What documents did Richard destroy?
What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 17:10:48
This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
"Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
matter of Tudor policy.
Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
city records.
It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
doesn't support that position.
One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
ascension was some new clothes!"
So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
"Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
matter of Tudor policy.
Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
city records.
It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
doesn't support that position.
One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
ascension was some new clothes!"
So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 18:50:19
If you go into lots of mediaeval churches in England and Wales, and I have been in a few, there are lists of the people who were vicars of these churches but something that is common to all these lists is that, after about 1461 to 1465, there are no records then the next date is after 1485. This says to me that there are no records available.
If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
>
> http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
>
>
> "Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
> filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
>
> This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
> that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
> VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
> his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
> to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
> It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
> suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
> communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
> during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
> campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
> the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
> Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
> 24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
> handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
> and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
> matter of Tudor policy.
>
> Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
> exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
> although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
> without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
> Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
> after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
> of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
> never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
> city records.
>
> It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
> exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
> centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
> Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
> surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
> be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
> It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
> records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
> would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
>
> As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
> have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
> the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
>
> The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
> that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
> Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
> doesn't support that position.
>
> One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
> the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
> Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
> immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
> non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
> biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
> Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
> as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
> time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
> such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
> line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
> established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
> Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
> who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
> ascension was some new clothes!"
>
>
> So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
>
>
>
>
If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
>
> http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
>
>
> "Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
> filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
>
> This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
> that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
> VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
> his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
> to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
> It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
> suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
> communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
> during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
> campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
> the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
> Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
> 24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
> handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
> and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
> matter of Tudor policy.
>
> Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
> exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
> although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
> without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
> Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
> after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
> of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
> never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
> city records.
>
> It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
> exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
> centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
> Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
> surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
> be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
> It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
> records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
> would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
>
> As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
> have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
> the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
>
> The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
> that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
> Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
> doesn't support that position.
>
> One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
> the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
> Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
> immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
> non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
> biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
> Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
> as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
> time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
> such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
> line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
> established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
> Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
> who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
> ascension was some new clothes!"
>
>
> So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
>
>
>
>
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 20:10:24
"ricard1an" wrote:
[snip]
> If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
Carol responds:
No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
Carol
[snip]
> If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
Carol responds:
No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
Carol
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 20:17:02
Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> "ricard1an" wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
>
> In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
>
> Carol
>
>
I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> "ricard1an" wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
>
> In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 20:24:00
Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> "ricard1an" wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
>
> In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he
is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
>
> Carol
>
>
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> "ricard1an" wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
>
> In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he
is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 20:29:13
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?)
>
>
Makes me think of an adder with a tiger's head ;)
"Tydder, Tydder, burning bright,
In the forests of the night..."
>
> The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?)
>
>
Makes me think of an adder with a tiger's head ;)
"Tydder, Tydder, burning bright,
In the forests of the night..."
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 20:45:50
Liz, go to SKP fan page on fb and under this particle you will find this person's comment. Also she writes that this skeleton might not be Richard's! I couldn't trust myself to comment.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:23 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
> Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
>
>
> Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
> I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "ricard1an" wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
> >
> > In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he
> is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:23 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
> Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
>
>
> Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
> I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "ricard1an" wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
> >
> > In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he
> is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Who deserves to be honoured? Was Did Richarcd destroy document
2013-03-14 20:48:27
Hi
>>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> >
> > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
This is my comment to that website. You have to join to post messages so I am posting it here instead.
To suggest that this should be a place of pilgrimage; who and what is to honour? "Pilgrimage" is a very strange and inappropriate word to use in this context. To suggest that people should visit the tomb of a traitor who was responsible for killing his king and that it is a badge of honour. Shame on all those who support this. The underlying reason, as mentioned, is to provide income and get financial assistance. What a money grubbing scheme by both the church and the councillors who obviously have no scruples. Pity they cannot find other ways to raise income and their profiles without resorting to this demeaning scheme which belittles and deminishes them.
BTW I had a client once who claimed Rhys ap Thomas as one of his ancestors.
Elaine
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> If you go into lots of mediaeval churches in England and Wales, and I have been in a few, there are lists of the people who were vicars of these churches but something that is common to all these lists is that, after about 1461 to 1465, there are no records then the next date is after 1485. This says to me that there are no records available.
>
> If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> >
> > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> >
> >
> > "Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
> > filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
> >
> > This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
> > that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
> > VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
> > his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
> > to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
> > It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
> > suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
> > communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
> > during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
> > campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
> > the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
> > Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
> > 24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
> > handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
> > and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
> > matter of Tudor policy.
> >
> > Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
> > exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
> > although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
> > without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
> > Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
> > after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
> > of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
> > never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
> > city records.
> >
> > It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
> > exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
> > centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
> > Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
> > surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
> > be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
> > It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
> > records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
> > would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
> >
> > As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
> > have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
> > the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
> >
> > The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
> > that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
> > Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
> > doesn't support that position.
> >
> > One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
> > the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
> > Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
> > immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
> > non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
> > biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
> > Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
> > as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
> > time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
> > such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
> > line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
> > established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
> > Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
> > who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
> > ascension was some new clothes!"
> >
> >
> > So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> >
> > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
This is my comment to that website. You have to join to post messages so I am posting it here instead.
To suggest that this should be a place of pilgrimage; who and what is to honour? "Pilgrimage" is a very strange and inappropriate word to use in this context. To suggest that people should visit the tomb of a traitor who was responsible for killing his king and that it is a badge of honour. Shame on all those who support this. The underlying reason, as mentioned, is to provide income and get financial assistance. What a money grubbing scheme by both the church and the councillors who obviously have no scruples. Pity they cannot find other ways to raise income and their profiles without resorting to this demeaning scheme which belittles and deminishes them.
BTW I had a client once who claimed Rhys ap Thomas as one of his ancestors.
Elaine
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> If you go into lots of mediaeval churches in England and Wales, and I have been in a few, there are lists of the people who were vicars of these churches but something that is common to all these lists is that, after about 1461 to 1465, there are no records then the next date is after 1485. This says to me that there are no records available.
>
> If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> >
> > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> >
> >
> > "Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
> > filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
> >
> > This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
> > that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
> > VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
> > his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
> > to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
> > It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
> > suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
> > communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
> > during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
> > campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
> > the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
> > Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
> > 24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
> > handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
> > and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
> > matter of Tudor policy.
> >
> > Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
> > exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
> > although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
> > without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
> > Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
> > after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
> > of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
> > never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
> > city records.
> >
> > It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
> > exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
> > centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
> > Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
> > surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
> > be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
> > It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
> > records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
> > would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
> >
> > As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
> > have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
> > the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
> >
> > The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
> > that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
> > Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
> > doesn't support that position.
> >
> > One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
> > the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
> > Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
> > immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
> > non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
> > biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
> > Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
> > as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
> > time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
> > such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
> > line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
> > established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
> > Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
> > who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
> > ascension was some new clothes!"
> >
> >
> > So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Who deserves to be honoured? Was Did Richarcd destroy document
2013-03-14 21:04:03
That really is the thin edge of the wedge...I think they're barking up the wrong tree with that...They could spend a lot of money and never make it back...Good! Eileen
--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > >
> > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
>
> This is my comment to that website. You have to join to post messages so I am posting it here instead.
