2 coffins?

Re: 2 coffins in Ed IV tomb: I was reading the numerous comments on the UK Guardian link&.fascinating stuff&we Ricardians REALLY get slammed! A fascinating comment was made that 2 unidentified coffins were found in Edward IV`s opened tomb. It was hinted at that these just might be the Prince`s coffins. Anyone want to offer more information? Carol D.

The Report of those who Opened the Grave/Coffin in the Victorian Era must be about somewhere, Oxford, Cambridge or Windsor are best bets I assume.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 3:12
>Subject: 2 coffins?
>
>Re: 2 coffins in Ed IV  tomb:  I was reading the numerous comments on the UK  Guardian link&.fascinating stuff&we Ricardians REALLY get slammed!  A fascinating comment was made that 2 unidentified coffins were found in Edward  IV`s opened tomb.  It was hinted at that these just might be the Prince`s coffins.  Anyone want to offer more information?  Carol D.
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Edward IV was buried a few days after his death, in April 1483. His
illegitimate sons were publicly seen alive months later.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carol Darling" <cdarlingart1@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:12 AM
Subject: 2 coffins?


Re: 2 coffins in Ed IV tomb: I was reading the numerous comments on the UK
Guardian link&.fascinating stuff&we Ricardians REALLY get slammed! A
fascinating comment was made that 2 unidentified coffins were found in
Edward IV`s opened tomb. It was hinted at that these just might be the
Prince`s coffins. Anyone want to offer more information? Carol D.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Isn't there some evidence that they are the coffins of two of E4's children who pre-deceased him - eg Mary and George?

 Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
Edward IV was buried a few days after his death, in April 1483. His
illegitimate sons were publicly seen alive months later.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carol Darling" <cdarlingart1@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:12 AM
Subject: 2 coffins?


Re: 2 coffins in Ed IV  tomb:  I was reading the numerous comments on the UK
Guardian link&.fascinating stuff&we Ricardians REALLY get slammed!  A
fascinating comment was made that 2 unidentified coffins were found in
Edward  IV`s opened tomb.  It was hinted at that these just might be the
Prince`s coffins.  Anyone want to offer more information?  Carol D.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I've read that too


From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 9:38
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

 
Isn't there some evidence that they are the coffins of two of E4's children who pre-deceased him - eg Mary and George?

 Stephen Lark <mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> wrote:
Edward IV was buried a few days after his death, in April 1483. His
illegitimate sons were publicly seen alive months later.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carol Darling" <mailto:cdarlingart1%40mac.com>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:12 AM
Subject: 2 coffins?

Re: 2 coffins in Ed IV  tomb:  I was reading the numerous comments on the UK
Guardian link&.fascinating stuff&we Ricardians REALLY get slammed!  A
fascinating comment was made that 2 unidentified coffins were found in
Edward  IV`s opened tomb.  It was hinted at that these just might be the
Prince`s coffins.  Anyone want to offer more information?  Carol D.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Were the coffins children sized, or larger? And surely there must be some sort of record, even if it is unavailable to the "public". Maybe the Queen or whoever keeps family secrets, has them.....very interesting. How do we find out, I wonder?

On Mar 10, 2013, at 10:12 PM, "Carol Darling" <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:

> Re: 2 coffins in Ed IV tomb: I was reading the numerous comments on the UK Guardian link&.fascinating stuff&we Ricardians REALLY get slammed! A fascinating comment was made that 2 unidentified coffins were found in Edward IV`s opened tomb. It was hinted at that these just might be the Prince`s coffins. Anyone want to offer more information? Carol D.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Might they be Edward' two children...his daughter Mary who died aged 15 and George who died aged about 3...Both predeceased him...Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Were the coffins children sized, or larger? And surely there must be some sort of record, even if it is unavailable to the "public". Maybe the Queen or whoever keeps family secrets, has them.....very interesting. How do we find out, I wonder?
>
> On Mar 10, 2013, at 10:12 PM, "Carol Darling" <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
>
> > Re: 2 coffins in Ed IV tomb: I was reading the numerous comments on the UK Guardian link….fascinating stuff…we Ricardians REALLY get slammed! A fascinating comment was made that 2 unidentified coffins were found in Edward IV`s opened tomb. It was hinted at that these just might be the Prince`s coffins. Anyone want to offer more information? Carol D.
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

That could well be true.
----- Original Message -----
From: Pamela Furmidge
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?



Isn't there some evidence that they are the coffins of two of E4's children who pre-deceased him - eg Mary and George?

Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
Edward IV was buried a few days after his death, in April 1483. His
illegitimate sons were publicly seen alive months later.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carol Darling" <cdarlingart1@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:12 AM
Subject: 2 coffins?

Re: 2 coffins in Ed IV tomb: I was reading the numerous comments on the UK
Guardian link&.fascinating stuff&we Ricardians REALLY get slammed! A
fascinating comment was made that 2 unidentified coffins were found in
Edward IV`s opened tomb. It was hinted at that these just might be the
Prince`s coffins. Anyone want to offer more information? Carol D.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hello All.Speaking to Pauline Harrison Pogmore this am Yorkshire Branch Secretary and very knowledgable on this subject re coffins in Edward's tomb. There are 4 small coffins, two identified as George titled Duke of Bedford, one of Edward's children and Mary also Edward's.
There are two other coffins unmarked. Who are they? No one knows. I am surprised no one has looked.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I've read that too
>
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 9:38
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>  
> Isn't there some evidence that they are the coffins of two of E4's children who pre-deceased him - eg Mary and George?
>
>  Stephen Lark <mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> wrote:
> Edward IV was buried a few days after his death, in April 1483. His
> illegitimate sons were publicly seen alive months later.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carol Darling" <mailto:cdarlingart1%40mac.com>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:12 AM
> Subject: 2 coffins?
>
> Re: 2 coffins in Ed IV  tomb:  I was reading the numerous comments on the UK
> Guardian link….fascinating stuff…we Ricardians REALLY get slammed!  A
> fascinating comment was made that 2 unidentified coffins were found in
> Edward  IV`s opened tomb.  It was hinted at that these just might be the
> Prince`s coffins.  Anyone want to offer more information?  Carol D.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Could the tomb have been opened at all between April 1483 and it's proper opening? Probably not. This would preclude anyone who died after him from being there.
George was an infant and Mary a teenager. There would have been a big size difference between their coffins and these rumoured ones. This is not a case of "Fanny Robin and child".
----- Original Message -----
From: christineholmes651@...
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?





Hello All.Speaking to Pauline Harrison Pogmore this am Yorkshire Branch Secretary and very knowledgable on this subject re coffins in Edward's tomb. There are 4 small coffins, two identified as George titled Duke of Bedford, one of Edward's children and Mary also Edward's.
There are two other coffins unmarked. Who are they? No one knows. I am surprised no one has looked.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I've read that too
>
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 9:38
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
> Â
> Isn't there some evidence that they are the coffins of two of E4's children who pre-deceased him - eg Mary and George?
>
> Â Stephen Lark <mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> wrote:
> Edward IV was buried a few days after his death, in April 1483. His
> illegitimate sons were publicly seen alive months later.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carol Darling" <mailto:cdarlingart1%40mac.com>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:12 AM
> Subject: 2 coffins?
>
> Re: 2 coffins in Ed IVÂ tomb:Â I was reading the numerous comments on the UK
> Guardian link�.fascinating stuff�we Ricardians REALLY get slammed! A
> fascinating comment was made that 2 unidentified coffins were found in
> Edward IV`s opened tomb. It was hinted at that these just might be the
> Prince`s coffins. Anyone want to offer more information? Carol D.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

If you look at the St George's Chapel Windsor website (and another I can't remember, sorry) they seem to be implying that there were four coffins. The two exhumed were presumed to be George and Mary (and I think had that inscription and Mary's was opened) but then they drilled into the vault wall and found two more- which are unaccounted for!!!??? Sorry to make it even more complex. Presumably the two unidentified could be anyone from anywhere but they were speculating, guess what... 



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 14:34
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?

 

Could the tomb have been opened at all between April 1483 and it's proper opening? Probably not. This would preclude anyone who died after him from being there.
George was an infant and Mary a teenager. There would have been a big size difference between their coffins and these rumoured ones. This is not a case of "Fanny Robin and child".
----- Original Message -----
From: christineholmes651@...
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

Hello All.Speaking to Pauline Harrison Pogmore this am Yorkshire Branch Secretary and very knowledgable on this subject re coffins in Edward's tomb. There are 4 small coffins, two identified as George titled Duke of Bedford, one of Edward's children and Mary also Edward's.
There are two other coffins unmarked. Who are they? No one knows. I am surprised no one has looked.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I've read that too
>
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 9:38
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
> Â
> Isn't there some evidence that they are the coffins of two of E4's children who pre-deceased him - eg Mary and George?
>
> Â Stephen Lark <mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> wrote:
> Edward IV was buried a few days after his death, in April 1483. His
> illegitimate sons were publicly seen alive months later.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carol Darling" <mailto:cdarlingart1%40mac.com>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:12 AM
> Subject: 2 coffins?
>
> Re: 2 coffins in Ed IVÂ tomb:Â I was reading the numerous comments on the UK
> Guardian link�.fascinating stuff�we Ricardians REALLY get slammed! A
> fascinating comment was made that 2 unidentified coffins were found in
> Edward IV`s opened tomb. It was hinted at that these just might be the
> Prince`s coffins. Anyone want to offer more information? Carol D.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?


> Could the tomb have been opened at all between April 1483 and it's proper
> opening? Probably not. This would preclude anyone who died after him from
> being there.
George was an infant and Mary a teenager. There would have been a big size
difference between their coffins and these rumoured ones. This is not a case
of "Fanny Robin and child".

Do we know what Mary died of? If she was a well-grown 15-year-old, could
she have died giving birth to stillborn twins?

Mary was unmarried....

Could one of the coffins be that of La Woodville....? She was buried in Edward's vault in a wooden coffin. What about Edward's friend Hastings..he was buried close to Edward...does close in this case mean in the same vault?

Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Stephen Lark
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> > Could the tomb have been opened at all between April 1483 and it's proper
> > opening? Probably not. This would preclude anyone who died after him from
> > being there.
> George was an infant and Mary a teenager. There would have been a big size
> difference between their coffins and these rumoured ones. This is not a case
> of "Fanny Robin and child".
>
> Do we know what Mary died of? If she was a well-grown 15-year-old, could
> she have died giving birth to stillborn twins?
>

They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his. 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 16:10
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


 

Mary was unmarried....

Could one of the coffins be that of La Woodville....? She was buried in Edward's vault in a wooden coffin. What about Edward's friend Hastings..he was buried close to Edward...does close in this case mean in the same vault?

Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Stephen Lark
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> > Could the tomb have been opened at all between April 1483 and it's proper
> > opening? Probably not. This would preclude anyone who died after him from
> > being there.
> George was an infant and Mary a teenager. There would have been a big size
> difference between their coffins and these rumoured ones. This is not a case
> of "Fanny Robin and child".
>
> Do we know what Mary died of? If she was a well-grown 15-year-old, could
> she have died giving birth to stillborn twins?
>

Interesting. I see no record of her having a partner but perhaps EW had two more short-lived children.
----- Original Message -----
From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?



From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?

> Could the tomb have been opened at all between April 1483 and it's proper
> opening? Probably not. This would preclude anyone who died after him from
> being there.
George was an infant and Mary a teenager. There would have been a big size
difference between their coffins and these rumoured ones. This is not a case
of "Fanny Robin and child".

Do we know what Mary died of? If she was a well-grown 15-year-old, could
she have died giving birth to stillborn twins?

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?


> They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it
> was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his.

If Henry was so tight he did his mother-in-law's fineral on the cheap like
this, that adds weight to the idea that his spending the equivalent of
£6,350 on a tombstone for Richard was, for him, fairly generous and
respectful. Perhaps he felt bad about not having stopped his rabble of an
army from abusing his predecessor's body.

EW instructed in her will that she should be buried beside Edward "without pompes entreing or costlie expensis donne thereabought" Elizabeth's coffin arrived at Windsor on Whit Sunday 10th June and appears to have been interred the same night "with oute any solempne Direge" Apparently it was done as she asked without HT or EoY stepping in and asking for a little but extra to be done to give her mother a good send off. Neither did EoY commission a restrospective monument for her mother. I sometimes get the impression that EoY did not really put herself out for her mother....who died without hardly anything to her name in Bermondsey Abbey..Seems a bit harsh to me. .Did she not give a damn or had they quarrelled or was she just selfish? If I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> > They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it
> > was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his.
>
> If Henry was so tight he did his mother-in-law's fineral on the cheap like
> this, that adds weight to the idea that his spending the equivalent of
> £6,350 on a tombstone for Richard was, for him, fairly generous and
> respectful. Perhaps he felt bad about not having stopped his rabble of an
> army from abusing his predecessor's body.
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his.

Carol responds:

Which speaks volumes about Henry's relationship with his mother-in-law.

Carol 

Well yes but EoY had a tongue didnt she? Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Which speaks volumes about Henry's relationship with his mother-in-law.
>
> Carol 
>

Yes I think there was only Edward's bastard daughter Grace to accompany her on her final journey, was that not so?



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 16:55
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


 

EW instructed in her will that she should be buried beside Edward "without pompes entreing or costlie expensis donne thereabought" Elizabeth's coffin arrived at Windsor on Whit Sunday 10th June and appears to have been interred the same night "with oute any solempne Direge" Apparently it was done as she asked without HT or EoY stepping in and asking for a little but extra to be done to give her mother a good send off. Neither did EoY commission a restrospective monument for her mother. I sometimes get the impression that EoY did not really put herself out for her mother....who died without hardly anything to her name in Bermondsey Abbey..Seems a bit harsh to me. .Did she not give a damn or had they quarrelled or was she just selfish? If I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> > They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it
> > was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his.
>
> If Henry was so tight he did his mother-in-law's fineral on the cheap like
> this, that adds weight to the idea that his spending the equivalent of
> £6,350 on a tombstone for Richard was, for him, fairly generous and
> respectful. Perhaps he felt bad about not having stopped his rabble of an
> army from abusing his predecessor's body.
>

It says something about my morbid reading habits that I know bits of this!



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:02
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


 

Well yes but EoY had a tongue didnt she? Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Which speaks volumes about Henry's relationship with his mother-in-law.
>
> Carol 
>

JA-H gives another reason for Henry spending out on a tomb for Richard - it was around the time that Perkin Warbeck was very active and it was important that Richard be recognised as de facto King of England in 1485 and that Henry succeeded him by right of conquest.  That managed to side-step the claims of the princes in the Tower.

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

 
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?

> They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it
> was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his.

If Henry was so tight he did his mother-in-law's fineral on the cheap like
this, that adds weight to the idea that his spending the equivalent of
£6,350 on a tombstone for Richard was, for him, fairly generous and
respectful. Perhaps he felt bad about not having stopped his rabble of an
army from abusing his predecessor's body.

I think the other daughter's..names? ....and one son attended the next day but not EoY...I think she was pregnant...how convenient. As you can probably tell I have my reservations about Elizabeth....Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I think there was only Edward's bastard daughter Grace to accompany her on her final journey, was that not so?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 16:55
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>  
>
> EW instructed in her will that she should be buried beside Edward "without pompes entreing or costlie expensis donne thereabought" Elizabeth's coffin arrived at Windsor on Whit Sunday 10th June and appears to have been interred the same night "with oute any solempne Direge" Apparently it was done as she asked without HT or EoY stepping in and asking for a little but extra to be done to give her mother a good send off. Neither did EoY commission a restrospective monument for her mother. I sometimes get the impression that EoY did not really put herself out for her mother....who died without hardly anything to her name in Bermondsey Abbey..Seems a bit harsh to me. .Did she not give a damn or had they quarrelled or was she just selfish? If I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >
> > > They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it
> > > was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his.
> >
> > If Henry was so tight he did his mother-in-law's fineral on the cheap like
> > this, that adds weight to the idea that his spending the equivalent of
> > £6,350 on a tombstone for Richard was, for him, fairly generous and
> > respectful. Perhaps he felt bad about not having stopped his rabble of an
> > army from abusing his predecessor's body.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Lol...have you been reading "The Kings Grey Mare" by Rosemary Hawley Jarman...?Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It says something about my morbid reading habits that I know bits of this!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:02
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>  
>
> Well yes but EoY had a tongue didnt she? Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Which speaks volumes about Henry's relationship with his mother-in-law.
> >
> > Carol 
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


> I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen

EoY or EW?

Is EoY was a bit of a cow that makes Henry probably not being all that fond
of her seem more sympathetic.

So indeed do I - which is why I keep an open mind about the Buck letter (though not R's actions around it). No, I'm not starting that thread again!! 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:10
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


 

I think the other daughter's..names? ....and one son attended the next day but not EoY...I think she was pregnant...how convenient. As you can probably tell I have my reservations about Elizabeth....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I think there was only Edward's bastard daughter Grace to accompany her on her final journey, was that not so?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 16:55
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>  
>
> EW instructed in her will that she should be buried beside Edward "without pompes entreing or costlie expensis donne thereabought" Elizabeth's coffin arrived at Windsor on Whit Sunday 10th June and appears to have been interred the same night "with oute any solempne Direge" Apparently it was done as she asked without HT or EoY stepping in and asking for a little but extra to be done to give her mother a good send off. Neither did EoY commission a restrospective monument for her mother. I sometimes get the impression that EoY did not really put herself out for her mother....who died without hardly anything to her name in Bermondsey Abbey..Seems a bit harsh to me. .Did she not give a damn or had they quarrelled or was she just selfish? If I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >
> > > They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it
> > > was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his.
> >
> > If Henry was so tight he did his mother-in-law's fineral on the cheap like
> > this, that adds weight to the idea that his spending the equivalent of
> > ã6,350 on a tombstone for Richard was, for him, fairly generous and
> > respectful. Perhaps he felt bad about not having stopped his rabble of an
> > army from abusing his predecessor's body.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes...maybe he got his comeuppance within his domestics....Ha ha ha...love it :0)

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:55 PM
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> > I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen
>
> EoY or EW?
>
> Is EoY was a bit of a cow that makes Henry probably not being all that fond
> of her seem more sympathetic.
>

I did indeed read it some years ago - and of course it has Grace in it. But I also once owned a tome called the 'Royal Way of Death' (which is probably now in a Qld landfill) and it had all these interesting bits in it. 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:13
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


 

Lol...have you been reading "The Kings Grey Mare" by Rosemary Hawley Jarman...?Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It says something about my morbid reading habits that I know bits of this!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:02
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>  
>
> Well yes but EoY had a tongue didnt she? Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Which speaks volumes about Henry's relationship with his mother-in-law.
> >
> > Carol 
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Did she - honestly? Or are you joking? A chip off the old Cis block?



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:18
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


 

Yes...maybe he got his comeuppance within his domestics....Ha ha ha...love it :0)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:55 PM
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> > I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen
>
> EoY or EW?
>
> Is EoY was a bit of a cow that makes Henry probably not being all that fond
> of her seem more sympathetic.
>

"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Interesting. I see no record of her having a partner but perhaps EW had two more short-lived children.

Carol responds:

Regarding earlier comments, Mary certainly wasn't married (I thought that she was fourteen, not fifteen, when she died but don't have time to check). Certainly, the Croyland chronicler would have made some snide remark about a king's daughter getting pregnant out of wedlock in the unlikely event that were allowed to happen.

As for EW having more short-lived children, I think we would know. Maybe they're short-lived illegitimate children of Edward's?

Or maybe there's just a mistake somewhere? What is the source of this information?

