so this may have been
> answered by now,
> but it's Mancini that provides us with a contemporaneous notion that
> Buckingham
> resented his wife - in 'chapter' 4 of Armstrong's original
> translation, I believe
> (from memory).
>
> Regards - Lorraine
>
>

No, not answered before. That's very interesting. Sorry, are you able
to quote? Only I can't get hold of a copy of Mancini.

Marie

hi Marie

Sorry it's taken so long to reply - I was at college, passing the
History section in the library and suddenly remembered your Mancini
query from mid-Sept or thereabouts, so fingers crossed this arrives
onlist [I still can't respond from my home computer, even tho' I can
read all the posts from there! ;( ].

On any contemporaneous evidence that Buckingham resented his wife,
the main source is Mancini (as I remembered) in Ch4, p75 as follows:

"Buckingham, since he was of the highest nobility was disposed to
sympathise with another noble; more esp. because he had his own
reasons for *detesting the queen's kin*: for, when he was younger, he
had been forced to marry the queen's sister, whom he scorned to wed
on account of her humble origin".

On page 77 oveleaf, Mancini also says:

"on hearing the queen's name, the Duke of Buckingham, who loathed her
race, then answered it was not the busines women but of men to govern
kingdoms...".

Hope this helps - and once again, my apols for the delayed response.

Regards - Lorraine
<> --- In , "lpickering2"
> <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > Sorry - still having problems with the forum so this may have been
> > answered by now, > > but it's Mancini that provides us with a
contemporaneous notion that> > Buckingham > > resented his wife -
in 'chapter' 4 of Armstrong's original> > translation, I believe
> > (from memory).
> >
> > Regards - Lorraine
> >
> >
>
> No, not answered before. That's very interesting. Sorry, are you
able > to quote? Only I can't get hold of a copy of Mancini.
>
> Marie

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> hi Marie
>
> Sorry it's taken so long to reply - I was at college, passing the
> History section in the library and suddenly remembered your Mancini
> query from mid-Sept or thereabouts, so fingers crossed this
arrives
> onlist [I still can't respond from my home computer, even tho' I
can
> read all the posts from there! ;( ].
>
> On any contemporaneous evidence that Buckingham resented his wife,
> the main source is Mancini (as I remembered) in Ch4, p75 as follows:
>
> "Buckingham, since he was of the highest nobility was disposed to
> sympathise with another noble; more esp. because he had his own
> reasons for *detesting the queen's kin*: for, when he was younger,
he
> had been forced to marry the queen's sister, whom he scorned to wed
> on account of her humble origin".
>
> On page 77 oveleaf, Mancini also says:
>
> "on hearing the queen's name, the Duke of Buckingham, who loathed
her
> race, then answered it was not the busines women but of men to
govern
> kingdoms...".
>
> Hope this helps - and once again, my apols for the delayed
response.
>
> Regards - Lorraine
> <> --- In , "lpickering2"
> > <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > > Sorry - still having problems with the forum so this may have
been
> > > answered by now, > > but it's Mancini that provides us with a
> contemporaneous notion that> > Buckingham > > resented his wife -
> in 'chapter' 4 of Armstrong's original> > translation, I believe
> > > (from memory).
> > >
> > > Regards - Lorraine
> > >
> > >
> >
> > No, not answered before. That's very interesting. Sorry, are you
> able > to quote? Only I can't get hold of a copy of Mancini.
> >
> > Marie

Thanks a lot for that, lorraine. Those quotes are strangely familiar,
but I didn't realise they were as early as Mancini.

So Mancini certainly believed Buckingham hated the Woodvilles - and
all of them at that.

So it confirms my suspicion that he was behind Rivers' execution
(Rivers having held him down in Wales). But it does make Buckingham's
defection in the autumn so very odd, that's why I wondered if perhaps
his dislike has been exaggerated.

Very odd. Surely it must have had something to do with the Princes,
for good or ill, so to speak.

Here's a scenario. Suppose Perkin Warbeck was Richard Duke of York
and his story was true about having been spared by a lord who had
killed his brother and was going to kill him but relented and sent
him abroad, swearing to keep his identity secret.

At best Richard can only produce one body. And he can't announce
what's happened without letting on that he's lost custody of the
other prince. So when he needs to produce either bodies or princes to
quash rumours, he can't do either.

molinet apparently says Buckingham spared Richard of York because he
was his godson.

But would Buckingham have been trying to kill them on Richard's
orders or not? (I know we're all Ricardians, but does the evidence
help us either way?)

Anyway, hating the Woodvilles would have given him some sort of a
motive there, I suppose.

Marie

> Thanks a lot for that, lorraine. Those quotes are strangely
familiar,
> but I didn't realise they were as early as Mancini.
>
> So Mancini certainly believed Buckingham hated the Woodvilles -
and
> all of them at that.
>
> So it confirms my suspicion that he was behind Rivers' execution
> (Rivers having held him down in Wales). But it does make
Buckingham's
> defection in the autumn so very odd, that's why I wondered if
perhaps
> his dislike has been exaggerated.
>
> Very odd. Surely it must have had something to do with the
Princes,
> for good or ill, so to speak.
>
> Here's a scenario. Suppose Perkin Warbeck was Richard Duke of York
> and his story was true about having been spared by a lord who had
> killed his brother and was going to kill him but relented and sent
> him abroad, swearing to keep his identity secret.
>
> At best Richard can only produce one body. And he can't announce
> what's happened without letting on that he's lost custody of the
> other prince. So when he needs to produce either bodies or princes
to
> quash rumours, he can't do either.
>
> molinet apparently says Buckingham spared Richard of York because
he
> was his godson.

Hmmm, but in that case it seriously begs the question of
Buckingham's motive. It would surely have had to be one of two
things: to help Richard be free of threat (which I doubt); or to get
a step nearer the crown himself. In which case I don't think he
would have had any compunction about killing both, godson or not.
However I do think Buckingham has something to do with whatever
happened to the princes if only because the rumours seem to spring
up wherever Morton goes, and Morton spent time with the duke before
fleeing. He would no doubt have found it easy to worm informatio
nout of him if the duke had done anything with the boys or - and
here I speak heresy - if he knew Richard had (which I don't believe
for a moment, of course!).
>
> But would Buckingham have been trying to kill them on Richard's
> orders or not? (I know we're all Ricardians, but does the evidence
> help us either way?)

My personal view is No. If Buckingham hated the Woodvilles and
resented Edward's neglect of him then I doubt he would have balked
at killing them out of any kind of sentiment. But evidence that they
were killed does not appear to be conclusive and the curiosities re
Warbeck merely serve to reinforce these doubts. So we still don't
have enough to make any decision and are no nearer - any more than a
hundred hisrorians before us. But it may take us nearer a decision
about the duke, and my presonal view is increasingly that he fancies
wearing a crown.
>
> Anyway, hating the Woodvilles would have given him some sort of a
> motive there, I suppose.

Enough to start him on his road perhaps, yes. B
>
> Marie