>
> To suggest that this should be a place of pilgrimage; who and what is to honour? "Pilgrimage" is a very strange and inappropriate word to use in this context. To suggest that people should visit the tomb of a traitor who was responsible for killing his king and that it is a badge of honour. Shame on all those who support this. The underlying reason, as mentioned, is to provide income and get financial assistance. What a money grubbing scheme by both the church and the councillors who obviously have no scruples. Pity they cannot find other ways to raise income and their profiles without resorting to this demeaning scheme which belittles and deminishes them.
>
> BTW I had a client once who claimed Rhys ap Thomas as one of his ancestors.
> Elaine
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > If you go into lots of mediaeval churches in England and Wales, and I have been in a few, there are lists of the people who were vicars of these churches but something that is common to all these lists is that, after about 1461 to 1465, there are no records then the next date is after 1485. This says to me that there are no records available.
> >
> > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> >
> > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > >
> > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> > >
> > >
> > > "Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
> > > filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
> > >
> > > This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
> > > that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
> > > VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
> > > his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
> > > to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
> > > It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
> > > suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
> > > communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
> > > during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
> > > campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
> > > the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
> > > Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
> > > 24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
> > > handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
> > > and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
> > > matter of Tudor policy.
> > >
> > > Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
> > > exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
> > > although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
> > > without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
> > > Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
> > > after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
> > > of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
> > > never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
> > > city records.
> > >
> > > It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
> > > exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
> > > centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
> > > Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
> > > surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
> > > be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
> > > It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
> > > records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
> > > would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
> > >
> > > As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
> > > have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
> > > the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
> > >
> > > The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
> > > that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
> > > Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
> > > doesn't support that position.
> > >
> > > One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
> > > the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
> > > Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
> > > immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
> > > non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
> > > biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
> > > Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
> > > as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
> > > time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
> > > such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
> > > line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
> > > established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
> > > Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
> > > who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
> > > ascension was some new clothes!"
> > >
> > >
> > > So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > >
> > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
>
> This is my comment to that website. You have to join to post messages so I am posting it here instead.
>
> To suggest that this should be a place of pilgrimage; who and what is to honour? "Pilgrimage" is a very strange and inappropriate word to use in this context. To suggest that people should visit the tomb of a traitor who was responsible for killing his king and that it is a badge of honour. Shame on all those who support this. The underlying reason, as mentioned, is to provide income and get financial assistance. What a money grubbing scheme by both the church and the councillors who obviously have no scruples. Pity they cannot find other ways to raise income and their profiles without resorting to this demeaning scheme which belittles and deminishes them.
>
> BTW I had a client once who claimed Rhys ap Thomas as one of his ancestors.
> Elaine
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > If you go into lots of mediaeval churches in England and Wales, and I have been in a few, there are lists of the people who were vicars of these churches but something that is common to all these lists is that, after about 1461 to 1465, there are no records then the next date is after 1485. This says to me that there are no records available.
> >
> > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> >
> > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > >
> > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> > >
> > >
> > > "Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
> > > filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
> > >
> > > This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
> > > that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
> > > VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
> > > his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
> > > to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
> > > It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
> > > suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
> > > communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
> > > during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
> > > campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
> > > the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
> > > Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
> > > 24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
> > > handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
> > > and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
> > > matter of Tudor policy.
> > >
> > > Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
> > > exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
> > > although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
> > > without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
> > > Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
> > > after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
> > > of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
> > > never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
> > > city records.
> > >
> > > It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
> > > exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
> > > centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
> > > Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
> > > surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
> > > be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
> > > It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
> > > records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
> > > would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
> > >
> > > As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
> > > have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
> > > the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
> > >
> > > The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
> > > that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
> > > Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
> > > doesn't support that position.
> > >
> > > One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
> > > the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
> > > Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
> > > immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
> > > non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
> > > biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
> > > Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
> > > as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
> > > time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
> > > such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
> > > line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
> > > established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
> > > Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
> > > who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
> > > ascension was some new clothes!"
> > >
> > >
> > > So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 21:05:00
I can't find it. Just ask her if she's a forensic archaeologist and if she says not, just smirk.
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:45
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
Liz, go to SKP fan page on fb and under this particle you will find this person's comment. Also she writes that this skeleton might not be Richard's! I couldn't trust myself to comment.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:23 PM, liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:
> Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
> Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
>
>
> Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
> I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "ricard1an" wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
> >
> > In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever
he
> is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:45
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
Liz, go to SKP fan page on fb and under this particle you will find this person's comment. Also she writes that this skeleton might not be Richard's! I couldn't trust myself to comment.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:23 PM, liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:
> Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
> Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
>
>
> Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
> I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "ricard1an" wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
> >
> > In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever
he
> is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 21:09:45
Not having actually seen Annette Carson's *Maligned King* may be what is
confusing me here. Her pieces on the NSW R3 Society website strike me as
based on very discriminating use of the available sources, including
analysis of where they may actually be providing credible information
(particularly the essay linked below). Is that not typical of her whole
book?
http://www.richardiii-nsw.org.au/?page_id=271
A J
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:10 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of
> those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look
> at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to
> the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both
> Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone
> (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable
> credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the
> gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to
> rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this
> seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he is; can't access
> the original post) would have less influence.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
confusing me here. Her pieces on the NSW R3 Society website strike me as
based on very discriminating use of the available sources, including
analysis of where they may actually be providing credible information
(particularly the essay linked below). Is that not typical of her whole
book?
http://www.richardiii-nsw.org.au/?page_id=271
A J
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:10 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of
> those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look
> at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to
> the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both
> Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone
> (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable
> credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the
> gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to
> rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this
> seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he is; can't access
> the original post) would have less influence.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 21:09:48
I'm Welsh and I think the Tudors suck.
Sandra
From: liz williams
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:23 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
Sandra
From: liz williams
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:23 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
Re: Who deserves to be honoured? Was Did Richarcd destroy document
2013-03-14 21:12:36
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: Who deserves to be honoured? Was
Did Richarcd destroy documents
> That really is the thin edge of the wedge...I think they're barking up the
> wrong tree with that...They could spend a lot of money and never make it
> back...Good! Eileen
There are already people who think that welching on a deal is Welshing on
it - do they really want to commemorate a Welsh conman?
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: Who deserves to be honoured? Was
Did Richarcd destroy documents
> That really is the thin edge of the wedge...I think they're barking up the
> wrong tree with that...They could spend a lot of money and never make it
> back...Good! Eileen
There are already people who think that welching on a deal is Welshing on
it - do they really want to commemorate a Welsh conman?
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 21:19:10
Agree Liz. There is a statue in the Civic Centre in Cardiff refering to him as a Welsh hero. I suppose most Welsh people wouldn't think of researching Richard because they believe that the Tydder was Welsh. Though there was a Welsh Branch of the Society a few years ago.