Carol

I know Hilary...I've kept an open mind on EoY for a lone time. The Buck letter (dont mention it), Perkin Warbeck, her two young brothers, her apparent lack of care for her mother... Either she was a complete dope or incredibly selfish...She's had left the impression behind that she was put upon by HT and his mother...but you never know...for all we know she could have been a nightmare...Oh I Do Hope So....Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> So indeed do I - which is why I keep an open mind about the Buck letter (though not R's actions around it). No, I'm not starting that thread again!! 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:10
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>  
>
> I think the other daughter's..names? ....and one son attended the next day but not EoY...I think she was pregnant...how convenient. As you can probably tell I have my reservations about Elizabeth....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes I think there was only Edward's bastard daughter Grace to accompany her on her final journey, was that not so?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 16:55
> > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > EW instructed in her will that she should be buried beside Edward "without pompes entreing or costlie expensis donne thereabought" Elizabeth's coffin arrived at Windsor on Whit Sunday 10th June and appears to have been interred the same night "with oute any solempne Direge" Apparently it was done as she asked without HT or EoY stepping in and asking for a little but extra to be done to give her mother a good send off. Neither did EoY commission a restrospective monument for her mother. I sometimes get the impression that EoY did not really put herself out for her mother....who died without hardly anything to her name in Bermondsey Abbey..Seems a bit harsh to me. .Did she not give a damn or had they quarrelled or was she just selfish? If I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:17 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
> > >
> > >
> > > > They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it
> > > > was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his.
> > >
> > > If Henry was so tight he did his mother-in-law's fineral on the cheap like
> > > this, that adds weight to the idea that his spending the equivalent of
> > > £6,350 on a tombstone for Richard was, for him, fairly generous and
> > > respectful. Perhaps he felt bad about not having stopped his rabble of an
> > > army from abusing his predecessor's body.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Henry had to give her loans several times to clear her debts.I believe they were gambling debts mostly. Of course she might have been into Mulberry handbags for all I know...She was probably bored out off her head with the company she had to keep....can you imagine it...all those loooonnnnnnggggg evenings spent in Weasle's company and probably mother-in-law outstaying her welcome...They both look as if they were weaned on lemons...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Did she - honestly? Or are you joking? A chip off the old Cis block?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:18
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>  
>
> Yes...maybe he got his comeuppance within his domestics....Ha ha ha...love it :0)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:55 PM
> > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >
> > > I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen
> >
> > EoY or EW?
> >
> > Is EoY was a bit of a cow that makes Henry probably not being all that fond
> > of her seem more sympathetic.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's very speculative Carol. St George's Windsor website talks about the coffins of Mary (14 and unmarried - Baldwin) and George but then mentions two others discovered when workmen broke through the same vault. Another website, whose name I should have remembered, million apologies, says the same thing. They are hinting that the Princes could secretly have been put there by Richard. But, knowing the state of burials in such places (they misplaced Charles I for years) I would imagine it's quite possible that the coffins have nothing to do with Edward or his family; but people like stirring up yet more speculation.  H   


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:22
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

 



"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Interesting. I see no record of her having a partner but perhaps EW had two more short-lived children.

Carol responds:

Regarding earlier comments, Mary certainly wasn't married (I thought that she was fourteen, not fifteen, when she died but don't have time to check). Certainly, the Croyland chronicler would have made some snide remark about a king's daughter getting pregnant out of wedlock in the unlikely event that were allowed to happen.

As for EW having more short-lived children, I think we would know. Maybe they're short-lived illegitimate children of Edward's?

Or maybe there's just a mistake somewhere? What is the source of this information?

Carol

Yes. I never believe in saints. I don't think H7 had a particularly good deal all round - I hope the guy from the H7 Society is taking note of my comment.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:23
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


 

I know Hilary...I've kept an open mind on EoY for a lone time. The Buck letter (dont mention it), Perkin Warbeck, her two young brothers, her apparent lack of care for her mother... Either she was a complete dope or incredibly selfish...She's had left the impression behind that she was put upon by HT and his mother...but you never know...for all we know she could have been a nightmare...Oh I Do Hope So....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> So indeed do I - which is why I keep an open mind about the Buck letter (though not R's actions around it). No, I'm not starting that thread again!! 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:10
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>  
>
> I think the other daughter's..names? ....and one son attended the next day but not EoY...I think she was pregnant...how convenient. As you can probably tell I have my reservations about Elizabeth....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes I think there was only Edward's bastard daughter Graceàto accompany her on her final journey, was that not so?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 16:55
> > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > EW instructed in her will that she should be buried beside Edward "without pompes entreing or costlie expensis donne thereabought" Elizabeth's coffin arrived at Windsor on Whit Sunday 10th June and appears to have been interred the same night "with oute any solempne Direge" Apparently it was done as she asked without HT or EoY stepping in and asking for a little but extra to be done to give her mother a good send off. Neither did EoY commission a restrospective monument for her mother. I sometimes get the impression that EoY did not really put herself out for her mother....who died without hardly anything to her name in Bermondsey Abbey..Seems a bit harsh to me. .Did she not give a damn or had they quarrelled or was she just selfish? If I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:17 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
> > >
> > >
> > > > They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it
> > > > was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his.
> > >
> > > If Henry was so tight he did his mother-in-law's fineral on the cheap like
> > > this, that adds weight to the idea that his spending the equivalent of
> > > Ã’â¬aã6,350 on a tombstone for Richard was, for him, fairly generous and
> > > respectful. Perhaps he felt bad about not having stopped his rabble of an
> > > army from abusing his predecessor's body.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I never knew that. And to think she ended up the playing card queen! I wonder who placed the bets - Reg Bray? 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:27
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


 

Henry had to give her loans several times to clear her debts.I believe they were gambling debts mostly. Of course she might have been into Mulberry handbags for all I know...She was probably bored out off her head with the company she had to keep....can you imagine it...all those loooonnnnnnggggg evenings spent in Weasle's company and probably mother-in-law outstaying her welcome...They both look as if they were weaned on lemons...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Did she - honestly? Or are you joking? A chip off the old Cis block?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:18
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>  
>
> Yes...maybe he got his comeuppance within his domestics....Ha ha ha...love it :0)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:55 PM
> > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >
> > > I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen
> >
> > EoY or EW?
> >
> > Is EoY was a bit of a cow that makes Henry probably not being all that fond
> > of her seem more sympathetic.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's very speculative Carol. St George's Windsor website talks about the coffins of Mary (14 and unmarried - Baldwin) and George but then mentions two others discovered when workmen broke through the same vault. Another website, whose name I should have remembered, million apologies, says the same thing. They are hinting that the Princes could secretly have been put there by Richard. But, knowing the state of burials in such places (they misplaced Charles I for years) I would imagine it's quite possible that the coffins have nothing to do with Edward or his family; but people like stirring up yet more speculation.  H   

Carol responds:

Playing devil's advocate for a moment (and, of course, I don't believe that Richard murdered his nephews), it's certainly a more fitting and logical place than ten feet under the foundations of a staircase! If, for example, Buckingham murdered the boys and Richard found out too late or they died of natural causes (a fever could have carried them both off together), he might have quietly had them buried there, making no announcement because he knew he would be blamed. But *someone* would have known (the coffin maker, for example), and would surely have come forward during Henry's reign with that information. On the other hand, if Henry had them killed, *he* might have buried them there, but all the evidence points to his not knowing whether they were alive or dead.

Just another red herring, I think, but if the bones in the urn turn out not to be Richard's nephews, these unknown skeletons (if they exist) would need to be examined.

Have we ruled out that they could be Hastings and his widow? Richard did have Hastings buried near Edward.

Carol

Other shortlived children of EW and Edward were buried in Westminster Abbey...I suppose before the tomb in St Georges Chapel was built...

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > Interesting. I see no record of her having a partner but perhaps EW had two more short-lived children.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Regarding earlier comments, Mary certainly wasn't married (I thought that she was fourteen, not fifteen, when she died but don't have time to check). Certainly, the Croyland chronicler would have made some snide remark about a king's daughter getting pregnant out of wedlock in the unlikely event that were allowed to happen.
>
> As for EW having more short-lived children, I think we would know. Maybe they're short-lived illegitimate children of Edward's?
>
> Or maybe there's just a mistake somewhere? What is the source of this information?
>
> Carol
>

Oh, I can just conjure the photo op of that group! So interesting the squishing together of the Lancasters and Tudors, and what a roaring failure they were, as just simply their lives. How unhappy they were, and what unhappiness they caused.

On Mar 11, 2013, at 12:27 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Henry had to give her loans several times to clear her debts.I believe they were gambling debts mostly. Of course she might have been into Mulberry handbags for all I know...She was probably bored out off her head with the company she had to keep....can you imagine it...all those loooonnnnnnggggg evenings spent in Weasle's company and probably mother-in-law outstaying her welcome...They both look as if they were weaned on lemons...Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Did she - honestly? Or are you joking? A chip off the old Cis block?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:18
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> ý
>
> Yes...maybe he got his comeuppance within his domestics....Ha ha ha...love it :0)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:55 PM
> > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >
> > > I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen
> >
> > EoY or EW?
> >
> > Is EoY was a bit of a cow that makes Henry probably not being all that fond
> > of her seem more sympathetic.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Of course she may have had stuff happen in her life to make her become not very nice...of which I am speculating,,,its just the impression I get..

Maybe:

A) She was really fond of her Uncle Richard and I mean fond in the innocent way not the lustful way. This may have left a scar....

B) She was a spoilt daddies girl and was never close to her mother...

C) She was resentful to her mother because EW was involved in the plot that would have put her brother/s back on the throne. She could have thought that EW was not supporting her?

Eileen


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I never knew that. And to think she ended up the playing card queen! I wonder who placed the bets - Reg Bray? 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:27
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>  
>
> Henry had to give her loans several times to clear her debts.I believe they were gambling debts mostly. Of course she might have been into Mulberry handbags for all I know...She was probably bored out off her head with the company she had to keep....can you imagine it...all those loooonnnnnnggggg evenings spent in Weasle's company and probably mother-in-law outstaying her welcome...They both look as if they were weaned on lemons...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Did she - honestly? Or are you joking? A chip off the old Cis block?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:18
> > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Yes...maybe he got his comeuppance within his domestics....Ha ha ha...love it :0)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: EileenB
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:55 PM
> > > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> > >
> > >
> > > > I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen
> > >
> > > EoY or EW?
> > >
> > > Is EoY was a bit of a cow that makes Henry probably not being all that fond
> > > of her seem more sympathetic.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?


> Yes. I never believe in saints. I don't think H7 had a particularly good
> deal all round - I hope the guy from the H7 Society is taking note of my
> comment.

Yes. He didn't really have many options, if he wanted to stay alive. He
was a thief, of course, who stole a whole country, but his allegiances were
French and Welsh so as far as he was concerned England was an enemy state,
and right up until WW2 most people thought it was acceptable to invade enemy
states, or even just states that had resources you wanted. Plus, if France
thought - rightly or wrongly - that Richard was going to invade France,
Henry would have seen Bosworth as a pre-emptive strike.

He wasn't as good a man or king as Richard but I don't think he was any
worse than Edward. Edward had a better claim to the throne *if* he was
York's son, which was and is questionable, but he employed the monstrous
Tiptoft; he committed bigamy and then foisted his bastards off on the
country; he possibly had poor old Harry Six killed (and was certainly
suspected of having done so on much stronger grounds than any suspicions
about Richard); he executed his own brother; and he allowed his wife's
appalling family virtually to take over the government. The Lancastrian
plotters had little experience of Richard and must have just expected him to
be more of the same and, poor boy, he didn't live long enough to change
their minds, so it's not really surprising that they wanted rid of him.

As for Henry's appearance, he reminds me strongly of Bradley Wiggins
especially in this
http://www.fhm.com/upgrade/entertainment/fhms-medal-podium-team-gb-start-raking-in-the-gold-83412
photo' and I can imagine Henry in the same pose, except probably with the
backs of his hands turned to the viewer....

A veritable nest of vipers if there ever was one..Eileen
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, I can just conjure the photo op of that group! So interesting the squishing together of the Lancasters and Tudors, and what a roaring failure they were, as just simply their lives. How unhappy they were, and what unhappiness they caused.
>
> On Mar 11, 2013, at 12:27 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Henry had to give her loans several times to clear her debts.I believe they were gambling debts mostly. Of course she might have been into Mulberry handbags for all I know...She was probably bored out off her head with the company she had to keep....can you imagine it...all those loooonnnnnnggggg evenings spent in Weasle's company and probably mother-in-law outstaying her welcome...They both look as if they were weaned on lemons...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Did she - honestly? Or are you joking? A chip off the old Cis block?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:18
> > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Yes...maybe he got his comeuppance within his domestics....Ha ha ha...love it :0)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: EileenB
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:55 PM
> > > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> > >
> > >
> > > > I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen
> > >
> > > EoY or EW?
> > >
> > > Is EoY was a bit of a cow that makes Henry probably not being all that fond
> > > of her seem more sympathetic.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


> On the other hand, if Henry had them killed, *he* might have buried them
> there, but all the evidence points to his not knowing whether they were
> alive or dead.

Do we know where Perkin Warbeck and Edward of Warwick were buried? Could
Henry, suspecting that Warbeck was either really who he climed to be or one
of Edward's bastards, have had him buried with his father?

I know the guy from the H7 society is not into hammering Richard. As I understand it he wants the H7 society to be pro Henry but not anti Richard. 

Carole


________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:29
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?


 
Yes. I never believe in saints. I don't think H7 had a particularly good deal all round - I hope the guy from the H7 Society is taking note of my comment.

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:23
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


 

I know Hilary...I've kept an open mind on EoY for a lone time. The Buck letter (dont mention it), Perkin Warbeck, her two young brothers, her apparent lack of care for her mother... Either she was a complete dope or incredibly selfish...She's had left the impression behind that she was put upon by HT and his mother...but you never know...for all we know she could have been a nightmare...Oh I Do Hope So....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> So indeed do I - which is why I keep an open mind about the Buck letter (though not R's actions around it). No, I'm not starting that thread again!! 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:10
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>  
>
> I think the other daughter's..names? ....and one son attended the next day but not EoY...I think she was pregnant...how convenient. As you can probably tell I have my reservations about Elizabeth....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes I think there was only Edward's bastard daughter Graceàto accompany her on her final journey, was that not so?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 16:55
> > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > EW instructed in her will that she should be buried beside Edward "without pompes entreing or costlie expensis donne thereabought" Elizabeth's coffin arrived at Windsor on Whit Sunday 10th June and appears to have been interred the same night "with oute any solempne Direge" Apparently it was done as she asked without HT or EoY stepping in and asking for a little but extra to be done to give her mother a good send off. Neither did EoY commission a restrospective monument for her mother. I sometimes get the impression that EoY did not really put herself out for her mother....who died without hardly anything to her name in Bermondsey Abbey..Seems a bit harsh to me. .Did she not give a damn or had they quarrelled or was she just selfish? If I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:17 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
> > >
> > >
> > > > They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it
> > > > was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his.
> > >
> > > If Henry was so tight he did his mother-in-law's fineral on the cheap like
> > > this, that adds weight to the idea that his spending the equivalent of
> > > Ã’â¬aã6,350 on a tombstone for Richard was, for him, fairly generous and
> > > respectful. Perhaps he felt bad about not having stopped his rabble of an
> > > army from abusing his predecessor's body.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Someone is spinning an alternative theory for when they are forced to open that urn and find it contains something inconvenient to them.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?



It's very speculative Carol. St George's Windsor website talks about the coffins of Mary (14 and unmarried - Baldwin) and George but then mentions two others discovered when workmen broke through the same vault. Another website, whose name I should have remembered, million apologies, says the same thing. They are hinting that the Princes could secretly have been put there by Richard. But, knowing the state of burials in such places (they misplaced Charles I for years) I would imagine it's quite possible that the coffins have nothing to do with Edward or his family; but people like stirring up yet more speculation. H


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:22
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?




"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Interesting. I see no record of her having a partner but perhaps EW had two more short-lived children.

Carol responds:

Regarding earlier comments, Mary certainly wasn't married (I thought that she was fourteen, not fifteen, when she died but don't have time to check). Certainly, the Croyland chronicler would have made some snide remark about a king's daughter getting pregnant out of wedlock in the unlikely event that were allowed to happen.

As for EW having more short-lived children, I think we would know. Maybe they're short-lived illegitimate children of Edward's?

Or maybe there's just a mistake somewhere? What is the source of this information?

Carol

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I know Hilary...I've kept an open mind on EoY for a lone time. The Buck letter (dont mention it), Perkin Warbeck, her two young brothers, her apparent lack of care for her mother... Either she was a complete dope or incredibly selfish...
>

Or that not-too-uncommon type of human being who's the latter because of the former - in other words, intellectually lazy, not actively nightmarish and even benevolent in theory, but selfish and thoughtless in deed because they're incapable of summoning an ounce of interest in or empathy towards anything that doesn't directly concern them or their offspring...

From: carole hughes
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?


> I know the guy from the H7 society is not into hammering Richard. As I
> understand it he wants the H7 society to be pro Henry but not anti
> Richard.

Seems reasonable to me. I'm pro Richard but I still have a soft spot for
Henry and I *don't* mean a patch of bog.... He was a devious, dodgy bugger
but he was quite a kind bloke and did a lot for the arts, and he didn't have
many career options open to him because his Lancastrian blood made him a
political hot potato.

Oh very well put Pansy!.......Eileen

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > I know Hilary...I've kept an open mind on EoY for a lone time. The Buck letter (dont mention it), Perkin Warbeck, her two young brothers, her apparent lack of care for her mother... Either she was a complete dope or incredibly selfish...
> >
>
> Or that not-too-uncommon type of human being who's the latter because of the former - in other words, intellectually lazy, not actively nightmarish and even benevolent in theory, but selfish and thoughtless in deed because they're incapable of summoning an ounce of interest in or empathy towards anything that doesn't directly concern them or their offspring...
>

Do you think his mother was the strong one...the leader...the plotter....?


--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: carole hughes
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> > I know the guy from the H7 society is not into hammering Richard. As I
> > understand it he wants the H7 society to be pro Henry but not anti
> > Richard.
>
> Seems reasonable to me. I'm pro Richard but I still have a soft spot for
> Henry and I *don't* mean a patch of bog.... He was a devious, dodgy bugger
> but he was quite a kind bloke and did a lot for the arts, and he didn't have
> many career options open to him because his Lancastrian blood made him a
> political hot potato.
>

Gosh Carole, I had never considered how Henry could have been a "hot potato", but, of course, his Lancaster heritage would still have grated on many people. I had only really considered his marriages, his treatment of his children, and what misery they were in. He did have the imperative of providing and heir, but was just a little imprudent is getting that done!

On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:12 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Do you think his mother was the strong one...the leader...the plotter....?

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: carole hughes
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> > I know the guy from the H7 society is not into hammering Richard. As I
> > understand it he wants the H7 society to be pro Henry but not anti
> > Richard.
>
> Seems reasonable to me. I'm pro Richard but I still have a soft spot for
> Henry and I *don't* mean a patch of bog.... He was a devious, dodgy bugger
> but he was quite a kind bloke and did a lot for the arts, and he didn't have
> many career options open to him because his Lancastrian blood made him a
> political hot potato.
>

Gambling? How naughty!

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:23 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> I know Hilary...I've kept an open mind on EoY for a lone time. The Buck letter (dont mention it), Perkin Warbeck, her two young brothers, her apparent lack of care for her mother... Either she was a complete dope or incredibly selfish...She's had left the impression behind that she was put upon by HT and his mother...but you never know...for all we know she could have been a nightmare...Oh I Do Hope So....Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > So indeed do I - which is why I keep an open mind about the Buck letter (though not R's actions around it). No, I'm not starting that thread again!!
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:10
> > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think the other daughter's..names? ....and one son attended the next day but not EoY...I think she was pregnant...how convenient. As you can probably tell I have my reservations about Elizabeth....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes I think there was only Edward's bastard daughter Grace to accompany her on her final journey, was that not so?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 16:55
> > > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > EW instructed in her will that she should be buried beside Edward "without pompes entreing or costlie expensis donne thereabought" Elizabeth's coffin arrived at Windsor on Whit Sunday 10th June and appears to have been interred the same night "with oute any solempne Direge" Apparently it was done as she asked without HT or EoY stepping in and asking for a little but extra to be done to give her mother a good send off. Neither did EoY commission a restrospective monument for her mother. I sometimes get the impression that EoY did not really put herself out for her mother....who died without hardly anything to her name in Bermondsey Abbey..Seems a bit harsh to me. .Did she not give a damn or had they quarrelled or was she just selfish? If I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:17 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it
> > > > > was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his.
> > > >
> > > > If Henry was so tight he did his mother-in-law's fineral on the cheap like
> > > > this, that adds weight to the idea that his spending the equivalent of
> > > > ã6,350 on a tombstone for Richard was, for him, fairly generous and
> > > > respectful. Perhaps he felt bad about not having stopped his rabble of an
> > > > army from abusing his predecessor's body.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Hilary, The Playing Card Queen is a great book title!

Sandra


From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:31 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
I never knew that. And to think she ended up the playing card queen! I wonder who placed the bets - Reg Bray?

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


> Do you think his mother was the strong one...the leader...the plotter....?

I think he was quite Machiavellian enough on his own account, but that her
scheming and her friendship with Morton cemented a situation in which it
became impossible for Henry to sue for peace or to come home to his own
country and family any way except at the head of an army. If she had been
more flexible, and more willing to butter Richard up instead of pulling the
rug out from under his feet, perhaps we could have had a situation in which
Henry became a court official, and we still ended up with Gloriana through
judicious alliance and intermarriage rather than open warfare.

But a lot of the blame for that situation must go to the French court. It
was France that decided that Henry had to go for the throne. If France had
given him a diplomatic job, say, then he could have returned to England and
Wales that way, and without being in any danger by doing so.