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh"  and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
> Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
>
> Â
> Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
> I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "ricard1an" wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
> >
> > In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he
> is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh"  and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
> Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
>
> Â
> Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
> I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "ricard1an" wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
> >
> > In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he
> is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Who deserves to be honoured? Was Did Richarcd destroy document
2013-03-14 21:19:57
It rather smacks of desperation does it not......reminds me of those people who write begging letters to Lottery winners...just desperate to get some share of it even though you have to lose all self-respect/credibility in the process Eileen
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Who deserves to be honoured? Was
> Did Richarcd destroy documents
>
>
> > That really is the thin edge of the wedge...I think they're barking up the
> > wrong tree with that...They could spend a lot of money and never make it
> > back...Good! Eileen
>
> There are already people who think that welching on a deal is Welshing on
> it - do they really want to commemorate a Welsh conman?
>
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Who deserves to be honoured? Was
> Did Richarcd destroy documents
>
>
> > That really is the thin edge of the wedge...I think they're barking up the
> > wrong tree with that...They could spend a lot of money and never make it
> > back...Good! Eileen
>
> There are already people who think that welching on a deal is Welshing on
> it - do they really want to commemorate a Welsh conman?
>
Re: Who deserves to be honoured? Was Did Richarcd destroy document
2013-03-14 21:42:52
Correction - I just want to point out this bit was not mine but another poster, Ishita or Pam, I think. I went to the site from this link.
I can spell diminish, honestly! The pesky computer is at it again!
Elaine
> >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > >
> > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
>
> This is my comment to that website. You have to join to post messages so I am posting it here instead.
>
> To suggest that this should be a place of pilgrimage; who and what is to honour? "Pilgrimage" is a very strange and inappropriate word to use in this context. To suggest that people should visit the tomb of a traitor who was responsible for killing his king and that it is a badge of honour. Shame on all those who support this. The underlying reason, as mentioned, is to provide income and get financial assistance. What a money grubbing scheme by both the church and the councillors who obviously have no scruples. Pity they cannot find other ways to raise income and their profiles without resorting to this demeaning scheme which belittles and deminishes them.
>
> BTW I had a client once who claimed Rhys ap Thomas as one of his ancestors.
> Elaine
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > If you go into lots of mediaeval churches in England and Wales, and I have been in a few, there are lists of the people who were vicars of these churches but something that is common to all these lists is that, after about 1461 to 1465, there are no records then the next date is after 1485. This says to me that there are no records available.
> >
> > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> >
> > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > >
> > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> > >
> > >
> > > "Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
> > > filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
> > >
> > > This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
> > > that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
> > > VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
> > > his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
> > > to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
> > > It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
> > > suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
> > > communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
> > > during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
> > > campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
> > > the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
> > > Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
> > > 24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
> > > handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
> > > and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
> > > matter of Tudor policy.
> > >
> > > Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
> > > exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
> > > although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
> > > without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
> > > Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
> > > after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
> > > of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
> > > never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
> > > city records.
> > >
> > > It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
> > > exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
> > > centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
> > > Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
> > > surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
> > > be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
> > > It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
> > > records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
> > > would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
> > >
> > > As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
> > > have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
> > > the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
> > >
> > > The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
> > > that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
> > > Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
> > > doesn't support that position.
> > >
> > > One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
> > > the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
> > > Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
> > > immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
> > > non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
> > > biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
> > > Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
> > > as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
> > > time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
> > > such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
> > > line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
> > > established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
> > > Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
> > > who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
> > > ascension was some new clothes!"
> > >
> > >
> > > So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
I can spell diminish, honestly! The pesky computer is at it again!
Elaine
> >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > >
> > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
>
> This is my comment to that website. You have to join to post messages so I am posting it here instead.
>
> To suggest that this should be a place of pilgrimage; who and what is to honour? "Pilgrimage" is a very strange and inappropriate word to use in this context. To suggest that people should visit the tomb of a traitor who was responsible for killing his king and that it is a badge of honour. Shame on all those who support this. The underlying reason, as mentioned, is to provide income and get financial assistance. What a money grubbing scheme by both the church and the councillors who obviously have no scruples. Pity they cannot find other ways to raise income and their profiles without resorting to this demeaning scheme which belittles and deminishes them.
>
> BTW I had a client once who claimed Rhys ap Thomas as one of his ancestors.
> Elaine
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > If you go into lots of mediaeval churches in England and Wales, and I have been in a few, there are lists of the people who were vicars of these churches but something that is common to all these lists is that, after about 1461 to 1465, there are no records then the next date is after 1485. This says to me that there are no records available.
> >
> > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> >
> > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > >
> > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> > >
> > >
> > > "Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
> > > filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
> > >
> > > This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
> > > that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
> > > VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
> > > his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
> > > to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
> > > It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
> > > suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
> > > communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
> > > during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
> > > campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
> > > the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
> > > Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
> > > 24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
> > > handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
> > > and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
> > > matter of Tudor policy.
> > >
> > > Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
> > > exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
> > > although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
> > > without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
> > > Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
> > > after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
> > > of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
> > > never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
> > > city records.
> > >
> > > It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
> > > exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
> > > centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
> > > Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
> > > surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
> > > be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
> > > It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
> > > records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
> > > would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
> > >
> > > As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
> > > have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
> > > the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
> > >
> > > The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
> > > that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
> > > Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
> > > doesn't support that position.
> > >
> > > One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
> > > the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
> > > Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
> > > immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
> > > non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
> > > biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
> > > Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
> > > as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
> > > time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
> > > such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
> > > line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
> > > established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
> > > Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
> > > who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
> > > ascension was some new clothes!"
> > >
> > >
> > > So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 21:46:13
What is the name of this person who wrote the piece? I can't seem to find that part here.
Elaine
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh"  and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
> Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
>
> Â
> Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
> I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "ricard1an" wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
> >
> > In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he
> is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Elaine
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh"  and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
> Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
>
> Â
> Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
> I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "ricard1an" wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
> >
> > In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he
> is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Who deserves to be honoured? Was Did Richarcd destroy document
2013-03-14 21:48:46
I LOVE THIS FORUM SO MUCH..
Lizzy Foley SEMPER EADEM..
Lizzy Foley SEMPER EADEM..
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 22:01:39
Ishita thanks for this, I now know who she is. Katherine Pritchard Gibson. She lives at Garth Celyn where Llewellyn the Great used to live. He is the Welsh Prince, a real Welshman and Prince unlike H7, in Sharon's book "Here be Dragons". She gets really annoyed if anyone says anything bad about H7 and always seems to be promoting Garth Celyn. I think that people go there to look around.
Just ignore her, she obviously knows very little judging by her comment that there would have been lots of people on the battlefield with scoliosis so how do we know it was Richard. She also is not convinced by the DNA tests. Hmm I think Dr Turi King might have something to say about that. You will have noticed that Sharon said that she was convinced that it was him.
Mary
--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Liz, go to SKP fan page on fb and under this particle you will find this person's comment. Also she writes that this skeleton might not be Richard's! I couldn't trust myself to comment.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:23 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> > Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> > To: "@[email protected]>
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
> > Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
> >
> >
> > Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
> > I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "ricard1an" wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
> > >
> > > In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he
> > is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Just ignore her, she obviously knows very little judging by her comment that there would have been lots of people on the battlefield with scoliosis so how do we know it was Richard. She also is not convinced by the DNA tests. Hmm I think Dr Turi King might have something to say about that. You will have noticed that Sharon said that she was convinced that it was him.