Yes Pansy, very well put.

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Mar 11, 2013, at 2:09 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Oh very well put Pansy!.......Eileen
>
> --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I know Hilary...I've kept an open mind on EoY for a lone time. The Buck letter (dont mention it), Perkin Warbeck, her two young brothers, her apparent lack of care for her mother... Either she was a complete dope or incredibly selfish...
> > >
> >
> > Or that not-too-uncommon type of human being who's the latter because of the former - in other words, intellectually lazy, not actively nightmarish and even benevolent in theory, but selfish and thoughtless in deed because they're incapable of summoning an ounce of interest in or empathy towards anything that doesn't directly concern them or their offspring...
> >
>
>

From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?


> Gosh Carole, I had never considered how Henry could have been a "hot
> potato",

'twas me, not Carole! His Lancastrian blood meant I think that nobody was
likely to offer him any sort of job *except* as a pretender to the throne.
Short of changing his identity and doing a runner, if he wanted to stay
alive he had to be France's agent. And he didn't have the sort of skills
you could do a runner with, unless he had unexpected talents as a juggler or
a cook - in those days I don't think there was a market for freelance
management consultants or bank managers, whereas if you were good with
weapons you could always join the landsknechts (posh Swiss mercenaries with
very long swords, and lots of ribbons).

This is exactly what I think...If she had eaten a bit of humble pie I feel that knowing what we know about Richard...a bit of a soft touch where women were concerned...she could have persuaded Richard to let him come home..and if Weasle had then behaved himself...who knows...?

Same thing with EW..if she had not rushed into Sanctuary but stayed at Westminster, acted with dignity and requested to be reunited with her son it may well have gone another way entirely...But there you go....Eileen

If she had been
> more flexible, and more willing to butter Richard up instead of pulling the
> rug out from under his feet, perhaps we could have had a situation in which
> Henry became a court official, and we still ended up with Gloriana through
> judicious alliance and intermarriage rather than open warfare.
>
>

Sorry Claire......no wonder I cannot get the entire family and all offshoots in my mind. I screw up on posts....HOPELESS I am! Both you and Carol have given me book titles, and my stack is growing. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!

On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:52 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?

> Gosh Carole, I had never considered how Henry could have been a "hot
> potato",

'twas me, not Carole! His Lancastrian blood meant I think that nobody was
likely to offer him any sort of job *except* as a pretender to the throne.
Short of changing his identity and doing a runner, if he wanted to stay
alive he had to be France's agent. And he didn't have the sort of skills
you could do a runner with, unless he had unexpected talents as a juggler or
a cook - in those days I don't think there was a market for freelance
management consultants or bank managers, whereas if you were good with
weapons you could always join the landsknechts (posh Swiss mercenaries with
very long swords, and lots of ribbons).

From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?


> Sorry Claire......no wonder I cannot get the entire family and all
> offshoots in my mind. I screw up on posts....HOPELESS I am! Both you and
> Carol have given me book titles, and my stack is growing. Thank you, thank
> you, thank you!!!!

Add He Who Plays the King by Mary Hocking. It must be 30 years since I read
it, so I don't remember much about it, but I know it follows Richard and
Henry alternately and has a very feisty, spirited small-boy Richard.

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


> This is exactly what I think...If she had eaten a bit of humble pie I feel
> that knowing what we know about Richard...a bit of a soft touch where
> women were concerned...she could have persuaded Richard to let him come
> home..and if Weasle had then behaved himself...who knows...?

But then, the executions of Rivers, Gray and Hastings wouldn't have
reassured her, especially given she hadn't seen much of Richard before. By
the time she realised he wasn't the dangerous hothead he at first appeared,
she was probably in too deep, even if she started to wonder if there was
another way (and we don't know if she did, of course).

> Same thing with EW..if she had not rushed into Sanctuary but stayed at
> Westminster, acted with dignity and requested to be reunited with her son
> it may well have gone another way entirely...But there you go....Eileen

Do we know whether she encouraged Dorset to run off with half the treasury,
or did he do that off his own bat? If the latter then sge was stuck,
because she would assume that Richard would assume she'd been involved, even
if she hadn't. But just think, if she *had* stayed at court, behaved with
dignity, greeted Richard politely etc she might have persuaded him not to
execute Rivers and Gray, but just to fine them to make up for the money
Dorset had nicked.

Gosh, you mean he could have ended up working for the Pope?
 
 


________________________________

From: Claire M Jordan <

Snip>whereas if you were good with
weapons you could always join the landsknechts (posh Swiss mercenaries with
very long swords, and lots of ribbons).



,

I looked at those websites too and another one that came up when I googled Edward IVs burial and apparently James I was buried with the Tydder and EoY and Queen Anne's dead children were buried in some other tombs. Someone else mentioned that Hasting was buried with Edward so could the other coffin be Lady Hastings?

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's very speculative Carol. St George's Windsor website talks about the coffins of Mary (14 and unmarried - Baldwin) and George but then mentions two others discovered when workmen broke through the same vault. Another website, whose name I should have remembered, million apologies, says the same thing. They are hinting that the Princes could secretly have been put there by Richard. But, knowing the state of burials in such places (they misplaced Charles I for years) I would imagine it's quite possible that the coffins have nothing to do with Edward or his family; but people like stirring up yet more speculation.  H   
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:22
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>  
>
>
>
> "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > Interesting. I see no record of her having a partner but perhaps EW had two more short-lived children.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Regarding earlier comments, Mary certainly wasn't married (I thought that she was fourteen, not fifteen, when she died but don't have time to check). Certainly, the Croyland chronicler would have made some snide remark about a king's daughter getting pregnant out of wedlock in the unlikely event that were allowed to happen.
>
> As for EW having more short-lived children, I think we would know. Maybe they're short-lived illegitimate children of Edward's?
>
> Or maybe there's just a mistake somewhere? What is the source of this information?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Pammy, Henry didn't have any Lancaster heritage because although John of Gaunt was one of his grandfathers, possibly gt grandfather, and Gaunt was Duke of Lancaster, Henry was descended from Gaunt's Beaufort family. Their mother was Katherine Swynford, who was governess to Gaunt's Lancaster children. All the Beauforts were born before Gaunt married their mother and were therefore illegitimate. Gaunt's dukedom came from his first wife Blanche. John Ashdown Hill has also written an article in the Ricardian regarding this and he believes that Henry Bolingbroke didn't claim the throne through his father's descent from Edward III but through his mother's descent from Edward I's brother Edmund who was Duke of Lancaster if I remember rightly there was some story about Edmund being the oldest son.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Gosh Carole, I had never considered how Henry could have been a "hot potato", but, of course, his Lancaster heritage would still have grated on many people. I had only really considered his marriages, his treatment of his children, and what misery they were in. He did have the imperative of providing and heir, but was just a little imprudent is getting that done!
>
> On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:12 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Do you think his mother was the strong one...the leader...the plotter....?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: carole hughes
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >
> > > I know the guy from the H7 society is not into hammering Richard. As I
> > > understand it he wants the H7 society to be pro Henry but not anti
> > > Richard.
> >
> > Seems reasonable to me. I'm pro Richard but I still have a soft spot for
> > Henry and I *don't* mean a patch of bog.... He was a devious, dodgy bugger
> > but he was quite a kind bloke and did a lot for the arts, and he didn't have
> > many career options open to him because his Lancastrian blood made him a
> > political hot potato.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


> Pammy, Henry didn't have any Lancaster heritage because although John of
> Gaunt was one of his grandfathers, possibly gt grandfather, and Gaunt was
> Duke of Lancaster, Henry was descended from Gaunt's Beaufort family.

That doesn't mean he didn't have Lancastrian heritage, just that it was on
the wrong side of the blanket. And, after all, Edward IV had just tried to
foist the son of a bigamous marriage off on the nation, so standards were
slipping.

Henry IV legitimated the Beauforts when Gaunt eventually married their mother but they were specifically barred from inheriting the crown. There is also the possibility that the eldest Beaufort son was Hugh Swynford's son as Katherine was still married to him when he was born and Henry was descended from him. So Margaret could have been Margaret Swynford not Beaufort.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: ricard1an
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:42 PM
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> > Pammy, Henry didn't have any Lancaster heritage because although John of
> > Gaunt was one of his grandfathers, possibly gt grandfather, and Gaunt was
> > Duke of Lancaster, Henry was descended from Gaunt's Beaufort family.
>
> That doesn't mean he didn't have Lancastrian heritage, just that it was on
> the wrong side of the blanket. And, after all, Edward IV had just tried to
> foist the son of a bigamous marriage off on the nation, so standards were
> slipping.
>

EW's bolt into sanctuary happened before the executions. This tends to make me think that, as you say she was in too deep at that stage. I believe that Rivers and Co intended to ambush Richard and Bucks...Stony Stratford was just a few miles away from a Woodville stronghold Grafton Regis. If she knew this and without a doubt she did then this would explain her panic. But even under those circumstances imho its a possibility that had she remained out of sanctuary and eaten a bit of the old humble pie Richard would have forgiven her and therefore the possibility of her being reunited with her son/s in time. After all he forgave a lot...to his detriment, It must have been a great embarrassment and pain in the backside for Richard that she remained stubbornly in sanctuary for so long. And I have read (where?) that being reunited with her sons was one of the inducements proffered to her to get her to come out. As it was by the time she emerged whatever happened to the boys had happened by then....Who knows *maybe* this tardiness in attempting to get to her sons coloured EoY's perception of her mother...What a family..:0/
Eileen


--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:58 PM
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> > This is exactly what I think...If she had eaten a bit of humble pie I feel
> > that knowing what we know about Richard...a bit of a soft touch where
> > women were concerned...she could have persuaded Richard to let him come
> > home..and if Weasle had then behaved himself...who knows...?
>
> But then, the executions of Rivers, Gray and Hastings wouldn't have
> reassured her, especially given she hadn't seen much of Richard before. By
> the time she realised he wasn't the dangerous hothead he at first appeared,
> she was probably in too deep, even if she started to wonder if there was
> another way (and we don't know if she did, of course).
>
> > Same thing with EW..if she had not rushed into Sanctuary but stayed at
> > Westminster, acted with dignity and requested to be reunited with her son
> > it may well have gone another way entirely...But there you go....Eileen
>
> Do we know whether she encouraged Dorset to run off with half the treasury,
> or did he do that off his own bat? If the latter then sge was stuck,
> because she would assume that Richard would assume she'd been involved, even
> if she hadn't. But just think, if she *had* stayed at court, behaved with
> dignity, greeted Richard politely etc she might have persuaded him not to
> execute Rivers and Gray, but just to fine them to make up for the money
> Dorset had nicked.
>

Mary is right because John of Gaunt was only Duke of Lancaster in jure uxoris. Blanche was the real Duchess and only her descendants were Lancastrians.
----- Original Message -----
From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?



From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

> Pammy, Henry didn't have any Lancaster heritage because although John of
> Gaunt was one of his grandfathers, possibly gt grandfather, and Gaunt was
> Duke of Lancaster, Henry was descended from Gaunt's Beaufort family.

That doesn't mean he didn't have Lancastrian heritage, just that it was on
the wrong side of the blanket. And, after all, Edward IV had just tried to
foist the son of a bigamous marriage off on the nation, so standards were
slipping.

From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?


> Mary is right because John of Gaunt was only Duke of Lancaster in jure
> uxoris.

Ah, right. Still, however weak his connection Henry was still promoted as
being a Lancastrian, so it still meant that France saw him as a political
lever rather than a private citizen.

Thank you for the clarification. Obviously, I need a huge amount of education on the subject of Richard and the world that swirled around him, before, during and after. What a delightful thought to think I can spend years learning and reading. I may start my own "very crude" family tree(s) and try and fix everyone in place in what seems to be my very tiny mind.
On another subject, I did go into Ancestry.com<http://Ancestry.com>, and I have a worldwide membership. I sent Carol Darling a copy/paste of the earliest of my York relatives. I "think" I can invite others onto my site. I tried, and it didn't pop right up. I have sent in a request for help. The worldwide membership gives me birth, death and marriage records, as well as ship manifests of passengers to the New World, and later the colonies for the UK, and anywhere there my be relatives. In the US, I have been able to find lists of soldiers, during wars from the American Revolution onward. This is yet another thing I will spend time on, once I am retired and have the time to do so.
Once more, I wish to thank all of you for the endless patience, and wonderful recommendations for reading. I hope some day to make a trip and meet as many of you as possible.



On Mar 11, 2013, at 4:42 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:



Pammy, Henry didn't have any Lancaster heritage because although John of Gaunt was one of his grandfathers, possibly gt grandfather, and Gaunt was Duke of Lancaster, Henry was descended from Gaunt's Beaufort family. Their mother was Katherine Swynford, who was governess to Gaunt's Lancaster children. All the Beauforts were born before Gaunt married their mother and were therefore illegitimate. Gaunt's dukedom came from his first wife Blanche. John Ashdown Hill has also written an article in the Ricardian regarding this and he believes that Henry Bolingbroke didn't claim the throne through his father's descent from Edward III but through his mother's descent from Edward I's brother Edmund who was Duke of Lancaster if I remember rightly there was some story about Edmund being the oldest son.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Gosh Carole, I had never considered how Henry could have been a "hot potato", but, of course, his Lancaster heritage would still have grated on many people. I had only really considered his marriages, his treatment of his children, and what misery they were in. He did have the imperative of providing and heir, but was just a little imprudent is getting that done!
>
> On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:12 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Do you think his mother was the strong one...the leader...the plotter....?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: carole hughes
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >
> > > I know the guy from the H7 society is not into hammering Richard. As I
> > > understand it he wants the H7 society to be pro Henry but not anti
> > > Richard.
> >
> > Seems reasonable to me. I'm pro Richard but I still have a soft spot for
> > Henry and I *don't* mean a patch of bog.... He was a devious, dodgy bugger
> > but he was quite a kind bloke and did a lot for the arts, and he didn't have
> > many career options open to him because his Lancastrian blood made him a
> > political hot potato.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Mary wrote:
>
> [snip] John Ashdown Hill has also written an article in the Ricardian regarding this and he believes that Henry Bolingbroke didn't claim the throne through his father's descent from Edward III but through his mother's descent from Edward I's brother Edmund who was Duke of Lancaster if I remember rightly there was some story about Edmund being the oldest son.

Carol responds:

Yes. I've mentioned before the story that Henry IV (Bolingbroke) claimed that Edmund Crouchback, the "elder" (really the younger) son of Henry III was set aside in favor of his brother, Edward (I) because of his "deformity." Whether Bolingbroke really made such a claim, I don't know. There's no other evidence that Edmund Crouchback was deformed and the usual explanation for the epithet is that he was so called because of the red cross on his Crusader's armor. (Still, though, we don't hear of anyone else being called "Crouchback" for this reason, so it's possible that he did have scoliosis or some similar condition.) I don't know the source of the story about Bolingbroke's shaky claim, but if you have access to the Ricardian article (which I don't), you can check for us. He was trying to make his claim stronger than that of Richard II (and his Mortimer heirs?), which it would not otherwise have been.

Carol

Mary wrote:

> > Pammy, Henry didn't have any Lancaster heritage because although John of Gaunt was one of his grandfathers, possibly gt grandfather, and Gaunt was Duke of Lancaster, Henry was descended from Gaunt's Beaufort family.

Claire responded:
> That doesn't mean he didn't have Lancastrian heritage, just that it was on the wrong side of the blanket. And, after all, Edward IV had just tried to foist the son of a bigamous marriage off on the nation, so standards were slipping.

Carol comments:

Nevertheless, Henry was not a member of the House of Lancaster or even of the House of Beaufort (if it had been a royal house), which is why he had to start the House of Tudor. His connection to the Lancastrian Henry VI was through Henry VI's French mother (Henry Tudor's paternal grandmother, his half-Welsh, half-French father being Henry VI's maternal half-brother). The House of Lancaster was extinct in the male line, which also means that it was extinct as a name and could not be revived despite all the claims that Henry was Lancastrian. So the union of the Houses of York and Lancaster supposedly achieved by Henry's marriage to Elizabeth of York was really a union of a possibly illegitimate Yorkist line with the Tudor/Beaufort line marred by illegitimacy on both sides. (There is no proof that Owen Tudor and Catherine of Valois were ever married.)

In contrast, Richard's proposed marriage to Joanna of Portugal would have joined an unquestionably legitimate Yorkist line with that of a legitimate Lancastrian descendant even though she, too, came from a different royal house (I think it was the House of Aviz).

Carol

"EileenB" wrote:
> [snip] And I have read (where?) that being reunited with her sons was one of the inducements proffered to her to get her to come out. [snip]

Carol responds:

It's in More, of all places. Bertram Fields mentions it as one point on which More may have been correct.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


"EileenB" wrote:
> [snip] And I have read (where?) that being reunited with her sons was one
> of the inducements proffered to her to get her to come out. [snip]

Carol responds:

> It's in More, of all places. Bertram Fields mentions it as one point on
> which More may have been correct.

Audrey Williams reports a local tradition in the vicinity of Gipping Hall
(can't find the book so I don't know the damn' date), the Tyrrell family
seat, to the effect that the two boys stayed there for a while and their
mother visited them there. It's potentially significant because the people
who reconted the story seemed unaware of its implications - so it hadn't
just been invented to clear Tyrrell's name.

She doesn't seem to give a date (at least I haven't found it), except to
offer the opinion that it must have been after Elizabeth came out of
sanctuary in 1484. That's one of my frustrations with this book, there's
so little that can be definitely dated.

A J

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:03 AM
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> "EileenB" wrote:
> > [snip] And I have read (where?) that being reunited with her sons was
> one
> > of the inducements proffered to her to get her to come out. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> > It's in More, of all places. Bertram Fields mentions it as one point on
> > which More may have been correct.
>
> Audrey Williams reports a local tradition in the vicinity of Gipping Hall
> (can't find the book so I don't know the damn' date), the Tyrrell family
> seat, to the effect that the two boys stayed there for a while and their
> mother visited them there. It's potentially significant because the people
> who reconted the story seemed unaware of its implications - so it hadn't
> just been invented to clear Tyrrell's name.
>
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> "EileenB" wrote:
> > [snip] And I have read (where?) that being reunited with her sons was one of the inducements proffered to her to get her to come out. [snip]
>
> Carol responded:
>
> > It's in More, of all places. Bertram Fields mentions it as one point on which More may have been correct.

Claire wrote:
> Audrey Williams reports a local tradition in the vicinity of Gipping Hall can't find the book so I don't know the damn' date), the Tyrrell family seat, to the effect that the two boys stayed there for a while and their mother visited them there. It's potentially significant because the people who reconted the story seemed unaware of its implications - so it hadn't just been invented to clear Tyrrell's name.

Carol responds:

Right. I have Williamson's book and am fond of her theory, which ties in well with the large payment Richard made to Tyrell in 1484 and his secret correspondence with his sister Margaret in Burgundy. But I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that Eileen was referring to an offer that was made to EW before she released her younger son (perhaps months before--I don't remember) that would allow her to live with both sons if she came out of sanctuary. We have no actual evidence that any such offer was made, though it certainly makes sense as an offer *after* her sons were made illegitimate and may well have induced her to leave sanctuary in March 1484 (If I recall the date correctly). I'm not so sure that Richard would want the boys living with their mother while she was still the queen mother and Edward V was still the king. That would give her far too much influence.

Carol

From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:16 AM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?


> She doesn't seem to give a date (at least I haven't found it), except to
> offer the opinion that it must have been after Elizabeth came out of
> sanctuary in 1484. That's one of my frustrations with this book, there's
> so little that can be definitely dated.

Yes, but I mean when was the tradition collected? Is it something which si
still current and which she herself heard? Is it in an 18th C collection of
local folklore?

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


> We have no actual evidence that any such offer was made, though it
> certainly makes sense as an offer *after* her sons were made illegitimate
> and may well have induced her to leave sanctuary in March 1484 (If I
> recall the date correctly). I'm not so sure that Richard would want the
> boys living with their mother while she was still the queen mother and
> Edward V was still the king. That would give her far too much influence.

Well, if the Gipping Hall story is true it would have to be after they
vanished from the Tower, because Gipping Hall's a fair way north from
London. They would presumably have been either heading north from London to
Yorkshire, or coming back from Yorkshire heading for the continent. Unless
Richard was being *extremely* devious and shipped them from Lowestoft to The
Hague, and then cut round to Burgundy by a back route.

"There's... there's nothing in this urn but a little slip of parchment on which is lettered in script, 'IOU 2 Princes Ha ha'."

"Is it... signed?"

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Someone is spinning an alternative theory for when they are forced to open that urn and find it contains something inconvenient to them.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>
> It's very speculative Carol. St George's Windsor website talks about the coffins of Mary (14 and unmarried - Baldwin) and George but then mentions two others discovered when workmen broke through the same vault. Another website, whose name I should have remembered, million apologies, says the same thing. They are hinting that the Princes could secretly have been put there by Richard. But, knowing the state of burials in such places (they misplaced Charles I for years) I would imagine it's quite possible that the coffins have nothing to do with Edward or his family; but people like stirring up yet more speculation. H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:22
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>
>
> "Stephen Lark" wrote:
> >
> > Interesting. I see no record of her having a partner but perhaps EW had two more short-lived children.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Regarding earlier comments, Mary certainly wasn't married (I thought that she was fourteen, not fifteen, when she died but don't have time to check). Certainly, the Croyland chronicler would have made some snide remark about a king's daughter getting pregnant out of wedlock in the unlikely event that were allowed to happen.
>
> As for EW having more short-lived children, I think we would know. Maybe they're short-lived illegitimate children of Edward's?
>
> Or maybe there's just a mistake somewhere? What is the source of this information?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Sigh.] Is it too terribly sinful to wish for a TARDIS so I could go back in time and prevent the villagers from rescuing little Morton from the well?

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:12 PM
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> > Do you think his mother was the strong one...the leader...the plotter....?
>
> I think he was quite Machiavellian enough on his own account, but that her
> scheming and her friendship with Morton cemented a situation in which it
> became impossible for Henry to sue for peace or to come home to his own
> country and family any way except at the head of an army. If she had been
> more flexible, and more willing to butter Richard up instead of pulling the
> rug out from under his feet, perhaps we could have had a situation in which
> Henry became a court official, and we still ended up with Gloriana through
> judicious alliance and intermarriage rather than open warfare.
>
> But a lot of the blame for that situation must go to the French court. It
> was France that decided that Henry had to go for the throne. If France had
> given him a diplomatic job, say, then he could have returned to England and
> Wales that way, and without being in any danger by doing so.
>

If only the banjo had been invented so he could take it up.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> > Gosh Carole, I had never considered how Henry could have been a "hot
> > potato",
>
> 'twas me, not Carole! His Lancastrian blood meant I think that nobody was
> likely to offer him any sort of job *except* as a pretender to the throne.
> Short of changing his identity and doing a runner, if he wanted to stay
> alive he had to be France's agent. And he didn't have the sort of skills
> you could do a runner with, unless he had unexpected talents as a juggler or
> a cook - in those days I don't think there was a market for freelance
> management consultants or bank managers, whereas if you were good with
> weapons you could always join the landsknechts (posh Swiss mercenaries with
> very long swords, and lots of ribbons).
>

Yeah, she skeedaddled into sanctuary the instant she heard about the relatives' arrests. Well, if it hadn't been for her, Unc and Bro wouldn't have tried to shut out the Protector, and the good china and the silver candlesticks wouldn't have been bobbing about on the waves, now would they? I think it's a simple case of, "Flee whither offereth safety, my family, for verily, we are so hosed."

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:58 PM
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> > This is exactly what I think...If she had eaten a bit of humble pie I feel
> > that knowing what we know about Richard...a bit of a soft touch where
> > women were concerned...she could have persuaded Richard to let him come
> > home..and if Weasle had then behaved himself...who knows...?
>
> But then, the executions of Rivers, Gray and Hastings wouldn't have
> reassured her, especially given she hadn't seen much of Richard before. By
> the time she realised he wasn't the dangerous hothead he at first appeared,
> she was probably in too deep, even if she started to wonder if there was
> another way (and we don't know if she did, of course).
>
> > Same thing with EW..if she had not rushed into Sanctuary but stayed at
> > Westminster, acted with dignity and requested to be reunited with her son
> > it may well have gone another way entirely...But there you go....Eileen
>
> Do we know whether she encouraged Dorset to run off with half the treasury,
> or did he do that off his own bat? If the latter then sge was stuck,
> because she would assume that Richard would assume she'd been involved, even
> if she hadn't. But just think, if she *had* stayed at court, behaved with
> dignity, greeted Richard politely etc she might have persuaded him not to
> execute Rivers and Gray, but just to fine them to make up for the money
> Dorset had nicked.
>

Goddess forfend! Can you imagine the body count of a counterreformation that started a century and a half early?

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Gosh, you mean he could have ended up working for the Pope?
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Claire M Jordan <
>
> Snip>whereas if you were good with
> weapons you could always join the landsknechts (posh Swiss mercenaries with
> very long swords, and lots of ribbons).
>
>
>
> ,
>
>
>

--- In , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Gosh, you mean he could have ended up working for the Pope?

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:58 AM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

> Goddess forfend! Can you imagine the body count of a counterreformation
> that started a century and a half early?

Actually, since Henry was probably a Templar wannabee (dressed like a clerk,
caused his nobles to ride two to a horse), if he'd had any influence there
the Catholic church would probably have ended up much stranger but
considerably more liberal.

Right here we go; I've at last managed to find Ian Mortimer's excellent Henry IV. Mortimer says that Henry claimed the right to the throne through Henry III, not Edward III but not because of Edmund Couchback. Crouchback was indeed Henry's second son, and therefore not entitled to the throne but the continutation of the Eulogium Historarum of Adam Usk and John Hardyng had claimed incorrectly that he was. Edmund had been given the vast Lancaster Palatinate which passed to Bolingbroke through his mother Blanche of Lancaster. Henry IV claimed the throne through Henry III because Edward I had stipulated that the crown should pass to his son (Edward II) and his heirs - be they male or female. So Edward's daughter's would take precedence before his uncle Crouchback. This meant that Edmund Mortimer had a better claim to the throne than Bolingbroke until Edward III drew up his will in 1376. Bolingbroke feared that RII was about to do the same to cut him out.
Whew!!!
 
However, going back to the original point, Mortimer does say Edmund C was rumoured to be delicate - which is interesting. Though I, like you Carol, have always read that the Crouchback came from the cross on the Crusaders uniform that he wore.  H


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 0:34
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

 

Mary wrote:
>
> [snip] John Ashdown Hill has also written an article in the Ricardian regarding this and he believes that Henry Bolingbroke didn't claim the throne through his father's descent from Edward III but through his mother's descent from Edward I's brother Edmund who was Duke of Lancaster if I remember rightly there was some story about Edmund being the oldest son.

Carol responds:

Yes. I've mentioned before the story that Henry IV (Bolingbroke) claimed that Edmund Crouchback, the "elder" (really the younger) son of Henry III was set aside in favor of his brother, Edward (I) because of his "deformity." Whether Bolingbroke really made such a claim, I don't know. There's no other evidence that Edmund Crouchback was deformed and the usual explanation for the epithet is that he was so called because of the red cross on his Crusader's armor. (Still, though, we don't hear of anyone else being called "Crouchback" for this reason, so it's possible that he did have scoliosis or some similar condition.) I don't know the source of the story about Bolingbroke's shaky claim, but if you have access to the Ricardian article (which I don't), you can check for us. He was trying to make his claim stronger than that of Richard II (and his Mortimer heirs?), which it would not otherwise have been.

Carol

Indeed!!



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 18:34
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?


 

Hilary, The Playing Card Queen is a great book title!

Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:31 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
I never knew that. And to think she ended up the playing card queen! I wonder who placed the bets - Reg Bray?

You know I have her as just the same. She was Daddy's eldest for a long time before little Eddie came along (Gruuthuse has her dancing with daddy when he visited), probably had a crush on young Uncle Richard who didn't visit very often and seemed to have this ailing wife and didn't like being used as a pawn by Mummy and MB. I can't somehow see her being the saintly shrinking violet. Interesting Starkey doesn't mention the gambling when setting her up as such in his young H8


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:54
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


 

Of course she may have had stuff happen in her life to make her become not very nice...of which I am speculating,,,its just the impression I get..

Maybe:

A) She was really fond of her Uncle Richard and I mean fond in the innocent way not the lustful way. This may have left a scar....

B) She was a spoilt daddies girl and was never close to her mother...

C) She was resentful to her mother because EW was involved in the plot that would have put her brother/s back on the throne. She could have thought that EW was not supporting her?

Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I never knew that. And to think she ended up the playing card queen! I wonder who placed the bets - Reg Bray? 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:27
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>  
>
> Henry had to give her loans several times to clear her debts.I believe they were gambling debts mostly. Of course she might have been into Mulberry handbags for all I know...She was probably bored out off her head with the company she had to keep....can you imagine it...all those loooonnnnnnggggg evenings spent in Weasle's company and probably mother-in-law outstaying her welcome...They both look as if they were weaned on lemons...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Did she - honestly? Or are you joking? A chip off the old Cis block?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:18
> > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > Yes...maybe he got his comeuppance within his domestics....Ha ha ha...love it :0)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: EileenB
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:55 PM
> > > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> > >
> > >
> > > > I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen
> > >
> > > EoY or EW?
> > >
> > > Is EoY was a bit of a cow that makes Henry probably not being all that fond
> > > of her seem more sympathetic.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

A bit of a Jane Austen character?



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 18:09
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


 

Oh very well put Pansy!.......Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > I know Hilary...I've kept an open mind on EoY for a lone time. The Buck letter (dont mention it), Perkin Warbeck, her two young brothers, her apparent lack of care for her mother... Either she was a complete dope or incredibly selfish...
> >
>
> Or that not-too-uncommon type of human being who's the latter because of the former - in other words, intellectually lazy, not actively nightmarish and even benevolent in theory, but selfish and thoughtless in deed because they're incapable of summoning an ounce of interest in or empathy towards anything that doesn't directly concern them or their offspring...
>

Yes I realise that. I actually think there's some good interesting stuff on that page and one particular article just after the skeleton announcement is particularly generous.
 
As Eileen said yesterday, I don't think we demonise H7 that much, though even his biographer has a problem making him attractive. Looking across the battlefield on 22 Aug he must have felt a pretty awful fate awaited him, if he survived. Fate played into his hands and we can't blame him for that.
The 'demons' are the plotters who betrayed Richard and probably used Henry as well.  H


________________________________
From: carole hughes <caroleugis@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:59
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?

 

I know the guy from the H7 society is not into hammering Richard. As I understand it he wants the H7 society to be pro Henry but not anti Richard. 

Carole

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: ">
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:29
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?


 
Yes. I never believe in saints. I don't think H7 had a particularly good deal all round - I hope the guy from the H7 Society is taking note of my comment.

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:23
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

 

I know Hilary...I've kept an open mind on EoY for a lone time. The Buck letter (dont mention it), Perkin Warbeck, her two young brothers, her apparent lack of care for her mother... Either she was a complete dope or incredibly selfish...She's had left the impression behind that she was put upon by HT and his mother...but you never know...for all we know she could have been a nightmare...Oh I Do Hope So....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> So indeed do I - which is why I keep an open mind about the Buck letter (though not R's actions around it). No, I'm not starting that thread again!! 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:10
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>  
>
> I think the other daughter's..names? ....and one son attended the next day but not EoY...I think she was pregnant...how convenient. As you can probably tell I have my reservations about Elizabeth....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes I think there was only Edward's bastard daughter Graceàto accompany her on her final journey, was that not so?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 16:55
> > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > EW instructed in her will that she should be buried beside Edward "without pompes entreing or costlie expensis donne thereabought" Elizabeth's coffin arrived at Windsor on Whit Sunday 10th June and appears to have been interred the same night "with oute any solempne Direge" Apparently it was done as she asked without HT or EoY stepping in and asking for a little but extra to be done to give her mother a good send off. Neither did EoY commission a restrospective monument for her mother. I sometimes get the impression that EoY did not really put herself out for her mother....who died without hardly anything to her name in Bermondsey Abbey..Seems a bit harsh to me. .Did she not give a damn or had they quarrelled or was she just selfish? If I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:17 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
> > >
> > >
> > > > They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it
> > > > was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his.
> > >
> > > If Henry was so tight he did his mother-in-law's fineral on the cheap like
> > > this, that adds weight to the idea that his spending the equivalent of
> > > Ã’â¬aã6,350 on a tombstone for Richard was, for him, fairly generous and
> > > respectful. Perhaps he felt bad about not having stopped his rabble of an
> > > army from abusing his predecessor's body.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Could well be true, Stephen. It's strange it's just 'come to light'. Don't think it's Hastings, Carol; he's under a slab in the floor I recall. But you never know. One article says that one of Queen Anne's babies was also found in the Edward vault. She's buried in Westminster Abbey, of course, but her kids keep turning up everywhere - very sad. It would though, I've just realised, imply the vault was opened later. It was certainly opened in 1789 when they found EW's coffin.



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:59
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?

 

Someone is spinning an alternative theory for when they are forced to open that urn and find it contains something inconvenient to them.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?

It's very speculative Carol. St George's Windsor website talks about the coffins of Mary (14 and unmarried - Baldwin) and George but then mentions two others discovered when workmen broke through the same vault. Another website, whose name I should have remembered, million apologies, says the same thing. They are hinting that the Princes could secretly have been put there by Richard. But, knowing the state of burials in such places (they misplaced Charles I for years) I would imagine it's quite possible that the coffins have nothing to do with Edward or his family; but people like stirring up yet more speculation. H

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:22
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Interesting. I see no record of her having a partner but perhaps EW had two more short-lived children.

Carol responds:

Regarding earlier comments, Mary certainly wasn't married (I thought that she was fourteen, not fifteen, when she died but don't have time to check). Certainly, the Croyland chronicler would have made some snide remark about a king's daughter getting pregnant out of wedlock in the unlikely event that were allowed to happen.

As for EW having more short-lived children, I think we would know. Maybe they're short-lived illegitimate children of Edward's?

Or maybe there's just a mistake somewhere? What is the source of this information?

Carol

That's true and H4 brought the Lancaster inheritance to the Crown. That was itself to cause problems because nobles with holdings in that area such as the Stanleys and Harringtons had to defer to the Crown; another reason for resenting Richard, the the Nevill's and Northumberland's freedom in Yorkshire. By Edward's death R had virtually been granted his own Palatinate in the North as well, so they were being squeezed more and more. It's actually, I've always thought, a good argument why Richard wouldn't particularly have sought the Crown - he had his own kingdom in the North.


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 22:40
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?

 

Mary is right because John of Gaunt was only Duke of Lancaster in jure uxoris. Blanche was the real Duchess and only her descendants were Lancastrians.
----- Original Message -----
From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?

From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

> Pammy, Henry didn't have any Lancaster heritage because although John of
> Gaunt was one of his grandfathers, possibly gt grandfather, and Gaunt was
> Duke of Lancaster, Henry was descended from Gaunt's Beaufort family.

That doesn't mean he didn't have Lancastrian heritage, just that it was on
the wrong side of the blanket. And, after all, Edward IV had just tried to
foist the son of a bigamous marriage off on the nation, so standards were
slipping.

I've now looked the funeral up in Okerland. She has her accompanied by her chaplain, Edmund Haute  her executor and Mistress Grace and buried on Whitsunday. Anne, Katherine and Bridget attended a memorial service on the following Tuesday together with other relatives including Buckingham's daughter. EOY was pregnant and did not attend.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:23
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


 

I know Hilary...I've kept an open mind on EoY for a lone time. The Buck letter (dont mention it), Perkin Warbeck, her two young brothers, her apparent lack of care for her mother... Either she was a complete dope or incredibly selfish...She's had left the impression behind that she was put upon by HT and his mother...but you never know...for all we know she could have been a nightmare...Oh I Do Hope So....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> So indeed do I - which is why I keep an open mind about the Buck letter (though not R's actions around it). No, I'm not starting that thread again!! 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:10
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>  
>
> I think the other daughter's..names? ....and one son attended the next day but not EoY...I think she was pregnant...how convenient. As you can probably tell I have my reservations about Elizabeth....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes I think there was only Edward's bastard daughter Graceàto accompany her on her final journey, was that not so?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 16:55
> > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > EW instructed in her will that she should be buried beside Edward "without pompes entreing or costlie expensis donne thereabought" Elizabeth's coffin arrived at Windsor on Whit Sunday 10th June and appears to have been interred the same night "with oute any solempne Direge" Apparently it was done as she asked without HT or EoY stepping in and asking for a little but extra to be done to give her mother a good send off. Neither did EoY commission a restrospective monument for her mother. I sometimes get the impression that EoY did not really put herself out for her mother....who died without hardly anything to her name in Bermondsey Abbey..Seems a bit harsh to me. .Did she not give a damn or had they quarrelled or was she just selfish? If I recall correct she spent a lot on gambling....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:17 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
> > >
> > >
> > > > They found EW's at the same time I believe. It was very decayed because it
> > > > was a poor wooden coffin and had been just put on top of his.
> > >
> > > If Henry was so tight he did his mother-in-law's fineral on the cheap like
> > > this, that adds weight to the idea that his spending the equivalent of
> > > Ã’â¬aã6,350 on a tombstone for Richard was, for him, fairly generous and
> > > respectful. Perhaps he felt bad about not having stopped his rabble of an
> > > army from abusing his predecessor's body.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Wll put - and hopefully Gloriana would have had a better successor than the next doomed dynasty. Tragic for poor old England when you look at the next two hundred years isn't it? Was it Jeremy Potter who did the speculation bit on how we would have been if 22 Aug 1485 had never happened.  



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 18:58
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


 

This is exactly what I think...If she had eaten a bit of humble pie I feel that knowing what we know about Richard...a bit of a soft touch where women were concerned...she could have persuaded Richard to let him come home..and if Weasle had then behaved himself...who knows...?

Same thing with EW..if she had not rushed into Sanctuary but stayed at Westminster, acted with dignity and requested to be reunited with her son it may well have gone another way entirely...But there you go....Eileen

If she had been
> more flexible, and more willing to butter Richard up instead of pulling the
> rug out from under his feet, perhaps we could have had a situation in which
> Henry became a court official, and we still ended up with Gloriana through
> judicious alliance and intermarriage rather than open warfare.
>
>

No (can I come too?)


From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 2:49
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

 
[Sigh.] Is it too terribly sinful to wish for a TARDIS so I could go back in time and prevent the villagers from rescuing little Morton from the well?

From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 2:49
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

> [Sigh.] Is it too terribly sinful to wish for a TARDIS so I could go back in time and prevent the
villagers from rescuing little Morton from the well?


The Doctor: You see, some things could be better with John Morton. Many future Ricardians will become allies just because of their loathing of him.

Sarah Jane Smith: But it isn't like that!

The Doctor: But the final responsibility is mine, and mine alone...


Sarah Jane Smith: We're talking about John Morton, the most evil cleric ever ordained, you must destroy him! You must complete your mission for the Time Lords! 

With apologies to 'Genesis of the the Daleks'...

Jonathan



________________________________

Why Lowestoft? Ipswich, Felixstowe and Harwich are far more convenient.
----- Original Message -----
From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:00 AM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?



From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

> We have no actual evidence that any such offer was made, though it
> certainly makes sense as an offer *after* her sons were made illegitimate
> and may well have induced her to leave sanctuary in March 1484 (If I
> recall the date correctly). I'm not so sure that Richard would want the
> boys living with their mother while she was still the queen mother and
> Edward V was still the king. That would give her far too much influence.

Well, if the Gipping Hall story is true it would have to be after they
vanished from the Tower, because Gipping Hall's a fair way north from
London. They would presumably have been either heading north from London to
Yorkshire, or coming back from Yorkshire heading for the continent. Unless
Richard was being *extremely* devious and shipped them from Lowestoft to The
Hague, and then cut round to Burgundy by a back route.

I don't see why not. Plenty of room inside.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> No (can I come too?)
>
>
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 2:49
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>  
> [Sigh.] Is it too terribly sinful to wish for a TARDIS so I could go back in time and prevent the villagers from rescuing little Morton from the well?
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?


> Why Lowestoft? Ipswich, Felixstowe and Harwich are far more convenient.

Oh, just because it's the largest in the area and so the most noticeable on
the map - I was looking at a low res image. I agree, if they did ship from
there then Ipswich/Felixstowe is more likely - I see there's a major road
from Felixstowe which passes within about two miles of Gipping.