Mary
--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Liz, go to SKP fan page on fb and under this particle you will find this person's comment. Also she writes that this skeleton might not be Richard's! I couldn't trust myself to comment.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:23 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> > Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> > To: "@[email protected]>
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
> > Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
> >
> >
> > Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
> > I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "ricard1an" wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
> > >
> > > In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he
> > is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 22:04:54
From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
> her comment that there would have been lots of people on the battlefield
> with scoliosis
... and who, uh, ended up buried in the choir of Greyfriars?
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
> her comment that there would have been lots of people on the battlefield
> with scoliosis
... and who, uh, ended up buried in the choir of Greyfriars?
Re: Who deserves to be honoured? Was Did Richarcd destroy document
2013-03-14 22:07:30
Elaine, I will post the link where I read the particular comment. It was on Sharon Penman fan page on Facebook. In answer to the article. If you an account on fb you can read the comment.
I will post the link when I get home.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 5:42 PM, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
> Correction - I just want to point out this bit was not mine but another poster, Ishita or Pam, I think. I went to the site from this link.
> I can spell diminish, honestly! The pesky computer is at it again!
>
> Elaine
>
> > >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> >
> > This is my comment to that website. You have to join to post messages so I am posting it here instead.
> >
> > To suggest that this should be a place of pilgrimage; who and what is to honour? "Pilgrimage" is a very strange and inappropriate word to use in this context. To suggest that people should visit the tomb of a traitor who was responsible for killing his king and that it is a badge of honour. Shame on all those who support this. The underlying reason, as mentioned, is to provide income and get financial assistance. What a money grubbing scheme by both the church and the councillors who obviously have no scruples. Pity they cannot find other ways to raise income and their profiles without resorting to this demeaning scheme which belittles and deminishes them.
> >
> > BTW I had a client once who claimed Rhys ap Thomas as one of his ancestors.
> > Elaine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you go into lots of mediaeval churches in England and Wales, and I have been in a few, there are lists of the people who were vicars of these churches but something that is common to all these lists is that, after about 1461 to 1465, there are no records then the next date is after 1485. This says to me that there are no records available.
> > >
> > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> > >
> > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
> > > > filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
> > > >
> > > > This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
> > > > that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
> > > > VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
> > > > his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
> > > > to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
> > > > It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
> > > > suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
> > > > communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
> > > > during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
> > > > campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
> > > > the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
> > > > Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
> > > > 24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
> > > > handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
> > > > and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
> > > > matter of Tudor policy.
> > > >
> > > > Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
> > > > exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
> > > > although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
> > > > without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
> > > > Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
> > > > after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
> > > > of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
> > > > never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
> > > > city records.
> > > >
> > > > It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
> > > > exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
> > > > centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
> > > > Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
> > > > surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
> > > > be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
> > > > It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
> > > > records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
> > > > would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
> > > >
> > > > As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
> > > > have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
> > > > the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
> > > >
> > > > The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
> > > > that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
> > > > Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
> > > > doesn't support that position.
> > > >
> > > > One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
> > > > the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
> > > > Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
> > > > immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
> > > > non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
> > > > biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
> > > > Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
> > > > as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
> > > > time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
> > > > such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
> > > > line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
> > > > established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
> > > > Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
> > > > who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
> > > > ascension was some new clothes!"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (16)
> RECENT ACTIVITY: New Members 12 New Files 3
> Visit Your Group
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
I will post the link when I get home.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 5:42 PM, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
> Correction - I just want to point out this bit was not mine but another poster, Ishita or Pam, I think. I went to the site from this link.
> I can spell diminish, honestly! The pesky computer is at it again!
>
> Elaine
>
> > >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> >
> > This is my comment to that website. You have to join to post messages so I am posting it here instead.
> >
> > To suggest that this should be a place of pilgrimage; who and what is to honour? "Pilgrimage" is a very strange and inappropriate word to use in this context. To suggest that people should visit the tomb of a traitor who was responsible for killing his king and that it is a badge of honour. Shame on all those who support this. The underlying reason, as mentioned, is to provide income and get financial assistance. What a money grubbing scheme by both the church and the councillors who obviously have no scruples. Pity they cannot find other ways to raise income and their profiles without resorting to this demeaning scheme which belittles and deminishes them.
> >
> > BTW I had a client once who claimed Rhys ap Thomas as one of his ancestors.
> > Elaine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you go into lots of mediaeval churches in England and Wales, and I have been in a few, there are lists of the people who were vicars of these churches but something that is common to all these lists is that, after about 1461 to 1465, there are no records then the next date is after 1485. This says to me that there are no records available.
> > >
> > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> > >
> > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
> > > > filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
> > > >
> > > > This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
> > > > that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
> > > > VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
> > > > his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
> > > > to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
> > > > It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
> > > > suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
> > > > communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
> > > > during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
> > > > campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
> > > > the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
> > > > Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
> > > > 24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
> > > > handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
> > > > and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
> > > > matter of Tudor policy.
> > > >
> > > > Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
> > > > exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
> > > > although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
> > > > without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
> > > > Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
> > > > after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
> > > > of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
> > > > never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
> > > > city records.
> > > >
> > > > It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
> > > > exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
> > > > centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
> > > > Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
> > > > surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
> > > > be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
> > > > It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
> > > > records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
> > > > would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
> > > >
> > > > As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
> > > > have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
> > > > the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
> > > >
> > > > The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
> > > > that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
> > > > Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
> > > > doesn't support that position.
> > > >
> > > > One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
> > > > the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
> > > > Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
> > > > immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
> > > > non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
> > > > biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
> > > > Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
> > > > as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
> > > > time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
> > > > such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
> > > > line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
> > > > established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
> > > > Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
> > > > who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
> > > > ascension was some new clothes!"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (16)
> RECENT ACTIVITY: New Members 12 New Files 3
> Visit Your Group
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 22:11:34
Mary, that's the one!! I did not know she is pro Tudor. I always assume SKP fans are always pro Richard( silly me)!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 6:01 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> Ishita thanks for this, I now know who she is. Katherine Pritchard Gibson. She lives at Garth Celyn where Llewellyn the Great used to live. He is the Welsh Prince, a real Welshman and Prince unlike H7, in Sharon's book "Here be Dragons". She gets really annoyed if anyone says anything bad about H7 and always seems to be promoting Garth Celyn. I think that people go there to look around.
>
> Just ignore her, she obviously knows very little judging by her comment that there would have been lots of people on the battlefield with scoliosis so how do we know it was Richard. She also is not convinced by the DNA tests. Hmm I think Dr Turi King might have something to say about that. You will have noticed that Sharon said that she was convinced that it was him.
> Mary
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Liz, go to SKP fan page on fb and under this particle you will find this person's comment. Also she writes that this skeleton might not be Richard's! I couldn't trust myself to comment.
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:23 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> > > To: "@[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
> > > Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
> > >
> > >
> > > Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
> > > I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "ricard1an" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he
> > > is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 6:01 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> Ishita thanks for this, I now know who she is. Katherine Pritchard Gibson. She lives at Garth Celyn where Llewellyn the Great used to live. He is the Welsh Prince, a real Welshman and Prince unlike H7, in Sharon's book "Here be Dragons". She gets really annoyed if anyone says anything bad about H7 and always seems to be promoting Garth Celyn. I think that people go there to look around.