  As a 'Northerner' the idea of a modern 'Northern Palatinate' has a very attractive ring, however Lancashire is Already a 'Royal Palatinate'  & it is difficult to envisage the Percy Family giving up their rights in the North. [Though under Henry VIII young Percy / later Earl, seemed 'Cowed/ Scared' to a considerable degree by H VIII. [Bolyne Trial etc] 

  Hilary gave details of E. Woodville's coffin being 'decayed', this seems to indicate a report being made of Edward's Exhumation. What became of this Report?. I wonder if the [Nameless?] Archaeologists involved had more than one 'Memento Mori Ring' containing Edward's Hair made @ the time. 
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 9:37
>Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> 
>That's true and H4 brought the Lancaster inheritance to the Crown. That was itself to cause problems because nobles with holdings in that area such as the Stanleys and Harringtons had to defer to the Crown; another reason for resenting Richard, the the Nevill's and Northumberland's freedom in Yorkshire. By Edward's death R had virtually been granted his own Palatinate in the North as well, so they were being squeezed more and more. It's actually, I've always thought, a good argument why Richard wouldn't particularly have sought the Crown - he had his own kingdom in the North.
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 22:40
>Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
> 
>
>Mary is right because John of Gaunt was only Duke of Lancaster in jure uxoris. Blanche was the real Duchess and only her descendants were Lancastrians.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Claire M Jordan
>To:
>Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:58 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>From: ricard1an
>To:
>Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:42 PM
>Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>> Pammy, Henry didn't have any Lancaster heritage because although John of
>> Gaunt was one of his grandfathers, possibly gt grandfather, and Gaunt was
>> Duke of Lancaster, Henry was descended from Gaunt's Beaufort family.
>
>That doesn't mean he didn't have Lancastrian heritage, just that it was on
>the wrong side of the blanket. And, after all, Edward IV had just tried to
>foist the son of a bigamous marriage off on the nation, so standards were
>slipping.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

   Seems H7 paid for a Tomb for Richard [Now Lost/Destroyed] 
perhaps a claim for reparations should be made.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 18:18
>Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> 
>From: carole hughes
>To:
>Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:59 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>> I know the guy from the H7 society is not into hammering Richard. As I
>> understand it he wants the H7 society to be pro Henry but not anti
>> Richard.
>
>Seems reasonable to me. I'm pro Richard but I still have a soft spot for
>Henry and I *don't* mean a patch of bog.... He was a devious, dodgy bugger
>but he was quite a kind bloke and did a lot for the arts, and he didn't have
>many career options open to him because his Lancastrian blood made him a
>political hot potato.
>
>
>
>
>

Carol, I will look to see if I can find the Ricardian with JAH's article. I have moved and while I have some Ricardians where I can put my hand on them others are packed away in boxes in my garage.

Mary

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Mary wrote:
> >
> > [snip] John Ashdown Hill has also written an article in the Ricardian regarding this and he believes that Henry Bolingbroke didn't claim the throne through his father's descent from Edward III but through his mother's descent from Edward I's brother Edmund who was Duke of Lancaster if I remember rightly there was some story about Edmund being the oldest son.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes. I've mentioned before the story that Henry IV (Bolingbroke) claimed that Edmund Crouchback, the "elder" (really the younger) son of Henry III was set aside in favor of his brother, Edward (I) because of his "deformity." Whether Bolingbroke really made such a claim, I don't know. There's no other evidence that Edmund Crouchback was deformed and the usual explanation for the epithet is that he was so called because of the red cross on his Crusader's armor. (Still, though, we don't hear of anyone else being called "Crouchback" for this reason, so it's possible that he did have scoliosis or some similar condition.) I don't know the source of the story about Bolingbroke's shaky claim, but if you have access to the Ricardian article (which I don't), you can check for us. He was trying to make his claim stronger than that of Richard II (and his Mortimer heirs?), which it would not otherwise have been.
>
> Carol
>

Elizabeth's coffin was discoverd in 1789 on top of Edward's. Edward has also been exhumed in a much better state because he was in a lead coffin. This is how they determined his height. No mention of hair but on the web some mention of strange oil like puddle - no-one can determine what substance it was, but it didn't taste very nice - wonder who tried it? But all this happened a long time ago. I doubt it would be allowed now . 



________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 12:45
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?

 

  As a 'Northerner' the idea of a modern 'Northern Palatinate' has a very attractive ring, however Lancashire is Already a 'Royal Palatinate'  & it is difficult to envisage the Percy Family giving up their rights in the North. [Though under Henry VIII young Percy / later Earl, seemed 'Cowed/ Scared' to a considerable degree by H VIII. [Bolyne Trial etc] 

  Hilary gave details of E. Woodville's coffin being 'decayed', this seems to indicate a report being made of Edward's Exhumation. What became of this Report?. I wonder if the [Nameless?] Archaeologists involved had more than one 'Memento Mori Ring' containing Edward's Hair made @ the time. 
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 9:37
>Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> 
>That's true and H4 brought the Lancaster inheritance to the Crown. That was itself to cause problems because nobles with holdings in that area such as the Stanleys and Harringtons had to defer to the Crown; another reason for resenting Richard, the the Nevill's and Northumberland's freedom in Yorkshire. By Edward's death R had virtually been granted his own Palatinate in the North as well, so they were being squeezed more and more. It's actually, I've always thought, a good argument why Richard wouldn't particularly have sought the Crown - he had his own kingdom in the North.
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 22:40
>Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
> 
>
>Mary is right because John of Gaunt was only Duke of Lancaster in jure uxoris. Blanche was the real Duchess and only her descendants were Lancastrians.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Claire M Jordan
>To:
>Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:58 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>From: ricard1an
>To:
>Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:42 PM
>Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>> Pammy, Henry didn't have any Lancaster heritage because although John of
>> Gaunt was one of his grandfathers, possibly gt grandfather, and Gaunt was
>> Duke of Lancaster, Henry was descended from Gaunt's Beaufort family.
>
>That doesn't mean he didn't have Lancastrian heritage, just that it was on
>the wrong side of the blanket. And, after all, Edward IV had just tried to
>foist the son of a bigamous marriage off on the nation, so standards were
>slipping.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From his own website:
'The Lancastrian Claim to the Throne', Ricardian 13 2003, 27-38

----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?



Carol, I will look to see if I can find the Ricardian with JAH's article. I have moved and while I have some Ricardians where I can put my hand on them others are packed away in boxes in my garage.

Mary

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Mary wrote:
> >
> > [snip] John Ashdown Hill has also written an article in the Ricardian regarding this and he believes that Henry Bolingbroke didn't claim the throne through his father's descent from Edward III but through his mother's descent from Edward I's brother Edmund who was Duke of Lancaster if I remember rightly there was some story about Edmund being the oldest son.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes. I've mentioned before the story that Henry IV (Bolingbroke) claimed that Edmund Crouchback, the "elder" (really the younger) son of Henry III was set aside in favor of his brother, Edward (I) because of his "deformity." Whether Bolingbroke really made such a claim, I don't know. There's no other evidence that Edmund Crouchback was deformed and the usual explanation for the epithet is that he was so called because of the red cross on his Crusader's armor. (Still, though, we don't hear of anyone else being called "Crouchback" for this reason, so it's possible that he did have scoliosis or some similar condition.) I don't know the source of the story about Bolingbroke's shaky claim, but if you have access to the Ricardian article (which I don't), you can check for us. He was trying to make his claim stronger than that of Richard II (and his Mortimer heirs?), which it would not otherwise have been.
>
> Carol
>

Stephen, I've posted back to Carol on this. Henry Bolingbroke did indeed claim the throne through Henry III, but only to avoid Edward I's will which said the crown should pass to his heirs (male or female). Until Edward III made provision in 1376 it made Edmund Mortimer heir before Henry. Henry was afraid Richard II would do the same. This from Ian Mortimer, who is as expert as any on this period.  H 



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 14:01
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?

 

From his own website:
'The Lancastrian Claim to the Throne', Ricardian 13 2003, 27-38

----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

Carol, I will look to see if I can find the Ricardian with JAH's article. I have moved and while I have some Ricardians where I can put my hand on them others are packed away in boxes in my garage.

Mary

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Mary wrote:
> >
> > [snip] John Ashdown Hill has also written an article in the Ricardian regarding this and he believes that Henry Bolingbroke didn't claim the throne through his father's descent from Edward III but through his mother's descent from Edward I's brother Edmund who was Duke of Lancaster if I remember rightly there was some story about Edmund being the oldest son.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes. I've mentioned before the story that Henry IV (Bolingbroke) claimed that Edmund Crouchback, the "elder" (really the younger) son of Henry III was set aside in favor of his brother, Edward (I) because of his "deformity." Whether Bolingbroke really made such a claim, I don't know. There's no other evidence that Edmund Crouchback was deformed and the usual explanation for the epithet is that he was so called because of the red cross on his Crusader's armor. (Still, though, we don't hear of anyone else being called "Crouchback" for this reason, so it's possible that he did have scoliosis or some similar condition.) I don't know the source of the story about Bolingbroke's shaky claim, but if you have access to the Ricardian article (which I don't), you can check for us. He was trying to make his claim stronger than that of Richard II (and his Mortimer heirs?), which it would not otherwise have been.
>
> Carol
>

Well you might end up stuck there...what would you do if you got a toothache...just a visit to the local barber who yanked teeth out as a sideline...Yikes...Eileen

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> I don't see why not. Plenty of room inside.
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > No (can I come too?)
> >
> >
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 2:49
> > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >  
> > [Sigh.] Is it too terribly sinful to wish for a TARDIS so I could go back in time and prevent the villagers from rescuing little Morton from the well?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Carol earlier:

> > We have no actual evidence that any such offer was made, though it
> > certainly makes sense as an offer *after* her sons were made illegitimate
> > and may well have induced her to leave sanctuary in March 1484 (If I
> > recall the date correctly). I'm not so sure that Richard would want the
> > boys living with their mother while she was still the queen mother and
> > Edward V was still the king. That would give her far too much influence.
>
> Well, if the Gipping Hall story is true it would have to be after they vanished from the Tower, because Gipping Hall's a fair way north from London. They would presumably have been either heading north from London to Yorkshire, or coming back from Yorkshire heading for the continent. Unless Richard was being *extremely* devious and shipped them from Lowestoft to The Hague, and then cut round to Burgundy by a back route.
>
Carol responds:

First, I wasn't originally talking about Gipping and Tyrell at all, only Bertram Field's remark that More has Richard offering (deviously and falsely, according to More, who believes that he murdered the boys) to let EW live with her sons as a means of inducing her to leave sanctuary before she released Richard of York. (Either Croyland or Mancini, I forget which, has him promising to return little Richard after the coronation, which is clearly false.) I haven't had time to check More to see whether Fields is mistaken on this point. If a later offer to let her live with her sons was made (as it must have been if she came out of sanctuary to live with them at Gipping), that's not the one that More (who doesn't deal with EW's coming out of sanctuary months after he has the boys dead) was talking about--all this is assuming that Fields was right, which I haven't checked.


Second, I'm afraid that I don't understand what you're arguing. Of course, it would have to be after they vanished from the Tower. The tradition states that EW and her sons were at Gipping "by permission of the uncle," which could only mean that they were there with Richard's permission after EW left sanctuary. The tradition doesn't mention the younger daughters, who must have been with their mother in any case.

I have no idea why you're bringing in Yorkshire or The Hague, neither of which is part of the tradition. Clearly, if the boys were shipped to Burgundy, it would have been later. Tyrell was captain of Guisnes, but I don't know what a journey from Gipping to Guisnes and Guisnes to Burgundy would entail.

In other words, we seem to be discussing two different things, or you think I'm saying something that I haven't said. And I may have misunderstood Eileen's comment to begin with.

Carol

That would be a wonderful book - "what if"?

On Mar 12, 2013, at 4:49 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Wll put - and hopefully Gloriana would have had a better successor than the next doomed dynasty. Tragic for poor old England when you look at the next two hundred years isn't it? Was it Jeremy Potter who did the speculation bit on how we would have been if 22 Aug 1485 had never happened.

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 18:58
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?




This is exactly what I think...If she had eaten a bit of humble pie I feel that knowing what we know about Richard...a bit of a soft touch where women were concerned...she could have persuaded Richard to let him come home..and if Weasle had then behaved himself...who knows...?

Same thing with EW..if she had not rushed into Sanctuary but stayed at Westminster, acted with dignity and requested to be reunited with her son it may well have gone another way entirely...But there you go....Eileen

If she had been
> more flexible, and more willing to butter Richard up instead of pulling the
> rug out from under his feet, perhaps we could have had a situation in which
> Henry became a court official, and we still ended up with Gloriana through
> judicious alliance and intermarriage rather than open warfare.
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> A bit of a Jane Austen character?
>

Yes, exactly! I actually had Lady Middleton from 'Sense and Sensibility' in mind when I was writing that description ;) (But I'm not sure if she's a good comparison, as I rather suspect Lady Middleton would be capable of being quite nasty and ruthless if that veneer of cold gentility were stripped away from her...)

Well who knows if our Liz wasn't the same. She'd had a few good teachers. H



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 15:10
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

 

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> A bit of a Jane Austen character?
>

Yes, exactly! I actually had Lady Middleton from 'Sense and Sensibility' in mind when I was writing that description ;) (But I'm not sure if she's a good comparison, as I rather suspect Lady Middleton would be capable of being quite nasty and ruthless if that veneer of cold gentility were stripped away from her...)

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Right here we go; I've at last managed to find Ian Mortimer's excellent Henry IV. Mortimer says that Henry claimed the right to the throne through Henry III, not Edward III but not because of Edmund Couchback. Crouchback was indeed Henry's second son, and therefore not entitled to the throne but the continutation of the Eulogium Historarum of Adam Usk and John Hardyng had claimed incorrectly that he was. Edmund had been given the vast Lancaster Palatinate which passed to Bolingbroke through his mother Blanche of Lancaster. Henry IV claimed the throne through Henry III because Edward I had stipulated that the crown should pass to his son (Edward II) and his heirs - be they male or female. So Edward's daughter's would take precedence before his uncle Crouchback. This meant that Edmund Mortimer had a better claim to the throne than Bolingbroke until Edward III drew up his will in 1376. Bolingbroke feared that RII was about to do the same to cut him out.
> Whew!!!
>
> However, going back to the original point, Mortimer does say Edmund C was rumoured to be delicate - which is interesting. Though I, like you Carol, have always read that the Crouchback came from the cross on the Crusaders uniform that he wore.  H

Carol responds:

Does he explain where the (apparently false) story that Bolingbroke claimed that Edmund Crouchback was the older son came from? It's important because it uses "Crouchback" to mean "crooked back" and would provide us with a date for that usage. Is it the Eulogium Historarum? And do we know if Edward I really made that stipulation> (I have a feeling he did because all of his sons by his first wife except Edward II died young while his numerous daughters were for the most part healthy. He finally had healthy sons by his second wife, so I'm guessing that the stipulation was made about 1284 after the death of Alphonso and while Edward [II] was an infant.) http://faculty.ycp.edu/~tgibson/RoyalAncestors/Edward.html

But I had no idea that an English monarch other than Henry I, who made his daughter Matilda (Maude the Empress) his heir after his son William drowned (leading to a civil war between her and her cousin Stephen), had so much as suggested that a daughter could rule in her own right--until the last male Tudor died and the councilors were forced to choose among female heirs.

By the way, I don't really see how Bolingbroke's claim held water since as you say, inheritance through the female line made the Mortimers' claim superior to his and RII had, I thought, already declared one of the Mortimers his heir. What did the will of Edward III do to change that?

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> You know I have her as just the same. She was Daddy's eldest for a long time before little Eddie came along (Gruuthuse has her dancing with daddy when he visited), probably had a crush on young Uncle Richard who didn't visit very often and seemed to have this ailing wife and didn't like being used as a pawn by Mummy and MB. I can't somehow see her being the saintly shrinking violet. Interesting Starkey doesn't mention the gambling when setting her up as such in his young H8

Carol responds:

Almost certainly, she had been indulged and spoiled, the king's eldest daughter and evidently a beauty as well. And she had been "Madame le Dauphin" or some such title for seven years (1475-1482) until Louis XI humiliated her (and her father) by reneging by ending her betrothal to his son (along with the rest of the provisions in the Treaty of Picquigny, which Edward ought to have realized would expire in seven years). Follow that with the loss of her father and a descent into illegitimacy (and, as you say, being a pawn in her mother's secret negotiations with MB, which may have seemed treasonous to a girl brought up as a Yorkist, not to mention foolish if she knew or thought that her brothers were still alive). That she didn't hate Richard is clear from her conspicuous presence at his Christmas festivities (and the paraphrased letter to Norfolk, however we interpret it). She was a pawn again in the marriage negotiations with Portugal, but that would certainly be a step up from royal bastard. But, then, so was marriage to Henry Tudor once he became king. How she felt about that marriage must have depended on how she felt about her Uncle Richard--and on Henry's treatment of her, which, essentially kept her out of the limelight and without a shred of political power. More than that, we can't really say. I suspect that after 1482, she was increasingly unhappy with a brief respite in 1484-85 after she came out of sanctuary, and then unhappy again for the rest of her life, having only her children (and gambling, if that story is true) to console her. Unlike Cecily Neville and even MB, she does not seem to have been particularly religious, nor does she seem to have been at all scholarly. And I doubt that her mother-in-law's company was enjoyable. I feel sorry for her. At least her younger sister Cecily eventually escaped from court and avoided yet another arranged marriage to marry a commoner. presumably for love. Elizabeth had no such option.

Carol

Mortimer quotes the chronicles of Usk, Hardyng and the Eulogium Historarium as saying that Edmund had been set aside because he was an imbecile, but this could not be right because his birth date was known, most people knew it and knew that the chronicles were untrue (sorry if in my earlier post it sounded as though they were one, should have said and not of)). He believes it was added by the continuator of the Eulogium to that after 1400, because it says John of Gaunt had used it to talk of Henry's claim in 1394, but he would not really have dared to do that then because it meant that R2 was not legitimate king either. It was certainly added after 1394. Adam Usk (or of Usk) lived from about 1352 to 1430 and his patron was Edmund Mortimer, so if he started writing at say 20 he was way after Crouchback's time. His chronicle dates from 1377 to 1421 and he played a part in deposing R2. Hardyng wasn't born until 1378 and died in 1465. He worked for
Hotspur, Richard Duke of York and Edward IV. Crouchback died in 1296 so all this was well after his time as well.
 
Edward I made a settlement of the Crown in 1290 which said that it should pass to Edward II and his heirs - even in preference to any male heirs he might yet sire (Foedera ii page 497) 'Furthermore he stipulated that his own daughters and their heirs should inherit in preference to his brother Edmund Crouchback and his sons. This could be considered a legal precedent  so that not only would female heirs thereafter have been able to be queens in their own right, but a daughter of an elder son would have taken precedence over the son of a younger son.'  John of Gaunt apparently referred to this settlement when he petitioned parliament in 1376 that women could not transfer a right to the throne. 
 
Edward III drew up his own entail in 1376 together with his will and changed all this back to the male line (any monarch could do so) and in 1399 with his will Richard 'had probably' made a settlement of his own reversing this and making Edmund Mortimer his legal heir.
 
Bolingbroke therefore reverted to questioning whether English kings had the right to appoint their successors. If they did Edmund Mortimer was the legal heir. If they didn't, the settlements were irrelevant,and not surprisingly HB went down that route.
He claimed the throne as heir male to H3 and said that all the other settlements were illegal. Mortimer devotes a whole appendix to the machinations of these settlements.
 
Hope this helps a bit - but doesn't really around the Crouchback thing other than tying it in with the suggestion that he was an 'imbecile' and had been given vast compensation (ie the Duchy of Lancaster).
 
Off to my coq au vin!  H
  

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 15:52
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Right here we go; I've at last managed to find Ian Mortimer's excellent Henry IV. Mortimer says that Henry claimed the right to the throne through Henry III, not Edward III but not because of Edmund Couchback. Crouchback was indeed Henry's second son, and therefore not entitled to the throne but the continutation of the Eulogium Historarum of Adam Usk and John Hardyng had claimed incorrectly that he was. Edmund had been given the vast Lancaster Palatinate which passed to Bolingbroke through his mother Blanche of Lancaster. Henry IV claimed the throne through Henry III because Edward I had stipulated that the crown should pass to his son (Edward II) and his heirs - be they male or female. So Edward's daughter's would take precedence before his uncle Crouchback. This meant that Edmund Mortimer had a better claim to the throne than Bolingbroke until Edward III drew up his will in 1376. Bolingbroke feared that RII was about to do the same to cut him out.
> Whew!!!
>
> However, going back to the original point, Mortimer does say Edmund C was rumoured to be delicate - which is interesting. Though I, like you Carol, have always read that the Crouchback came from the cross on the Crusaders uniform that he wore.  H

Carol responds:

Does he explain where the (apparently false) story that Bolingbroke claimed that Edmund Crouchback was the older son came from? It's important because it uses "Crouchback" to mean "crooked back" and would provide us with a date for that usage. Is it the Eulogium Historarum? And do we know if Edward I really made that stipulation> (I have a feeling he did because all of his sons by his first wife except Edward II died young while his numerous daughters were for the most part healthy. He finally had healthy sons by his second wife, so I'm guessing that the stipulation was made about 1284 after the death of Alphonso and while Edward [II] was an infant.) http://faculty.ycp.edu/~tgibson/RoyalAncestors/Edward.html

But I had no idea that an English monarch other than Henry I, who made his daughter Matilda (Maude the Empress) his heir after his son William drowned (leading to a civil war between her and her cousin Stephen), had so much as suggested that a daughter could rule in her own right--until the last male Tudor died and the councilors were forced to choose among female heirs.

By the way, I don't really see how Bolingbroke's claim held water since as you say, inheritance through the female line made the Mortimers' claim superior to his and RII had, I thought, already declared one of the Mortimers his heir. What did the will of Edward III do to change that?

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes I realise that. I actually think there's some good interesting stuff on that page and one particular article just after the skeleton announcement is particularly generous.
>  
> As Eileen said yesterday, I don't think we demonise H7 that much, though even his biographer has a problem making him attractive. Looking across the battlefield on 22 Aug he must have felt a pretty awful fate awaited him, if he survived. Fate played into his hands and we can't blame him for that.
> The 'demons' are the plotters who betrayed Richard and probably used Henry as well.  H

Carol responds:

Someone could write a new biography of Henry called "Henry Tudor: From Pawn to King." He was essentially a nobody manipulated not only by his mother and Morton but by his Uncle Jasper and manipulated like a puppet by France and Britanny. He seems to have developed shrewdness and a strong sense of self-preservation as a result of that life. He also, unlike Richard, had uncommonly good luck. It's a shame that Warwick and Clarence illegally executed his guardian, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke. Henry might have grown up in a Yorkist household, far from the influence of his mother, his uncle, and a certain wily priest.

BTW, any pity I would feel for Henry is outweighed by his treatment of Richard after Bosworth, his backdating his reign to make the rightful king's loyal followers traitors, and the rumors he apparently encouraged to blacken Richard's reputation when he, not Richard, was the usurper and regicide. If he weren't connected with Richard, I would have no interest in him at all. He would be just another late medieval king, penny-pinching, self-protective, moderately tyrannical, whose sole interest was maintaining his position as king despite his shaky claim, whether that meant marrying Elizabeth of York to pacify the Yorkists, using propaganda to blacken his predecessor's name and glorify his own, burning Titulus Regius, or keeping his nobles on a short leash. I'll say this for Henry; he did not repeat Richard's mistakes (though he did apparently repeat one of Edward's in sending his son Arthur to live at Ludlow). Unfortunately, he had none of Richard's good points, in particular no interest in the rights of the poor or legislative reform, which makes it hard for me, at least, to care about him.

Poor Henry. He lacks charisma, and since he rewrote history, he has no need to be rescued from the lies and mistakes of the chroniclers. They were his chroniclers and those of his son, after all.

Carol

Keep in mind, too, that at this point, women placed next to power weren't
necessarily viewed as ideally no more than baby-making mechanisms: in the
generation born to royalty in the 1460s - say, late 1480s, there are
several women who were expected to be able handle running a kingdom or a
region effectively, and to understand and deal with the complicated
politics of the times:

All the daughters of the Catholic Kings
Margaret of Austria, Regent of the Netherlands
Anne of Beaujeu
Margaret of Navarre

Just off the top of my head. It might be interesting to know if Edward had
similar expectations of Elizabeth as did, for example, Isabel and Fernando
of their daughters.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:27 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > You know I have her as just the same. She was Daddy's eldest for a long
> time before little Eddie came along (Gruuthuse has her dancing with daddy
> when he visited), probably had a crush on young Uncle Richard who didn't
> visit very often andý seemed to have this ailing wife and didn't like being
> used as a pawn by Mummy and MB. I can't somehow see her being the saintly
> shrinking violet. Interesting Starkey doesn't mention the gambling when
> setting her up as such in his young H8
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Almost certainly, she had been indulged and spoiled, the king's eldest
> daughter and evidently a beauty as well. And she had been "Madame le
> Dauphin" or some such title for seven years (1475-1482) until Louis XI
> humiliated her (and her father) by reneging by ending her betrothal to his
> son (along with the rest of the provisions in the Treaty of Picquigny,
> which Edward ought to have realized would expire in seven years). Follow
> that with the loss of her father and a descent into illegitimacy (and, as
> you say, being a pawn in her mother's secret negotiations with MB, which
> may have seemed treasonous to a girl brought up as a Yorkist, not to
> mention foolish if she knew or thought that her brothers were still alive).
> That she didn't hate Richard is clear from her conspicuous presence at his
> Christmas festivities (and the paraphrased letter to Norfolk, however we
> interpret it). She was a pawn again in the marriage negotiations with
> Portugal, but that would certainly be a step up from royal bastard. But,
> then, so was marriage to Henry Tudor once he became king. How she felt
> about that marriage must have depended on how she felt about her Uncle
> Richard--and on Henry's treatment of her, which, essentially kept her out
> of the limelight and without a shred of political power. More than that, we
> can't really say. I suspect that after 1482, she was increasingly unhappy
> with a brief respite in 1484-85 after she came out of sanctuary, and then
> unhappy again for the rest of her life, having only her children (and
> gambling, if that story is true) to console her. Unlike Cecily Neville and
> even MB, she does not seem to have been particularly religious, nor does
> she seem to have been at all scholarly. And I doubt that her
> mother-in-law's company was enjoyable. I feel sorry for her. At least her
> younger sister Cecily eventually escaped from court and avoided yet another
> arranged marriage to marry a commoner. presumably for love. Elizabeth had
> no such option.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?



> If a later offer to let her live with her sons was made (as it must have
> been if she came out of sanctuary to live with them at Gipping), that's
> not the one that More (who doesn't deal with EW's coming out of sanctuary
> months after he has the boys dead) was talking about--

OK.

> Second, I'm afraid that I don't understand what you're arguing. Of course,
> it would have to be after they vanished from the Tower.

Well, no, it wouldn't have to have been, if Gipping Hall had been very near
London. Don't forget that in those days the countryside came right up to
Westminster, and Covent Garden was an actual market garden. If Gipping Hall
had been, say, three miles from Westminster, then their being there (if they
were) could have been a matter of a weekend hunting trip and then back to
the Tower, since they were residents at the Tower, not prisoners. But it's
about 80 miles, so their being there would have to mean something more
significant.

> I have no idea why you're bringing in Yorkshire

Because they would have to have been *somewhere* between leaving the Tower
and going to the continent, and "somewhere where everybody was loyal to
Richard and could be trusted not to talk" seems reasonable, plus it has been
suggested that they might have been among the children at Sheriff Hutton
(and I'm sure I've also seem Barnard Castle mentioned in this regard). But
of course they might have stayed at Gipping the whole time, so long as the
Tyrrell family's servants were trustworthy.

> or The Hague, neither of which is part of the tradition.

There are several ports near Gipping, of which Lowestoft is the largest
(although not the most convenient). If they sailed for the continent from
one of the ports near Gipping then The Hague is probably where they would
end up - it's the nearest major port on the other side.

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I've now looked the funeral up in Okerland. She has her accompanied by her chaplain, Edmund Haute  her executor and Mistress Grace and buried on Whitsunday. Anne, Katherine and Bridget attended a memorial service on the following Tuesday together with other relatives including Buckingham's daughter. EOY was pregnant and did not attend.

Carol responds:

What is Okerland? I can't find any other references to that work in this forum. Is that the book on royal funerals?

Carol

I looked at the map a few years ago when we were discussing this and Gipping is not that far from Framlingham where John Howard lived. So there could have been a few safe houses on the way to say Felixstowe.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:42 PM
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>
> > If a later offer to let her live with her sons was made (as it must have
> > been if she came out of sanctuary to live with them at Gipping), that's
> > not the one that More (who doesn't deal with EW's coming out of sanctuary
> > months after he has the boys dead) was talking about--
>
> OK.
>
> > Second, I'm afraid that I don't understand what you're arguing. Of course,
> > it would have to be after they vanished from the Tower.
>
> Well, no, it wouldn't have to have been, if Gipping Hall had been very near
> London. Don't forget that in those days the countryside came right up to
> Westminster, and Covent Garden was an actual market garden. If Gipping Hall
> had been, say, three miles from Westminster, then their being there (if they
> were) could have been a matter of a weekend hunting trip and then back to
> the Tower, since they were residents at the Tower, not prisoners. But it's
> about 80 miles, so their being there would have to mean something more
> significant.
>
> > I have no idea why you're bringing in Yorkshire
>
> Because they would have to have been *somewhere* between leaving the Tower
> and going to the continent, and "somewhere where everybody was loyal to
> Richard and could be trusted not to talk" seems reasonable, plus it has been
> suggested that they might have been among the children at Sheriff Hutton
> (and I'm sure I've also seem Barnard Castle mentioned in this regard). But
> of course they might have stayed at Gipping the whole time, so long as the
> Tyrrell family's servants were trustworthy.
>
> > or The Hague, neither of which is part of the tradition.
>
> There are several ports near Gipping, of which Lowestoft is the largest
> (although not the most convenient). If they sailed for the continent from
> one of the ports near Gipping then The Hague is probably where they would
> end up - it's the nearest major port on the other side.
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Wll put - and hopefully Gloriana would have had a better successor than the next doomed dynasty. Tragic for poor old England when you look at the next two hundred years isn't it? Was it Jeremy Potter who did the speculation bit on how we would have been if 22 Aug 1485 had never happened. 

Carol responds:

Bertram Fields did a what-if with Richard as Protector killed by the Woodvilles, Edward V dying young, and Richard Duke of York becoming Richard III. I'd much rather see one with Richard as the victor at Bosworth--or no Bosworth if that traitor James Blount hadn't freed the Earl of Oxford or Francis of Britanny had handed Tudor over to Richard. Think of all the people, including Richard, who would have survived to produce descendants--and all the Tudors who would never have been.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

> Think of all the people, including Richard, who would have survived to
> produce descendants--and all the Tudors who would never have been.

Think of no Reformation. Think of no Elizabeth I. Think of a successful
Armada. Think of a Catholic England bitterly at war for centuries with
Protestant Scotland. Think of no United Kingdom. Think of a victorious
Hitler....

No, we *needed* the Tudors, they're vital to our history. But if things had
panned out differently we could have got there by peaceful intermarriage.
Think of Henry as a reasonably loyal official at Richard's court, marrying
Elizabeth, for example, and having a daughter who married a son of Richard's
by his second wife (or their son marrying Richard's daughter).

Think of all the people who would have not been judicially murdered by the Tudors, life was horrific for ordinary people during their reigns,no Morton's Fork. No people burned at the stake by Mary, no piracy by Elizabeth, no divine right of kings because that started with H7 insisting on being called Your Majesty, no Civil War, no Oliver Cromwell, no WW1 because there would have been no Kaiser Wilhelm and therefore no WW2. I think the world would be a much better place without the Tudors

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 6:48 PM
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
> > Think of all the people, including Richard, who would have survived to
> > produce descendants--and all the Tudors who would never have been.
>
> Think of no Reformation. Think of no Elizabeth I. Think of a successful
> Armada. Think of a Catholic England bitterly at war for centuries with
> Protestant Scotland. Think of no United Kingdom. Think of a victorious
> Hitler....
>
> No, we *needed* the Tudors, they're vital to our history. But if things had
> panned out differently we could have got there by peaceful intermarriage.
> Think of Henry as a reasonably loyal official at Richard's court, marrying
> Elizabeth, for example, and having a daughter who married a son of Richard's
> by his second wife (or their son marrying Richard's daughter).
>

I read murder mysteries as well as history. I just opened a new book and this was the opening page:
"Banality of evil: A phrase coined by the philosopher Hannah Arendt that describes the thesis that the great evils in history generally were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal."
Perhaps this explains why so many chose to believe that the edicts and history of and for the Tudors was correct, and they did things they might not have done, had a benevolent King, like Richard III, lived. But of course, these things are still with us, so we have to realize, as Ishita said, that people are very much the same as they have always been, these are just different times.

On Mar 12, 2013, at 3:20 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:



Think of all the people who would have not been judicially murdered by the Tudors, life was horrific for ordinary people during their reigns,no Morton's Fork. No people burned at the stake by Mary, no piracy by Elizabeth, no divine right of kings because that started with H7 insisting on being called Your Majesty, no Civil War, no Oliver Cromwell, no WW1 because there would have been no Kaiser Wilhelm and therefore no WW2. I think the world would be a much better place without the Tudors

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 6:48 PM
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
> > Think of all the people, including Richard, who would have survived to
> > produce descendants--and all the Tudors who would never have been.
>
> Think of no Reformation. Think of no Elizabeth I. Think of a successful
> Armada. Think of a Catholic England bitterly at war for centuries with
> Protestant Scotland. Think of no United Kingdom. Think of a victorious
> Hitler....
>
> No, we *needed* the Tudors, they're vital to our history. But if things had
> panned out differently we could have got there by peaceful intermarriage.
> Think of Henry as a reasonably loyal official at Richard's court, marrying
> Elizabeth, for example, and having a daughter who married a son of Richard's
> by his second wife (or their son marrying Richard's daughter).
>

Not to forget the young Edward Vl had people burned too....I wonder how he would have turned out if he had not popped his cloggs at an early age...:0/ Eileen

- No people burned at the stake by Mary,

I think not in his case!
----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?



Not to forget the young Edward Vl had people burned too....I wonder how he would have turned out if he had not popped his cloggs at an early age...:0/ Eileen

- No people burned at the stake by Mary,

Well I'll be blowed!....I have long thought that Edward had Roman Catholics burnt....and I cannot remember where I got it from...damn and blarst...Thank you Stephen. Eileen

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I think not in his case!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:48 PM
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>
> Not to forget the young Edward Vl had people burned too....I wonder how he would have turned out if he had not popped his cloggs at an early age...:0/ Eileen
>
> - No people burned at the stake by Mary,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Would anyone mind if I brought a sniper rifle and waited for H7 at Bosworth?

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> I don't see why not. Plenty of room inside.
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > No (can I come too?)
> >
> >
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 2:49
> > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >  
> > [Sigh.] Is it too terribly sinful to wish for a TARDIS so I could go back in time and prevent the villagers from rescuing little Morton from the well?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Can I come with a cannon? Please......

--- In , "Ms Jones" <mhairigibbons2006@...> wrote:
>
> Would anyone mind if I brought a sniper rifle and waited for H7 at Bosworth?
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't see why not. Plenty of room inside.
> >
> > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > No (can I come too?)
> > >
> > >
> > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 2:49
> > > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> > >
> > >  
> > > [Sigh.] Is it too terribly sinful to wish for a TARDIS so I could go back in time and prevent the villagers from rescuing little Morton from the well?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

May I join you?????

On Mar 12, 2013, at 6:07 PM, "Ms Jones" <mhairigibbons2006@...<mailto:mhairigibbons2006@...>> wrote:



Would anyone mind if I brought a sniper rifle and waited for H7 at Bosworth?

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> I don't see why not. Plenty of room inside.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > No (can I come too?)
> >
> >
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 2:49
> > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> > ý
> > [Sigh.] Is it too terribly sinful to wish for a TARDIS so I could go back in time and prevent the villagers from rescuing little Morton from the well?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Don't forget the Tudor guy in the forum. We don't want him to feel unwelcome......

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 12, 2013, at 7:18 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> May I join you?????
>
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 6:07 PM, "Ms Jones" <mhairigibbons2006@...<mailto:mhairigibbons2006@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Would anyone mind if I brought a sniper rifle and waited for H7 at Bosworth?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>>
>> I don't see why not. Plenty of room inside.
>>
>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
>>>
>>> No (can I come too?)
>>>
>>>
>>> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
>>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 2:49
>>> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>>>
>>> Â
>>> [Sigh.] Is it too terribly sinful to wish for a TARDIS so I could go back in time and prevent the villagers from rescuing little Morton from the well?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?


> Don't forget the Tudor guy in the forum. We don't want him to feel
> unwelcome......

You just need a means of putting it into Henry's head that he should go get
a job with the King of Scots instead. Always room for a good accountant
here - and he'd probably have been happier. At least he wouldn't have had
to marry Lizzie York and her expensive gambling habit.

I stuck one in the Files about the time when they started liftin' 'mac in the car park in Leicester. I think I called it "Ricardvs_III_Ang_Rex", if you'd like to go out and take a look. It's in RTF, a format nearly all word processors can read, although you may have to select "RTF" or "Rich Text Format" as the file type to open it.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Wll put - and hopefully Gloriana would have had a better successor than the next doomed dynasty. Tragic for poor old England when you look at the next two hundred years isn't it? Was it Jeremy Potter who did the speculation bit on how we would have been if 22 Aug 1485 had never happened. 
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Bertram Fields did a what-if with Richard as Protector killed by the Woodvilles, Edward V dying young, and Richard Duke of York becoming Richard III. I'd much rather see one with Richard as the victor at Bosworth--or no Bosworth if that traitor James Blount hadn't freed the Earl of Oxford or Francis of Britanny had handed Tudor over to Richard. Think of all the people, including Richard, who would have survived to produce descendants--and all the Tudors who would never have been.
>
> Carol
>

"ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, I will look to see if I can find the Ricardian with JAH's article. I have moved and while I have some Ricardians where I can put my hand on them others are packed away in boxes in my garage.

Carol responds:

Thanks, Mary. I checked the index of Ricardians

http://www.richardiii.net/ricardian_index.php

and found one article by J A-H that may be the one you're looking for. It's called "The Lancastrian Claim to the Throne" and it's in volume 13 (2003), pp. 27-38.

Carol

Maria Torres wrote:
>
> Keep in mind, too, that at this point, women placed next to power weren't necessarily viewed as ideally no more than baby-making mechanisms: in the generation born to royalty in the 1460s - say, late 1480s, there are several women who were expected to be able handle running a kingdom or a region effectively, and to understand and deal with the complicated politics of the times:
>
> All the daughters of the Catholic Kings
> Margaret of Austria, Regent of the Netherlands
> Anne of Beaujeu
> Margaret of Navarre
>
> Just off the top of my head. It might be interesting to know if Edward had similar expectations of Elizabeth as did, for example, Isabel and Fernando of their daughters.

Carol responds:

Of course, Isabel(la) of Aragon was a queen in her own right, so she would have expected her daughters to be capable administrators, and Margaret of Austria had Margaret of York, daughter of the indomitable Cecily Neville, as a step-grandmother. Elizabeth of York, in contrast, was raised by her mother, Elizabeth Woodville (and possibly, grandmother Jaquetta until she was about six). It doesn't seem that Edward took much interest in the education of any of his daughters or even of his second son, who seems to have had no preparation for the kingship if anything happened to his brother. That's yet another unfortunate consequence of the Woodville marriage; Cecily seems to have had a very limited relationship with her own grandchildren, especially after George's execution.

At any rate, I'm unaware of any particular tendency toward either learning or religion in Elizabeth of York, much less the administrative skills that a Cecily Neville or Margaret Beaufort would have had.

BTW, it seems odd to me that Anne of Beaujeu would have developed the skills to be regent in a country with Salic law (and a father like the Spider King). It's unfortunate that she was Richard's enemy as she seems to have been a remarkable woman.

Carol

Yeah, and Mary gets the sobriquet "Bloody" and Edward VI goes down in history as that tragically doomed king, gone too soon.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I think not in his case!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:48 PM
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>
> Not to forget the young Edward Vl had people burned too....I wonder how he would have turned out if he had not popped his cloggs at an early age...:0/ Eileen
>
> - No people burned at the stake by Mary,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh, hang on, what did I do with that sonic screwdriver? I'm certain it could be adapted into something that incapacitates the target by intensifying fear-based diarrhea.

HERALD: His Grace King Richard and his valiant soldiers have carried the day, God be praised! Where is the Tydder?

LIZ [Jerking thumb in the general direction of "thataway']: We left him on the battlefield, hiding behind a tree.

MS. JONES [Confidentially, to the HERALD]: Aim for the brown armor.