>
> Just ignore her, she obviously knows very little judging by her comment that there would have been lots of people on the battlefield with scoliosis so how do we know it was Richard. She also is not convinced by the DNA tests. Hmm I think Dr Turi King might have something to say about that. You will have noticed that Sharon said that she was convinced that it was him.
> Mary
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Liz, go to SKP fan page on fb and under this particle you will find this person's comment. Also she writes that this skeleton might not be Richard's! I couldn't trust myself to comment.
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:23 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> > > To: "@[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
> > > Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
> > >
> > >
> > > Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
> > > I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "ricard1an" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he
> > > is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 22:12:07
The battle doubled up as a Paralympic Equestrian event.
----- Original Message -----
From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
> her comment that there would have been lots of people on the battlefield
> with scoliosis
... and who, uh, ended up buried in the choir of Greyfriars?
----- Original Message -----
From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
> her comment that there would have been lots of people on the battlefield
> with scoliosis
... and who, uh, ended up buried in the choir of Greyfriars?
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 22:17:17
So that makes three of us .....
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 21:09
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
I'm Welsh and I think the Tudors suck.
Sandra
From: liz williams
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:23 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 21:09
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
I'm Welsh and I think the Tudors suck.
Sandra
From: liz williams
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:23 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 22:24:34
The three Ricardeteers?
From: liz williams
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:17 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
So that makes three of us .....
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 21:09
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
I'm Welsh and I think the Tudors suck.
Sandra
From: liz williams
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:23 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
From: liz williams
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:17 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
So that makes three of us .....
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 21:09
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
I'm Welsh and I think the Tudors suck.
Sandra
From: liz williams
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:23 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
Re: Who deserves to be honoured? Was Did Richarcd destroy documents
2013-03-14 22:34:30
Not me....Pam B
On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:42 PM, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...<mailto:kathryn198@...>> wrote:
Correction - I just want to point out this bit was not mine but another poster, Ishita or Pam, I think. I went to the site from this link.
I can spell diminish, honestly! The pesky computer is at it again!
Elaine
> >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > >
> > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
>
> This is my comment to that website. You have to join to post messages so I am posting it here instead.
>
> To suggest that this should be a place of pilgrimage; who and what is to honour? "Pilgrimage" is a very strange and inappropriate word to use in this context. To suggest that people should visit the tomb of a traitor who was responsible for killing his king and that it is a badge of honour. Shame on all those who support this. The underlying reason, as mentioned, is to provide income and get financial assistance. What a money grubbing scheme by both the church and the councillors who obviously have no scruples. Pity they cannot find other ways to raise income and their profiles without resorting to this demeaning scheme which belittles and deminishes them.
>
> BTW I had a client once who claimed Rhys ap Thomas as one of his ancestors.
> Elaine
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > If you go into lots of mediaeval churches in England and Wales, and I have been in a few, there are lists of the people who were vicars of these churches but something that is common to all these lists is that, after about 1461 to 1465, there are no records then the next date is after 1485. This says to me that there are no records available.
> >
> > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > >
> > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> > >
> > >
> > > "Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
> > > filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
> > >
> > > This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
> > > that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
> > > VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
> > > his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
> > > to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
> > > It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
> > > suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
> > > communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
> > > during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
> > > campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
> > > the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
> > > Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
> > > 24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
> > > handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
> > > and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
> > > matter of Tudor policy.
> > >
> > > Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
> > > exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
> > > although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
> > > without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
> > > Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
> > > after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
> > > of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
> > > never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
> > > city records.
> > >
> > > It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
> > > exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
> > > centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
> > > Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
> > > surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
> > > be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
> > > It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
> > > records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
> > > would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
> > >
> > > As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
> > > have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
> > > the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
> > >
> > > The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
> > > that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
> > > Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
> > > doesn't support that position.
> > >
> > > One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
> > > the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
> > > Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
> > > immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
> > > non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
> > > biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
> > > Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
> > > as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
> > > time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
> > > such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
> > > line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
> > > established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
> > > Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
> > > who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
> > > ascension was some new clothes!"
> > >
> > >
> > > So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:42 PM, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...<mailto:kathryn198@...>> wrote:
Correction - I just want to point out this bit was not mine but another poster, Ishita or Pam, I think. I went to the site from this link.
I can spell diminish, honestly! The pesky computer is at it again!
Elaine
> >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > >
> > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
>
> This is my comment to that website. You have to join to post messages so I am posting it here instead.
>
> To suggest that this should be a place of pilgrimage; who and what is to honour? "Pilgrimage" is a very strange and inappropriate word to use in this context. To suggest that people should visit the tomb of a traitor who was responsible for killing his king and that it is a badge of honour. Shame on all those who support this. The underlying reason, as mentioned, is to provide income and get financial assistance. What a money grubbing scheme by both the church and the councillors who obviously have no scruples. Pity they cannot find other ways to raise income and their profiles without resorting to this demeaning scheme which belittles and deminishes them.
>
> BTW I had a client once who claimed Rhys ap Thomas as one of his ancestors.
> Elaine
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > If you go into lots of mediaeval churches in England and Wales, and I have been in a few, there are lists of the people who were vicars of these churches but something that is common to all these lists is that, after about 1461 to 1465, there are no records then the next date is after 1485. This says to me that there are no records available.
> >
> > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > >
> > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> > >
> > >
> > > "Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
> > > filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
> > >
> > > This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
> > > that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
> > > VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
> > > his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
> > > to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
> > > It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
> > > suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
> > > communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
> > > during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
> > > campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
> > > the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
> > > Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
> > > 24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
> > > handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
> > > and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
> > > matter of Tudor policy.
> > >
> > > Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
> > > exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
> > > although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
> > > without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
> > > Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
> > > after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
> > > of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
> > > never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
> > > city records.
> > >
> > > It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
> > > exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
> > > centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
> > > Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
> > > surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
> > > be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
> > > It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
> > > records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
> > > would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
> > >
> > > As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
> > > have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
> > > the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
> > >
> > > The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
> > > that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
> > > Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
> > > doesn't support that position.
> > >
> > > One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
> > > the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
> > > Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
> > > immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
> > > non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
> > > biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
> > > Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
> > > as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
> > > time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
> > > such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
> > > line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
> > > established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
> > > Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
> > > who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
> > > ascension was some new clothes!"
> > >
> > >
> > > So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 22:35:29
Exactly, it really makes you wonder where their powers of reasoning are.
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: ricard1an
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:01 PM
> Subject: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
>
>
> > her comment that there would have been lots of people on the battlefield
> > with scoliosis
>
> ... and who, uh, ended up buried in the choir of Greyfriars?
>
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: ricard1an
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:01 PM
> Subject: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
>
>
> > her comment that there would have been lots of people on the battlefield
> > with scoliosis
>
> ... and who, uh, ended up buried in the choir of Greyfriars?
>
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-14 22:45:10
Yes she is. I discovered it when she sent me a private message when I dared to mention that H7 was only a quarter Welsh.
--- In richard [email protected], Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Mary, that's the one!! I did not know she is pro Tudor. I always assume SKP fans are always pro Richard( silly me)!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 6:01 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> > Ishita thanks for this, I now know who she is. Katherine Pritchard Gibson. She lives at Garth Celyn where Llewellyn the Great used to live. He is the Welsh Prince, a real Welshman and Prince unlike H7, in Sharon's book "Here be Dragons". She gets really annoyed if anyone says anything bad about H7 and always seems to be promoting Garth Celyn. I think that people go there to look around.
> >
> > Just ignore her, she obviously knows very little judging by her comment that there would have been lots of people on the battlefield with scoliosis so how do we know it was Richard. She also is not convinced by the DNA tests. Hmm I think Dr Turi King might have something to say about that. You will have noticed that Sharon said that she was convinced that it was him.
> > Mary
> >
> > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Liz, go to SKP fan page on fb and under this particle you will find this person's comment. Also she writes that this skeleton might not be Richard's! I couldn't trust myself to comment.
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:23 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@>
> > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
> > > > I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "ricard1an" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he
> > > > is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
--- In richard [email protected], Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Mary, that's the one!! I did not know she is pro Tudor. I always assume SKP fans are always pro Richard( silly me)!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 6:01 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> > Ishita thanks for this, I now know who she is. Katherine Pritchard Gibson. She lives at Garth Celyn where Llewellyn the Great used to live. He is the Welsh Prince, a real Welshman and Prince unlike H7, in Sharon's book "Here be Dragons". She gets really annoyed if anyone says anything bad about H7 and always seems to be promoting Garth Celyn. I think that people go there to look around.
> >
> > Just ignore her, she obviously knows very little judging by her comment that there would have been lots of people on the battlefield with scoliosis so how do we know it was Richard. She also is not convinced by the DNA tests. Hmm I think Dr Turi King might have something to say about that. You will have noticed that Sharon said that she was convinced that it was him.
> > Mary
> >
> > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Liz, go to SKP fan page on fb and under this particle you will find this person's comment. Also she writes that this skeleton might not be Richard's! I couldn't trust myself to comment.
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:23 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@>
> > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
> > > > I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "ricard1an" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he
> > > > is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Who deserves to be honoured? Was Did Richarcd destroy documents
2013-03-14 23:04:47
I think there are at least three "Pams" on the forum. I go by Pamela and try to sign my posts so that people can differentiate.
Pamela Garrett
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Not me....Pam B
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:42 PM, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...<mailto:kathryn198@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Correction - I just want to point out this bit was not mine but another poster, Ishita or Pam, I think. I went to the site from this link.
> I can spell diminish, honestly! The pesky computer is at it again!
>
> Elaine
>
> > >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> >
> > This is my comment to that website. You have to join to post messages so I am posting it here instead.
> >
> > To suggest that this should be a place of pilgrimage; who and what is to honour? "Pilgrimage" is a very strange and inappropriate word to use in this context. To suggest that people should visit the tomb of a traitor who was responsible for killing his king and that it is a badge of honour. Shame on all those who support this. The underlying reason, as mentioned, is to provide income and get financial assistance. What a money grubbing scheme by both the church and the councillors who obviously have no scruples. Pity they cannot find other ways to raise income and their profiles without resorting to this demeaning scheme which belittles and deminishes them.
> >
> > BTW I had a client once who claimed Rhys ap Thomas as one of his ancestors.
> > Elaine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you go into lots of mediaeval churches in England and Wales, and I have been in a few, there are lists of the people who were vicars of these churches but something that is common to all these lists is that, after about 1461 to 1465, there are no records then the next date is after 1485. This says to me that there are no records available.
> > >
> > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
> > > > filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
> > > >
> > > > This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
> > > > that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
> > > > VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
> > > > his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
> > > > to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
> > > > It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
> > > > suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
> > > > communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
> > > > during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
> > > > campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
> > > > the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
> > > > Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
> > > > 24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
> > > > handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
> > > > and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
> > > > matter of Tudor policy.
> > > >
> > > > Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
> > > > exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
> > > > although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
> > > > without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
> > > > Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
> > > > after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
> > > > of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
> > > > never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
> > > > city records.
> > > >
> > > > It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
> > > > exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
> > > > centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
> > > > Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
> > > > surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
> > > > be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
> > > > It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
> > > > records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
> > > > would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
> > > >
> > > > As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
> > > > have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
> > > > the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
> > > >
> > > > The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
> > > > that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
> > > > Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
> > > > doesn't support that position.
> > > >
> > > > One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
> > > > the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
> > > > Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
> > > > immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
> > > > non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
> > > > biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
> > > > Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
> > > > as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
> > > > time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
> > > > such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
> > > > line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
> > > > established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
> > > > Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
> > > > who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
> > > > ascension was some new clothes!"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Pamela Garrett
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Not me....Pam B
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:42 PM, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...<mailto:kathryn198@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Correction - I just want to point out this bit was not mine but another poster, Ishita or Pam, I think. I went to the site from this link.
> I can spell diminish, honestly! The pesky computer is at it again!
>
> Elaine
>
> > >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> >
> > This is my comment to that website. You have to join to post messages so I am posting it here instead.
> >
> > To suggest that this should be a place of pilgrimage; who and what is to honour? "Pilgrimage" is a very strange and inappropriate word to use in this context. To suggest that people should visit the tomb of a traitor who was responsible for killing his king and that it is a badge of honour. Shame on all those who support this. The underlying reason, as mentioned, is to provide income and get financial assistance. What a money grubbing scheme by both the church and the councillors who obviously have no scruples. Pity they cannot find other ways to raise income and their profiles without resorting to this demeaning scheme which belittles and deminishes them.
> >
> > BTW I had a client once who claimed Rhys ap Thomas as one of his ancestors.
> > Elaine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you go into lots of mediaeval churches in England and Wales, and I have been in a few, there are lists of the people who were vicars of these churches but something that is common to all these lists is that, after about 1461 to 1465, there are no records then the next date is after 1485. This says to me that there are no records available.
> > >
> > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
> > > > filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
> > > >
> > > > This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
> > > > that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
> > > > VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
> > > > his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
> > > > to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
> > > > It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
> > > > suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
> > > > communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
> > > > during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
> > > > campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
> > > > the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
> > > > Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
> > > > 24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
> > > > handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
> > > > and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
> > > > matter of Tudor policy.
> > > >
> > > > Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
> > > > exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
> > > > although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
> > > > without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
> > > > Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
> > > > after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
> > > > of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
> > > > never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
> > > > city records.
> > > >
> > > > It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
> > > > exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
> > > > centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
> > > > Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
> > > > surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
> > > > be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
> > > > It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
> > > > records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
> > > > would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
> > > >
> > > > As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
> > > > have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
> > > > the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
> > > >
> > > > The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
> > > > that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
> > > > Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
> > > > doesn't support that position.
> > > >
> > > > One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
> > > > the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
> > > > Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
> > > > immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
> > > > non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
> > > > biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
> > > > Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
> > > > as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
> > > > time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
> > > > such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
> > > > line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
> > > > established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
> > > > Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
> > > > who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
> > > > ascension was some new clothes!"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Who deserves to be honoured? Was Did Richarcd destroy documents
2013-03-14 23:17:06
I don't sign at all.....I can, if that would help. I can be Pammy!