--- In , "Ms Jones" <mhairigibbons2006@...> wrote:
>
> Would anyone mind if I brought a sniper rifle and waited for H7 at Bosworth?
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't see why not. Plenty of room inside.
> >
> > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > No (can I come too?)
> > >
> > >
> > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 2:49
> > > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> > >
> > >  
> > > [Sigh.] Is it too terribly sinful to wish for a TARDIS so I could go back in time and prevent the villagers from rescuing little Morton from the well?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

The TARDIS is going to have a tough time taking off.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Can I come with a cannon? Please......
>
> --- In , "Ms Jones" <mhairigibbons2006@> wrote:
> >
> > Would anyone mind if I brought a sniper rifle and waited for H7 at Bosworth?
> >
> > --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't see why not. Plenty of room inside.
> > >
> > > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No (can I come too?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 2:49
> > > > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > [Sigh.] Is it too terribly sinful to wish for a TARDIS so I could go back in time and prevent the villagers from rescuing little Morton from the well?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

You're entirely welcome! Now that we're building up some serious muscle in this crate, we could always commission a Leicester Cathedral-approved commemorative tablet, take it with us, and drop it on Henry's head.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> May I join you?????
>
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 6:07 PM, "Ms Jones" <mhairigibbons2006@...<mailto:mhairigibbons2006@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Would anyone mind if I brought a sniper rifle and waited for H7 at Bosworth?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't see why not. Plenty of room inside.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > No (can I come too?)
> > >
> > >
> > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 2:49
> > > Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> > >
> > > Â
> > > [Sigh.] Is it too terribly sinful to wish for a TARDIS so I could go back in time and prevent the villagers from rescuing little Morton from the well?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

THE DOCTOR [Looking at watch]: Well, I expect you'll have quite a few questions for Henry tudor. That's him, over there, by the dragon standard. I'd keep it snappy; you've got about three minutes before Eileen finishes setting up her sonic cannon array.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Don't forget the Tudor guy in the forum. We don't want him to feel unwelcome......
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 7:18 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> > May I join you?????
> >
> > On Mar 12, 2013, at 6:07 PM, "Ms Jones" <mhairigibbons2006@...<mailto:mhairigibbons2006@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Would anyone mind if I brought a sniper rifle and waited for H7 at Bosworth?
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't see why not. Plenty of room inside.
> >>
> >> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> No (can I come too?)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> >>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 2:49
> >>> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> >>>
> >>> Â
> >>> [Sigh.] Is it too terribly sinful to wish for a TARDIS so I could go back in time and prevent the villagers from rescuing little Morton from the well?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

I can just see him now, gamboling about the moors, exulting that he feels free, for the first time in his life, and it's all because of the kilt!

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> > Don't forget the Tudor guy in the forum. We don't want him to feel
> > unwelcome......
>
> You just need a means of putting it into Henry's head that he should go get
> a job with the King of Scots instead. Always room for a good accountant
> here - and he'd probably have been happier. At least he wouldn't have had
> to marry Lizzie York and her expensive gambling habit.
>

Thanks, Carol - Yes, it's interesting about Anne of Beaujeu - though Salic
Law doesn't necessarily preclude power and resource in women - witness, for
example, Yolanda of Aragon, mother in law of Charles VII of France; and the
mother of Fernando, Juana Enriquez, of Aragon, which also observed Salic
Law, and who led armies in support of her husband and son against the
Catalans. Isabel, incidentally, was the queen proprietress of Castile,
having no authority in Aragon except as consort of Fernando. Vice versa
for Fernando in Castile.

It's cruelly ironic, in fact, that some of these unquestionably strong
women operated under Salic Law. Ironic too is that Margaret of Austria
actually spent many years of her childhood educated in France, under the
eye of Anne of Beaujeu, as the prospective bride of Charles VIII.
Ultimately, Anne decided Charles' bride should be Anne of Brittany (so
Margaret joined Elizabeth in jilting department; she was married by proxy
to Juan, son of the Catholic Kings and during the storm at sea that
occurred on her voyage to Spain, she scribbled a verse that translates into
"Here lies Marguerite, the willing bride/twice married, but a virgin when
she died").

It is interesting, then, that Edward, as you say, seemed committed to
concentrating education almost solely on young Edward.

Maria
ejbronte@...








On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:00 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Maria Torres wrote:
> >
> > Keep in mind, too, that at this point, women placed next to power
> weren't necessarily viewed as ideally no more than baby-making mechanisms:
> in the generation born to royalty in the 1460s - say, late 1480s, there are
> several women who were expected to be able handle running a kingdom or a
> region effectively, and to understand and deal with the complicated
> politics of the times:
> >
> > All the daughters of the Catholic Kings
> > Margaret of Austria, Regent of the Netherlands
> > Anne of Beaujeu
> > Margaret of Navarre
> >
> > Just off the top of my head. It might be interesting to know if Edward
> had similar expectations of Elizabeth as did, for example, Isabel and
> Fernando of their daughters.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Of course, Isabel(la) of Aragon was a queen in her own right, so she would
> have expected her daughters to be capable administrators, and Margaret of
> Austria had Margaret of York, daughter of the indomitable Cecily Neville,
> as a step-grandmother. Elizabeth of York, in contrast, was raised by her
> mother, Elizabeth Woodville (and possibly, grandmother Jaquetta until she
> was about six). It doesn't seem that Edward took much interest in the
> education of any of his daughters or even of his second son, who seems to
> have had no preparation for the kingship if anything happened to his
> brother. That's yet another unfortunate consequence of the Woodville
> marriage; Cecily seems to have had a very limited relationship with her own
> grandchildren, especially after George's execution.
>
> At any rate, I'm unaware of any particular tendency toward either learning
> or religion in Elizabeth of York, much less the administrative skills that
> a Cecily Neville or Margaret Beaufort would have had.
>
> BTW, it seems odd to me that Anne of Beaujeu would have developed the
> skills to be regent in a country with Salic law (and a father like the
> Spider King). It's unfortunate that she was Richard's enemy as she seems to
> have been a remarkable woman.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:38 AM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


> I can just see him now, gamboling about the moors, exulting that he feels
> free, for the first time in his life, and it's all because of the kilt!

Well, those tight tights that were in fashion at the English court must have
been enough to cut off a fellow's circulation.

I think we may have found the roots of his habitual facial expression.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:38 AM
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> > I can just see him now, gamboling about the moors, exulting that he feels
> > free, for the first time in his life, and it's all because of the kilt!
>
> Well, those tight tights that were in fashion at the English court must have
> been enough to cut off a fellow's circulation.
>

From: "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:47 AM
Subject: Re: Elizabeth of York: (Was: 2
coffins?)


> It's cruelly ironic, in fact, that some of these unquestionably strong
> women operated under Salic Law.

Slightly OT, but it is interesting I think to note that in the Highlands of
Scotland, clan chieftainships descend first to the sons of the previous
chief, and next to his (or her) daughters. As a result female chiefs were
and are quite common and were and are expected to perform the same duties as
their male counterparts. This is why when you look at books on English
heraldry they tell you that women display their arms on a lozenge, not on a
shield, because of course women don't fight and don't have a use for
shields, but if you look at books on Scottish heraldry they have a section
headed "Arms to be borne by a woman commanding in battle."

> It is interesting, then, that Edward, as you say, seemed committed to
> concentrating education almost solely on young Edward.

And Henry and Lizzie York committed the same error by concentrating on
educating the scholarly Arthur, whilst allowing the younger son to grow up
as a self-indulgent playboy.

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


> I think we may have found the roots of his habitual facial expression.

Well, I've said before that Henry looks like Bradley Wiggins - and Wiggo
wears these really tight shorts to cut down on wind resistance when he's
cycling.

Really, there must have been a lot of men at 15th C courts - probably
including Richard himself - sidling behind convenient pillars in order to
make a hasty adjustment in the jockstrap department because something had
started to go numb. Hands up who's seen that advert for some online bingo
site which ends with Maid Marion saying "Robin - are those *my* tights?" and
Robin Hood replying "Yes!" in a sort of gruffly masculine yet jolly voice.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> Think of no Reformation. Think of no Elizabeth I. Think of a successful Armada. Think of a Catholic England bitterly at war for centuries with Protestant Scotland. Think of no United Kingdom. Think of a victorious Hitler....
>
> No, we *needed* the Tudors, they're vital to our history. [snip]

Carol responds:

There's no way to know what would have happened. Think of an alliance with Spain and Portugal under Richard. Something like the Anglican church, with many aspects of Catholicism but with services in English, might well have come about under Richard's successors if they shared his open-minded religious views. The Armada came about because Philip of Spain thought he had a better claim to the English throne than Elizabeth did, which would not have happened under a Yorkist king or queen. Ireland was pro-Yorkist. Think of all the troubles that could have been prevented if that country had not been abused by the Tudors. Wales could have come to recognize that Richard had a more distinguished Welsh heritage than Henry Tudor did. (The part of Wales under his son-in-law was pro-Richard, anyway. And Richard had just negotiated a peace treaty with Scotland, with his niece set to marry James's heir. Who knows? England might have joined with Scotlands under the Stuarts in any case, skipping the Tudors.

Let's not give the Tudors credit for what would have happened in their time in any case. The Reformation did not depend on England and would have arrived in some form regardless of who was king (or queen) without all the bloodshed caused by switching from Protestant to Catholic rulers and back again. Humanism would have come to England in any case. Imagine Sir Thomas More growing up in someone else's house and coming to maturity under his son with memories of Good King Richard. What we call Elizabethan English would have developed in any case, along with the flowering of the arts in "Elizabethan" England. Shakespeare would have flourished under any monarchy that encouraged the arts, perhaps more so under a secure Yorkist monarchy than a perennially insecure Tudor one. And to give the Tudors credit for defeating England's Hitler? Never mind. I won't even remark on that.

Needed the Tudors? Tell that to Henry VIII's wives and the Yorkist heirs and even Sir Thomas More, who knew that Henry VII was a tyrant and celebrated his death.

I don't think we can agree on this point, but I'll hold off celebrating the outcome of Bosworth Field or celebrating the advent of the Tudors. I think England would have flourished under Richard and his successors, whether they were his own sons or his nephew John de la Pole. Imagine a second and third Parliament, with even more enlightened legislation.

carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


> There's no way to know what would have happened. Think of an alliance with
> Spain and Portugal under Richard. Something like the Anglican church, with
> many aspects of Catholicism but with services in English, might well have
> come about under Richard's successors if they shared his open-minded
> religious views.

Could well be - but we don't know that they would have been. The guy who
built the Taj Mahal was one of the most enlightened rulers the world has
seen - but his son and successor was a murderous fundie fanatic.

> The Armada came about because Philip of Spain thought he had a better
> claim to the English throne than Elizabeth did, which would not have
> happened under a Yorkist king or queen. Ireland was pro-Yorkist. Think of
> all the troubles that could have been prevented if that country had not
> been abused by the Tudors.

Good point.

> Who knows? England might have joined with Scotlands under the Stuarts in
> any case, skipping the Tudors.

Maybe - but the union, and the UK, came about as a result of having a
childless ruling queen on the throne, which was a fairly rare occurrence

> What we call Elizabethan English would have developed in any case, along
> with the flowering of the arts in "Elizabethan" England.

That's cheating. If you're going to say individual monarchs don't matter,
Elizabeth I doesn't matter, all those things would have happened with or
without her, then the same should apply to Richard. And Henry Tudor,
whatever his faults, did a lot for the arts and elevated the status of
poetry (he appointed the first poet laureate) so no, we probably *wouldn't*
have had Shakespeare.

> And to give the Tudors credit for defeating England's Hitler? Never mind.
> I won't even remark on that.

Because it was Elizabeth's barrenness which led to the formation of the UK.
As separate countries we probably wouldn't have been as strong.

> I don't think we can agree on this point, but I'll hold off celebrating
> the outcome of Bosworth Field or celebrating the advent of the Tudors. I
> think England would have flourished under Richard and his successors,
> whether they were his own sons or his nephew John de la Pole. Imagine a
> second and third Parliament, with even more enlightened legislation.

Richard himself was undoubtedly a Good Thing, but double-guessing history
can lead off in unexpected directions. Who knows, Richard with his
tolerance might have married into the Spanish royal family and talked them
out of expelling the Jews. No loss of the Spanish middle class, no
cackhanded attempt to fill the gap with sheep farming, no ecological
collapse, probably no wave of conquistadores desperate for some alternative
income, no destruction of South American culture - which is great and to be
applauded in most respects except it leaves the Aztecs in power as well as
the Incas, and the Aztecs were probably one of the three most evil regimes
in human history. It's this sort of thing which leads me to accept history
as is because even if you could change it, you don't know what awful
consequenc'ves might result from a seemingly good move.

I'm helping a friend to write a scenario in which, indeed, Richard survives
and things end up as you suggest with the Anglicam church coming about by
more benign means, but we haven't even begun to think about the formation of
the UK. Basically to make it work you have to assume history is elastic and
snaps back so we still end up with a barren monarch etc, and if you could
change time for real then you probably wouldn't be able to pre-plan the
outcome like that.

Very good points. I think it would have taken a very enlightened Englishman to have seen women having anything but a passive influence. Have you read Helen Castor's 'She-Wolves', where she claims that women who tried to reign like men (from Matilda, through Margaret of Anjou to LizI) were vilified as being unnatural.  Some might say it hasn't changed a lot in the boardroom today - but that's not for here!!!


________________________________
From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 17:11
Subject: Re: Elizabeth of York: (Was: 2 coffins?)

Keep in mind, too, that at this point, women placed next to power weren't
necessarily viewed as ideally no more than baby-making mechanisms:  in the
generation born to royalty in the 1460s - say, late 1480s, there are
several women who were expected to be able handle running a kingdom or a
region effectively, and to understand and deal with the complicated
politics of the times:

All the daughters of the Catholic Kings
Margaret of Austria, Regent of the Netherlands
Anne of Beaujeu
Margaret of Navarre

Just off the top of my head.  It might be interesting to know if Edward had
similar expectations of Elizabeth as did, for example, Isabel and Fernando
of their daughters.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:27 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > You know I have her as just the same. She was Daddy's eldest for a long
> time before little Eddie came along (Gruuthuse has her dancing with daddy
> when he visited), probably had a crush on young Uncle Richard who didn't
> visit very often and seemed to have this ailing wife and didn't like being
> used as a pawn by Mummy and MB. I can't somehow see her being the saintly
> shrinking violet. Interesting Starkey doesn't mention the gambling when
> setting her up as such in his young H8
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Almost certainly, she had been indulged and spoiled, the king's eldest
> daughter and evidently a beauty as well. And she had been "Madame le
> Dauphin" or some such title for seven years (1475-1482) until Louis XI
> humiliated her (and her father) by reneging by ending her betrothal to his
> son (along with the rest of the provisions in the Treaty of Picquigny,
> which Edward ought to have realized would expire in seven years). Follow
> that with the loss of her father and a descent into illegitimacy (and, as
> you say, being a pawn in her mother's secret negotiations with MB, which
> may have seemed treasonous to a girl brought up as a Yorkist, not to
> mention foolish if she knew or thought that her brothers were still alive).
> That she didn't hate Richard is clear from her conspicuous presence at his
> Christmas festivities (and the paraphrased letter to Norfolk, however we
> interpret it). She was a pawn again in the marriage negotiations with
> Portugal, but that would certainly be a step up from royal bastard. But,
> then, so was marriage to Henry Tudor once he became king. How she felt
> about that marriage must have depended on how she felt about her Uncle
> Richard--and on Henry's treatment of her, which, essentially kept her out
> of the limelight and without a shred of political power. More than that, we
> can't really say. I suspect that after 1482, she was increasingly unhappy
> with a brief respite in 1484-85 after she came out of sanctuary, and then
> unhappy again for the rest of her life, having only her children (and
> gambling, if that story is true) to console her. Unlike Cecily Neville and
> even MB, she does not seem to have been particularly religious, nor does
> she seem to have been at all scholarly. And I doubt that her
> mother-in-law's company was enjoyable. I feel sorry for her. At least her
> younger sister Cecily eventually escaped from court and avoided yet another
> arranged marriage to marry a commoner. presumably for love. Elizabeth had
> no such option.
>
> Carol
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

No Arelene Okerlund - 'Elizabeth , England's Slandered Queen' (Elizabeth Woodville). Sponsored by Alison Weir but perhaps a bit better on facts like these than Baldwin. She's from California, I believe.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 17:16
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I've now looked the funeral up in Okerland. She has her accompanied by her chaplain, Edmund Haute  her executor and Mistress Grace and buried on Whitsunday. Anne, Katherine and Bridget attended a memorial service on the following Tuesday together with other relatives including Buckingham's daughter. EOY was pregnant and did not attend.

Carol responds:

What is Okerland? I can't find any other references to that work in this forum. Is that the book on royal funerals?

Carol

Yes, as I've said before, just because kings were cuddly 'boys' doesn't make them toothless or less horrible. It would certainly not have taken that long for E5 to get into a 'Woodville stride' and Richard must have known and feared that.



________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 1:13
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


 

Yeah, and Mary gets the sobriquet "Bloody" and Edward VI goes down in history as that tragically doomed king, gone too soon.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I think not in his case!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:48 PM
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
>
> Not to forget the young Edward Vl had people burned too....I wonder how he would have turned out if he had not popped his cloggs at an early age...:0/ Eileen
>
> - No people burned at the stake by Mary,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

That's right Carol, it was Bertram Fields. I knew it was one of the 'better books'.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:48
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Wll put - and hopefully Gloriana would have had a better successor than the next doomed dynasty. Tragic for poor old England when you look at the next two hundred years isn't it? Was it Jeremy Potter who did the speculation bit on how we would have been if 22 Aug 1485 had never happened. 

Carol responds:

Bertram Fields did a what-if with Richard as Protector killed by the Woodvilles, Edward V dying young, and Richard Duke of York becoming Richard III. I'd much rather see one with Richard as the victor at Bosworth--or no Bosworth if that traitor James Blount hadn't freed the Earl of Oxford or Francis of Britanny had handed Tudor over to Richard. Think of all the people, including Richard, who would have survived to produce descendants--and all the Tudors who would never have been.

Carol

Yes, why would there have been an Armada if England was Catholic, and Protestant Scotland still got on with Catholic France. England didn't need torturing and burnings and I don't think anyone is fooled into thinking that the Reformation came about because we'd been converted by Luther. No, England didn't need the tudors or the Stuarts - every time I drive through Naseby battlefield or read the parish registers that record the dead of Edgehill, I'm convinced. H


________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 20:47
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?

I read murder mysteries as well as history. I just opened a new book and this was the opening page:
"Banality of evil: A phrase coined by the philosopher Hannah Arendt that describes the thesis that the great evils in history generally were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal."
Perhaps this explains why so many chose to believe that the edicts and history of and for the Tudors was correct, and they did things they might not have done, had a benevolent King, like Richard III, lived. But of course, these things are still with us, so we have to realize, as Ishita said, that people are very much the same as they have always been, these are just different times.

On Mar 12, 2013, at 3:20 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:



Think of all the people who would have not been judicially murdered by the Tudors, life was horrific for ordinary people during their reigns,no Morton's Fork. No people burned at the stake by Mary, no piracy by Elizabeth, no divine right of kings because that started with H7 insisting on being called Your Majesty, no Civil War, no Oliver Cromwell, no WW1 because there would have been no Kaiser Wilhelm and therefore no WW2. I think the world would be a much better place without the Tudors

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 6:48 PM
> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
> > Think of all the people, including Richard, who would have survived to
> > produce descendants--and all the Tudors who would never have been.
>
> Think of no Reformation. Think of no Elizabeth I. Think of a successful
> Armada. Think of a Catholic England bitterly at war for centuries with
> Protestant Scotland. Think of no United Kingdom. Think of a victorious
> Hitler....
>
> No, we *needed* the Tudors, they're vital to our history. But if things had
> panned out differently we could have got there by peaceful intermarriage.
> Think of Henry as a reasonably loyal official at Richard's court, marrying
> Elizabeth, for example, and having a daughter who married a son of Richard's
> by his second wife (or their son marrying Richard's daughter).
>









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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: Elizabeth of York: (Was: 2
coffins?)


> Very good points. I think it would have taken a very enlightened
> Englishman to have seen women having anything but a passive influence.
> Have you read Helen Castor's 'She-Wolves', where she claims that women who
> tried to reign like men (from Matilda, through Margaret of Anjou to LizI)
> were vilified as being unnatural. Some might say it hasn't changed a lot
> in the boardroom today - but that's not for here!!!

Isn't she the one who did that recent documentary series? I was put off by
the fact that she was obviously cherry-picking information which fitted her
theory, since she somehow ommitted to mention that for much of the Stephen
and Matilda war *both* the armies were commanded by a woman: Stephen's wife
was also his best general.

And I am perenially put off by programmes which make sweeping statements
about "the status of women in Mediaeval Europe" as if Ireland and the
Highlands - where the status of women was totally different - were not part
of Europe.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?


> Yes, why would there have been an Armada if England was Catholic, and
> Protestant Scotland still got on with Catholic France. England didn't need
> torturing and burnings and I don't think anyone is fooled into thinking
> that the Reformation came about because we'd been converted by Luther. No,
> England didn't need the tudors or the Stuarts - every time I drive through
> Naseby battlefield or read the parish registers that record the dead of
> Edgehill, I'm convinced. H

But then instead, we might have had the even more bloody revolution that
Catholic France had, and instead of welcoming my Huguenot ancestors we might
have joined in in massacring them.