On Mar 14, 2013, at 6:04 PM, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@...<mailto:ownwrite101@...>> wrote:
I think there are at least three "Pams" on the forum. I go by Pamela and try to sign my posts so that people can differentiate.
Pamela Garrett
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Not me....Pam B
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:42 PM, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...<mailto:kathryn198@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Correction - I just want to point out this bit was not mine but another poster, Ishita or Pam, I think. I went to the site from this link.
> I can spell diminish, honestly! The pesky computer is at it again!
>
> Elaine
>
> > >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> >
> > This is my comment to that website. You have to join to post messages so I am posting it here instead.
> >
> > To suggest that this should be a place of pilgrimage; who and what is to honour? "Pilgrimage" is a very strange and inappropriate word to use in this context. To suggest that people should visit the tomb of a traitor who was responsible for killing his king and that it is a badge of honour. Shame on all those who support this. The underlying reason, as mentioned, is to provide income and get financial assistance. What a money grubbing scheme by both the church and the councillors who obviously have no scruples. Pity they cannot find other ways to raise income and their profiles without resorting to this demeaning scheme which belittles and deminishes them.
> >
> > BTW I had a client once who claimed Rhys ap Thomas as one of his ancestors.
> > Elaine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you go into lots of mediaeval churches in England and Wales, and I have been in a few, there are lists of the people who were vicars of these churches but something that is common to all these lists is that, after about 1461 to 1465, there are no records then the next date is after 1485. This says to me that there are no records available.
> > >
> > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
> > > > filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
> > > >
> > > > This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
> > > > that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
> > > > VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
> > > > his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
> > > > to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
> > > > It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
> > > > suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
> > > > communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
> > > > during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
> > > > campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
> > > > the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
> > > > Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
> > > > 24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
> > > > handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
> > > > and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
> > > > matter of Tudor policy.
> > > >
> > > > Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
> > > > exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
> > > > although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
> > > > without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
> > > > Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
> > > > after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
> > > > of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
> > > > never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
> > > > city records.
> > > >
> > > > It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
> > > > exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
> > > > centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
> > > > Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
> > > > surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
> > > > be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
> > > > It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
> > > > records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
> > > > would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
> > > >
> > > > As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
> > > > have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
> > > > the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
> > > >
> > > > The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
> > > > that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
> > > > Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
> > > > doesn't support that position.
> > > >
> > > > One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
> > > > the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
> > > > Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
> > > > immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
> > > > non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
> > > > biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
> > > > Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
> > > > as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
> > > > time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
> > > > such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
> > > > line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
> > > > established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
> > > > Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
> > > > who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
> > > > ascension was some new clothes!"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
On Mar 14, 2013, at 6:04 PM, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@...<mailto:ownwrite101@...>> wrote:
I think there are at least three "Pams" on the forum. I go by Pamela and try to sign my posts so that people can differentiate.
Pamela Garrett
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Not me....Pam B
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:42 PM, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...<mailto:kathryn198@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Correction - I just want to point out this bit was not mine but another poster, Ishita or Pam, I think. I went to the site from this link.
> I can spell diminish, honestly! The pesky computer is at it again!
>
> Elaine
>
> > >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > >>This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> >
> > This is my comment to that website. You have to join to post messages so I am posting it here instead.
> >
> > To suggest that this should be a place of pilgrimage; who and what is to honour? "Pilgrimage" is a very strange and inappropriate word to use in this context. To suggest that people should visit the tomb of a traitor who was responsible for killing his king and that it is a badge of honour. Shame on all those who support this. The underlying reason, as mentioned, is to provide income and get financial assistance. What a money grubbing scheme by both the church and the councillors who obviously have no scruples. Pity they cannot find other ways to raise income and their profiles without resorting to this demeaning scheme which belittles and deminishes them.
> >
> > BTW I had a client once who claimed Rhys ap Thomas as one of his ancestors.
> > Elaine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you go into lots of mediaeval churches in England and Wales, and I have been in a few, there are lists of the people who were vicars of these churches but something that is common to all these lists is that, after about 1461 to 1465, there are no records then the next date is after 1485. This says to me that there are no records available.
> > >
> > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is a comment from one of the forums I visit. By someone who works for Wales Heritage. In answer to this article:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/King-s-killer-big-draw-Carmarthen/story-18199116-detail/story.html#axzz2NQpmz9zP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Ricardians like to portray the Tudnors as wholesale document-shredders who ensured that documents approving of Richard III were destroyed after his death, leaving only those critical of him. We are then told that the Tudors
> > > > filled the void with their own propaganda. Well.....
> > > >
> > > > This is a convenient rationale for the rejection of contemporary sources
> > > > that the Ricardians turn a blind eye to. Because it is known that Henry
> > > > VII suppressed and destroyed copies of the "Titilus Regius" identifying
> > > > his Queen as a bastard and recognizing Richard's title, we are supposed
> > > > to assume that other documents favorable to Richard were destroyed.
> > > > It is possible that other documents besides the "Titulus Regius" were
> > > > suppressed by the Tudors, just as we know that Richard suppressed the
> > > > communications of his opposition and that his clerks altered documents
> > > > during his reign. If Richard, his officers, and clerks began such a
> > > > campaign against his opposition and the supporters of Edward V during
> > > > the course of his brief 26-month reign, it would be naive to think that
> > > > Henry Tudor didn't indulge in similar actions during the course of his
> > > > 24-year reign. However, it is one thing to point to one instance, or a
> > > > handful of instances and then assume the likelihood of other instances,
> > > > and another to declare as fact that wholesale document-shredding was a
> > > > matter of Tudor policy.
> > > >
> > > > Such a theory overlooks the fact that documents favorable to Richard do
> > > > exist. The letter from Thomas Langdon, who declared that Richard pleased the people wherever he went managed to survive the Tudor dynasty,
> > > > although this letter is often quoted as proof of Richard's popularity
> > > > without any mention that Richard III also made Langdon Bishop of St.
> > > > Davids and, later, Bishop of Salisbury. Also, contrary to the contention that Richard's supporters were harrassed and persecuted by the Tudors
> > > > after Bosworth, Langdon later became Archbishop of Canterbury, and both
> > > > of Richard's clerical supporters the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Bishop of Durham officiated at Tudor's coronation. Also, the City of York was
> > > > never forced to expunge the favorable references to Richard from their
> > > > city records.
> > > >
> > > > It is possible that contemporary documents in Richard's favor may still
> > > > exist somewhere. It seems remarkable that this might be so, after five
> > > > centuries, but new contemporary sources can arise anytime, just as
> > > > Dominic Mancini's December 1483 account The Usurpation of Richard III
> > > > surfaced in the mid-1930's. Should such documentation surface, it would
> > > > be welcomed as a fresh perspective to our understanding of those times.
> > > > It would not, however, diminish the importances of other contemporary
> > > > records that show Richard in an unfavorable light. The two perspectives
> > > > would coexist, and we would be all the better for it.
> > > >
> > > > As for the argument that the Tudors were wholesale document-shredders, we
> > > > have little evidence that this is true. Centuries of scholars of both
> > > > the Yorkist and Tudor periods have not uncovered evidence that this was a matter of Tudor policy.