Richard was a shining light amongst the Plantagenets but most of the rest of
them, including Big Brother Ned, were pretty nasty.

I think you'll find Eddie 3 was pretty good.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 11:21
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?

> Yes, why would there have been an Armada if England was Catholic, and
> Protestant Scotland still got on with Catholic France. England didn't need
> torturing and burnings and I don't think anyone is fooled into thinking
> that the Reformation came about because we'd been converted by Luther. No,
> England didn't need the tudors or the Stuarts - every time I drive through
> Naseby battlefield or read the parish registers that record the dead of
> Edgehill, I'm convinced. H

But then instead, we might have had the even more bloody revolution that
Catholic France had, and instead of welcoming my Huguenot ancestors we might
have joined in in massacring them.

Richard was a shining light amongst the Plantagenets but most of the rest of
them, including Big Brother Ned, were pretty nasty.

Yes that is the one.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol, I will look to see if I can find the Ricardian with JAH's article. I have moved and while I have some Ricardians where I can put my hand on them others are packed away in boxes in my garage.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Mary. I checked the index of Ricardians
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/ricardian_index.php
>
> and found one article by J A-H that may be the one you're looking for. It's called "The Lancastrian Claim to the Throne" and it's in volume 13 (2003), pp. 27-38.
>
> Carol
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?


> I think you'll find Eddie 3 was pretty good.

And Henry II who, for all that he was a bit of a nutcase who used to fall
into frothing rages and literally chew the rug, cared about his people and
about the law and invented the idea that the law should protect peasants as
well as nobles. But like Richard they were shiny bright apples in an
otherwise pretty depressing barrel.

I'm not saying thay were all monsters of evil or anything like that (except
Eddie 1), just that Tudors weren't actually particularly worse. Just not as
good as Richard, until Elizabeth I who *tried* to be liberal and fair etc
but was the victim of circumstances. She probably had quite a lot in common
with her great great uncle.

Yes I like H2 (who wouldn't chew the odd rug with Eleanor as Queen, but what a woman) and yes I like to think that Liz1 was like great great uncle and also had the genes of EW and Anne Boleyn to give her a bit more ruthlessness (no bad thing) . So glad you didn't say H5.  Some others are in the dark to me. John, as maligned as Richard, Edward II smeared by the attitudes of the age. But I find the Plantagenets fascinating - a word I can't apply after 1600.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 11:58
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?

> I think you'll find Eddie 3 was pretty good.

And Henry II who, for all that he was a bit of a nutcase who used to fall
into frothing rages and literally chew the rug, cared about his people and
about the law and invented the idea that the law should protect peasants as
well as nobles. But like Richard they were shiny bright apples in an
otherwise pretty depressing barrel.

I'm not saying thay were all monsters of evil or anything like that (except
Eddie 1), just that Tudors weren't actually particularly worse. Just not as
good as Richard, until Elizabeth I who *tried* to be liberal and fair etc
but was the victim of circumstances. She probably had quite a lot in common
with her great great uncle.

However, compared with the Tudor's Edward was a pussy cat. Henry VIII destroyed the majority of our beautiful monastries and sacked their contents. Many of our castles were destroyed during the Civil War. If there had been no Tudor Dynesty then we might enjoy a wonderful legacy of medieval buildings

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> > Yes, why would there have been an Armada if England was Catholic, and
> > Protestant Scotland still got on with Catholic France. England didn't need
> > torturing and burnings and I don't think anyone is fooled into thinking
> > that the Reformation came about because we'd been converted by Luther. No,
> > England didn't need the tudors or the Stuarts - every time I drive through
> > Naseby battlefield or read the parish registers that record the dead of
> > Edgehill, I'm convinced. H
>
> But then instead, we might have had the even more bloody revolution that
> Catholic France had, and instead of welcoming my Huguenot ancestors we might
> have joined in in massacring them.
>
> Richard was a shining light amongst the Plantagenets but most of the rest of
> them, including Big Brother Ned, were pretty nasty.
>

From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


> However, compared with the Tudor's Edward was a pussy cat.

But "the Tudors" are not some sort of homogenous block, any more than "the
Yorkists" are. Henry VII and Edward VI were no worse than the average
Plantagenet, Henry VIII and Mary were particularly bad, Elizabeth I was
paticularly good.

From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


> If there had been no Tudor Dynesty then we might enjoy a wonderful legacy
> of medieval buildings

Oh and yes, maybe, but it depends on whether or not we would still have
ended up with Cromwell and the iconoclasts, who would have broken those
buildings had they still been standing.

Sorry there should not be an apostrophe in Tudors

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> However, compared with the Tudor's Edward was a pussy cat. Henry VIII destroyed the majority of our beautiful monastries and sacked their contents. Many of our castles were destroyed during the Civil War. If there had been no Tudor Dynesty then we might enjoy a wonderful legacy of medieval buildings
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:43 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >
> > > Yes, why would there have been an Armada if England was Catholic, and
> > > Protestant Scotland still got on with Catholic France. England didn't need
> > > torturing and burnings and I don't think anyone is fooled into thinking
> > > that the Reformation came about because we'd been converted by Luther. No,
> > > England didn't need the tudors or the Stuarts - every time I drive through
> > > Naseby battlefield or read the parish registers that record the dead of
> > > Edgehill, I'm convinced. H
> >
> > But then instead, we might have had the even more bloody revolution that
> > Catholic France had, and instead of welcoming my Huguenot ancestors we might
> > have joined in in massacring them.
> >
> > Richard was a shining light amongst the Plantagenets but most of the rest of
> > them, including Big Brother Ned, were pretty nasty.
> >
>

The James Stewart film 'Its a Wonderful Life' about a Suicidal Man Who wishes he had not been Born, 
Stewart's 'Guardian Angel' Reminds us that even if one tiny 'Jot' of History was Changed, 
We cannot guess the consequences.

It's a Wonderful Life is a 1946 American Movie.

 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 19:15
>Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> 
>From: justcarol67
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 6:48 PM
>Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>> Think of all the people, including Richard, who would have survived to
>> produce descendants--and all the Tudors who would never have been.
>
>Think of no Reformation. Think of no Elizabeth I. Think of a successful
>Armada. Think of a Catholic England bitterly at war for centuries with
>Protestant Scotland. Think of no United Kingdom. Think of a victorious
>Hitler....
>
>No, we *needed* the Tudors, they're vital to our history. But if things had
>panned out differently we could have got there by peaceful intermarriage.
>Think of Henry as a reasonably loyal official at Richard's court, marrying
>Elizabeth, for example, and having a daughter who married a son of Richard's
>by his second wife (or their son marrying Richard's daughter).
>
>
>
>
>

Bear in mind, though, that Elizabeth wasn't exactly a paragon of sweetness and light either: She had priests drawn and quartered en mass. The image of "Good Queen Bess" reminds me of Henry V in a way. Henry was a fanatic who burned Lollards at the stake but because he gave us Agincourt his less savory traits get overlooked.

James

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I like H2 (who wouldn't chew the odd rug with Eleanor as Queen, but what a woman) and yes I like to think that Liz1 was like great great uncle and also had the genes of EW and Anne Boleyn to give her a bit more ruthlessness (no bad thing) . So glad you didn't say H5.  Some others are in the dark to me. John, as maligned as Richard, Edward II smeared by the attitudes of the age. But I find the Plantagenets fascinating - a word I can't apply after 1600.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 11:58
> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>  
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
> > I think you'll find Eddie 3 was pretty good.
>
> And Henry II who, for all that he was a bit of a nutcase who used to fall
> into frothing rages and literally chew the rug, cared about his people and
> about the law and invented the idea that the law should protect peasants as
> well as nobles. But like Richard they were shiny bright apples in an
> otherwise pretty depressing barrel.
>
> I'm not saying thay were all monsters of evil or anything like that (except
> Eddie 1), just that Tudors weren't actually particularly worse. Just not as
> good as Richard, until Elizabeth I who *tried* to be liberal and fair etc
> but was the victim of circumstances. She probably had quite a lot in common
> with her great great uncle.
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Poet
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?


> Bear in mind, though, that Elizabeth wasn't exactly a paragon of sweetness
> and light either: She had priests drawn and quartered en mass. The image
> of "Good Queen Bess" reminds me of Henry V in a way. Henry was a fanatic
> who burned Lollards at the stake but because he gave us Agincourt his less
> savory traits get overlooked.

Elizabeth wasn't motivated by fanaticism, though, but by realpolitik - she
wanted to be liberal but it wasn't working out.

I keep looking through re-runs of 'Antiques Roadshow' on BBC, the owner of the 'Memento Mori Ring' had information from their deceased relative who had it made.

Maybe the BBC have this?

Edward's DNA might be interesting?
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:30
>Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> 
>Elizabeth's coffin was discoverd in 1789 on top of Edward's. Edward has also been exhumed in a much better state because he was in a lead coffin. This is how they determined his height. No mention of hair but on the web some mention of strange oil like puddle - no-one can determine what substance it was, but it didn't taste very nice - wonder who tried it? But all this happened a long time ago. I doubt it would be allowed now . 
>
>________________________________
>From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 12:45
>Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
> 
>
>  As a 'Northerner' the idea of a modern 'Northern Palatinate' has a very attractive ring, however Lancashire is Already a 'Royal Palatinate'  & it is difficult to envisage the Percy Family giving up their rights in the North. [Though under Henry VIII young Percy / later Earl, seemed 'Cowed/ Scared' to a considerable degree by H VIII. [Bolyne Trial etc] 
>
>  Hilary gave details of E. Woodville's coffin being 'decayed', this seems to indicate a report being made of Edward's Exhumation. What became of this Report?. I wonder if the [Nameless?] Archaeologists involved had more than one 'Memento Mori Ring' containing Edward's Hair made @ the time. 
> 
>Kind Regards,
> 
>Arthur.
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>>To: ">
>>Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 9:37
>>Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>>
>>
>> 
>>That's true and H4 brought the Lancaster inheritance to the Crown. That was itself to cause problems because nobles with holdings in that area such as the Stanleys and Harringtons had to defer to the Crown; another reason for resenting Richard, the the Nevill's and Northumberland's freedom in Yorkshire. By Edward's death R had virtually been granted his own Palatinate in the North as well, so they were being squeezed more and more. It's actually, I've always thought, a good argument why Richard wouldn't particularly have sought the Crown - he had his own kingdom in the North.
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>>To:
>>Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 22:40
>>Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>>
>> 
>>
>>Mary is right because John of Gaunt was only Duke of Lancaster in jure uxoris. Blanche was the real Duchess and only her descendants were Lancastrians.
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Claire M Jordan
>>To:
>>Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:58 PM
>>Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>>
>>From: ricard1an
>>To:
>>Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:42 PM
>>Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>>
>>> Pammy, Henry didn't have any Lancaster heritage because although John of
>>> Gaunt was one of his grandfathers, possibly gt grandfather, and Gaunt was
>>> Duke of Lancaster, Henry was descended from Gaunt's Beaufort family.
>>
>>That doesn't mean he didn't have Lancastrian heritage, just that it was on
>>the wrong side of the blanket. And, after all, Edward IV had just tried to
>>foist the son of a bigamous marriage off on the nation, so standards were
>>slipping.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I seem to feel this was to do with the Papal Fatwah, giving 'Carte Blanche' to anyone who would kill her?
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Poet <virginia_bard@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 23:49
>Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> 
>Bear in mind, though, that Elizabeth wasn't exactly a paragon of sweetness and light either: She had priests drawn and quartered en mass. The image of "Good Queen Bess" reminds me of Henry V in a way. Henry was a fanatic who burned Lollards at the stake but because he gave us Agincourt his less savory traits get overlooked.
>
>James
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes I like H2 (who wouldn't chew the odd rug with Eleanor as Queen, but what a woman) and yes I like to think that Liz1 was like great great uncle and also had the genes of EW and Anne Boleyn to give her a bit more ruthlessness (no bad thing) . So glad you didn't say H5.  Some others are in the dark to me. John, as maligned as Richard, Edward II smeared by the attitudes of the age. But I find the Plantagenets fascinating - a word I can't apply after 1600.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 11:58
>> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>>
>>  
>>
>> From: Hilary Jones
>> To:
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:18 AM
>> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>>
>> > I think you'll find Eddie 3 was pretty good.
>>
>> And Henry II who, for all that he was a bit of a nutcase who used to fall
>> into frothing rages and literally chew the rug, cared about his people and
>> about the law and invented the idea that the law should protect peasants as
>> well as nobles. But like Richard they were shiny bright apples in an
>> otherwise pretty depressing barrel.
>>
>> I'm not saying thay were all monsters of evil or anything like that (except
>> Eddie 1), just that Tudors weren't actually particularly worse. Just not as
>> good as Richard, until Elizabeth I who *tried* to be liberal and fair etc
>> but was the victim of circumstances. She probably had quite a lot in common
>> with her great great uncle.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

I think she had them hung drawn and quartered because they were traitors, not because of their religion. Like everyone else, she was a child of her time. I agree exactly with your comments about H5



________________________________
From: Poet <virginia_bard@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 23:49
Subject: Re: 2 coffins?

 

Bear in mind, though, that Elizabeth wasn't exactly a paragon of sweetness and light either: She had priests drawn and quartered en mass. The image of "Good Queen Bess" reminds me of Henry V in a way. Henry was a fanatic who burned Lollards at the stake but because he gave us Agincourt his less savory traits get overlooked.

James

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I like H2 (who wouldn't chew the odd rug with Eleanor as Queen, but what a woman) and yes I like to think that Liz1 was like great great uncle and also had the genes of EW and Anne Boleyn to give her a bit more ruthlessness (no bad thing) . So glad you didn't say H5.  Some others are in the dark to me. John, as maligned as Richard, Edward II smeared by the attitudes of the age. But I find the Plantagenets fascinating - a word I can't apply after 1600.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 11:58
> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>  
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
> > I think you'll find Eddie 3 was pretty good.
>
> And Henry II who, for all that he was a bit of a nutcase who used to fall
> into frothing rages and literally chew the rug, cared about his people and
> about the law and invented the idea that the law should protect peasants as
> well as nobles. But like Richard they were shiny bright apples in an
> otherwise pretty depressing barrel.
>
> I'm not saying thay were all monsters of evil or anything like that (except
> Eddie 1), just that Tudors weren't actually particularly worse. Just not as
> good as Richard, until Elizabeth I who *tried* to be liberal and fair etc
> but was the victim of circumstances. She probably had quite a lot in common
> with her great great uncle.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Absolutely agree.

--- In , "Poet" <virginia_bard@...> wrote:
>
> Bear in mind, though, that Elizabeth wasn't exactly a paragon of sweetness and light either: She had priests drawn and quartered en mass. The image of "Good Queen Bess" reminds me of Henry V in a way. Henry was a fanatic who burned Lollards at the stake but because he gave us Agincourt his less savory traits get overlooked.
>
> James
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes I like H2 (who wouldn't chew the odd rug with Eleanor as Queen, but what a woman) and yes I like to think that Liz1 was like great great uncle and also had the genes of EW and Anne Boleyn to give her a bit more ruthlessness (no bad thing) . So glad you didn't say H5.  Some others are in the dark to me. John, as maligned as Richard, Edward II smeared by the attitudes of the age. But I find the Plantagenets fascinating - a word I can't apply after 1600.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 11:58
> > Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> >  
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:18 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
> >
> > > I think you'll find Eddie 3 was pretty good.
> >
> > And Henry II who, for all that he was a bit of a nutcase who used to fall
> > into frothing rages and literally chew the rug, cared about his people and
> > about the law and invented the idea that the law should protect peasants as
> > well as nobles. But like Richard they were shiny bright apples in an
> > otherwise pretty depressing barrel.
> >
> > I'm not saying thay were all monsters of evil or anything like that (except
> > Eddie 1), just that Tudors weren't actually particularly worse. Just not as
> > good as Richard, until Elizabeth I who *tried* to be liberal and fair etc
> > but was the victim of circumstances. She probably had quite a lot in common
> > with her great great uncle.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Fancy 'Denigrating' Edward 1st after all those 'Lovely Castles' he provided the Welsh Tourist Industry with!!
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 10:06
>Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> 
>I think she had them hung drawn and quartered because they were traitors, not because of their religion. Like everyone else, she was a child of her time. I agree exactly with your comments about H5
>
>________________________________
>From: Poet <virginia_bard@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 23:49
>Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
> 
>
>Bear in mind, though, that Elizabeth wasn't exactly a paragon of sweetness and light either: She had priests drawn and quartered en mass. The image of "Good Queen Bess" reminds me of Henry V in a way. Henry was a fanatic who burned Lollards at the stake but because he gave us Agincourt his less savory traits get overlooked.
>
>James
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes I like H2 (who wouldn't chew the odd rug with Eleanor as Queen, but what a woman) and yes I like to think that Liz1 was like great great uncle and also had the genes of EW and Anne Boleyn to give her a bit more ruthlessness (no bad thing) . So glad you didn't say H5.  Some others are in the dark to me. John, as maligned as Richard, Edward II smeared by the attitudes of the age. But I find the Plantagenets fascinating - a word I can't apply after 1600.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 11:58
>> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>>
>>  
>>
>> From: Hilary Jones
>> To:
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:18 AM
>> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>>
>> > I think you'll find Eddie 3 was pretty good.
>>
>> And Henry II who, for all that he was a bit of a nutcase who used to fall
>> into frothing rages and literally chew the rug, cared about his people and
>> about the law and invented the idea that the law should protect peasants as
>> well as nobles. But like Richard they were shiny bright apples in an
>> otherwise pretty depressing barrel.
>>
>> I'm not saying thay were all monsters of evil or anything like that (except
>> Eddie 1), just that Tudors weren't actually particularly worse. Just not as
>> good as Richard, until Elizabeth I who *tried* to be liberal and fair etc
>> but was the victim of circumstances. She probably had quite a lot in common
>> with her great great uncle.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Eh? Don't think you're answering me Arthur. Didn't say anything about EddieI.



________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:24
Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?

 

Fancy 'Denigrating' Edward 1st after all those 'Lovely Castles' he provided the Welsh Tourist Industry with!!
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 10:06
>Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>
>
> 
>I think she had them hung drawn and quartered because they were traitors, not because of their religion. Like everyone else, she was a child of her time. I agree exactly with your comments about H5
>
>________________________________
>From: Poet <virginia_bard@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 23:49
>Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
>
> 
>
>Bear in mind, though, that Elizabeth wasn't exactly a paragon of sweetness and light either: She had priests drawn and quartered en mass. The image of "Good Queen Bess" reminds me of Henry V in a way. Henry was a fanatic who burned Lollards at the stake but because he gave us Agincourt his less savory traits get overlooked.
>
>James
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes I like H2 (who wouldn't chew the odd rug with Eleanor as Queen, but what a woman) and yes I like to think that Liz1 was like great great uncle and also had the genes of EW and Anne Boleyn to give her a bit more ruthlessness (no bad thing) . So glad you didn't say H5.  Some others are in the dark to me. John, as maligned as Richard, Edward II smeared by the attitudes of the age. But I find the Plantagenets fascinating - a word I can't apply after 1600.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 11:58
>> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>>
>>  
>>
>> From: Hilary Jones
>> To:
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:18 AM
>> Subject: Re: Re: 2 coffins?
>>
>> > I think you'll find Eddie 3 was pretty good.
>>
>> And Henry II who, for all that he was a bit of a nutcase who used to fall
>> into frothing rages and literally chew the rug, cared about his people and
>> about the law and invented the idea that the law should protect peasants as
>> well as nobles. But like Richard they were shiny bright apples in an
>> otherwise pretty depressing barrel.
>>
>> I'm not saying thay were all monsters of evil or anything like that (except
>> Eddie 1), just that Tudors weren't actually particularly worse. Just not as
>> good as Richard, until Elizabeth I who *tried* to be liberal and fair etc
>> but was the victim of circumstances. She probably had quite a lot in common
>> with her great great uncle.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Killjoy!

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Don't forget the Tudor guy in the forum. We don't want him to feel unwelcome......
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 7:18 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> > May I join you?????
> >
> > On Mar 12, 2013, at 6:07 PM, "Ms Jones" <mhairigibbons2006@...<mailto:mhairigibbons2006@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Would anyone mind if I brought a sniper rifle and waited for H7 at Bosworth?
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't see why not. Plenty of room inside.
> >>
> >> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> No (can I come too?)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> >>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 2:49
> >>> Subject: Re: 2 coffins?
> >>>
> >>> Â
> >>> [Sigh.] Is it too terribly sinful to wish for a TARDIS so I could go back in time and prevent the villagers from rescuing little Morton from the well?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>