> > > >
> > > > The argument that the Tudors embarked on a campaign to smear Richard's good name rests on the assumption that Richard had a good name to smear and
> > > > that Richard was generally held in high regard when he was killed at
> > > > Bosworth. This requires that we reject every contemporary record that
> > > > doesn't support that position.
> > > >
> > > > One of the most tired arguments for rejecting the contemporary records is
> > > > the rationale that any source with a tie to France, Wales, Margaret
> > > > Beaufort, Henry Tudor, John Morton, or the Woodvilles must be
> > > > immediately discredited, even if the tie is weak, irrelevant, or
> > > > non-existent. Thus, we have Ricardian supporterss searching the
> > > > biographies of Richard's opposition for such ties. We are to accept that Morton and Tudor orchestrated a public relations campaign to smear
> > > > Richard's name that would have impressed Goebbels less than a year after Bosworth, since anti-Ricardian accounts and poetry started to surface
> > > > as early as 1486. (Perhaps some of these were created during Richard's
> > > > time but were suppressed until his death?) We are expected to consider
> > > > such critics liars, seduced by fear and self-interest to tow the Tudor
> > > > line. We are expected to believe that Tudor was so powerful and
> > > > established that he had nothing better to do in the year following
> > > > Bosworth than to plant stooges to dream up propaganda. This from a King
> > > > who was so poor that one of the first things he needed upon his
> > > > ascension was some new clothes!"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So What documents did he destroy? What things did he have to suppress? And who did he rack?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-15 01:57:40
Jeez! H7 can do no wrong and R3 can do no right! That must be her motto.
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 14, 2013, at 6:45 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> Yes she is. I discovered it when she sent me a private message when I dared to mention that H7 was only a quarter Welsh.
>
> --- In richard [email protected], Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Mary, that's the one!! I did not know she is pro Tudor. I always assume SKP fans are always pro Richard( silly me)!
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Mar 14, 2013, at 6:01 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Ishita thanks for this, I now know who she is. Katherine Pritchard Gibson. She lives at Garth Celyn where Llewellyn the Great used to live. He is the Welsh Prince, a real Welshman and Prince unlike H7, in Sharon's book "Here be Dragons". She gets really annoyed if anyone says anything bad about H7 and always seems to be promoting Garth Celyn. I think that people go there to look around.
> > >
> > > Just ignore her, she obviously knows very little judging by her comment that there would have been lots of people on the battlefield with scoliosis so how do we know it was Richard. She also is not convinced by the DNA tests. Hmm I think Dr Turi King might have something to say about that. You will have noticed that Sharon said that she was convinced that it was him.
> > > Mary
> > >
> > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Liz, go to SKP fan page on fb and under this particle you will find this person's comment. Also she writes that this skeleton might not be Richard's! I couldn't trust myself to comment.
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:23 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
> > > > > I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "ricard1an" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he
> > > > > is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 14, 2013, at 6:45 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> Yes she is. I discovered it when she sent me a private message when I dared to mention that H7 was only a quarter Welsh.
>
> --- In richard [email protected], Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Mary, that's the one!! I did not know she is pro Tudor. I always assume SKP fans are always pro Richard( silly me)!
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Mar 14, 2013, at 6:01 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Ishita thanks for this, I now know who she is. Katherine Pritchard Gibson. She lives at Garth Celyn where Llewellyn the Great used to live. He is the Welsh Prince, a real Welshman and Prince unlike H7, in Sharon's book "Here be Dragons". She gets really annoyed if anyone says anything bad about H7 and always seems to be promoting Garth Celyn. I think that people go there to look around.
> > >
> > > Just ignore her, she obviously knows very little judging by her comment that there would have been lots of people on the battlefield with scoliosis so how do we know it was Richard. She also is not convinced by the DNA tests. Hmm I think Dr Turi King might have something to say about that. You will have noticed that Sharon said that she was convinced that it was him.
> > > Mary
> > >
> > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Liz, go to SKP fan page on fb and under this particle you will find this person's comment. Also she writes that this skeleton might not be Richard's! I couldn't trust myself to comment.
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:23 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Is she Welsh? Because honestly a lot of Welsh people seem think The Tydder (doesn't that sound like a nasty kind of animal?) was the bees knees because he was "Welsh" and became the King of England. He did bugger all for Wales but they don't seem to understand that.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@>
> > > > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:16
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol, that's exactly right. I have been in too many skirmish within last month to start another one..... I am just exhausted with people's superiority complex and complete assurance that Richard is guilty on every account. This is by far the newest accusation and considering this person works for Wales heritage, you would expect her to know better!
> > > > > I completely agree we need a book on Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mar 14, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "ricard1an" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If the records had not been destroyed why don't we have records of Richard's reign? Contemporary sources have been rejected because they have been found wanting. Does this person think that John Rous and his statement that Richard was two years in his mother's womb is correct? More is full of inconsistencies and Mancini could not speak English and the Crowland Chronicler is firmly on the side of the Woodvilles. This person really needs to buy a copy of"Maligned King". I have never heard that Richard suppressed or altered documents, has anyone else heard this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, that's one charge I've never heard leveled against him. Someone should ask this supposed authority where he found that "information." It's certainly true that documents are missing, but they're documents that would almost certainly favor Richard's cause, such as the codicil to Edward's will and the minutes of the council meetings, including the one that ended in the execution of Hastings.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the meantime, as this person says, there are extant records favorable to Richard. What he or she doesn't seem to realize is that those records largely contradict the prejudiced and/or uninformed accounts of the Croyland chronicler and Mancini. We urgently need a new biography of Richard that makes better use of those documents, not just a rehash of familiar ideas, but a whole new look at the Richard revealed in everything from his signatures and mottoes to the York Records. The author would need to be thoroughly familiar with both Latin and the English of Richard's time or work in conjunction with someone (such as Livia Visser-Fuchs) who has that expertise and have impeccable credentials as a historian. If such a person convincingly revealed the gaps, contradictions, and biases in the two chronicles that we're forced to rely on for lack of an objective record of certain events, people like this seemingly knowledgeable Welsh archivist (or whatever he
> > > > > is; can't access the original post) would have less influence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-15 09:47:39
I Like It!!
Fair bit of Oscar Pistorius [With Swords!!]
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 22:11
>Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
>
>
>
>The battle doubled up as a Paralympic Equestrian event.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Claire M Jordan
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:16 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
>
>From: ricard1an
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:01 PM
>Subject: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
>
>> her comment that there would have been lots of people on the battlefield
>> with scoliosis
>
>... and who, uh, ended up buried in the choir of Greyfriars?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Fair bit of Oscar Pistorius [With Swords!!]
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 22:11
>Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
>
>
>
>The battle doubled up as a Paralympic Equestrian event.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Claire M Jordan
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:16 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
>
>From: ricard1an
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:01 PM
>Subject: Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
>
>> her comment that there would have been lots of people on the battlefield
>> with scoliosis
>
>... and who, uh, ended up buried in the choir of Greyfriars?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-15 15:40:21
pansydobersby wrote:
> Makes me think of an adder with a tiger's head ;)
>
> "Tydder, Tydder, burning bright,
> In the forests of the night..."
Carol responds:
Blake's Tyger is too terrible and splendid for the Tydder. Maybe he was A. A. Milne's Tigger (so cheap that his stuffing is falling out so that he looks thin and shabby, and fed a diet of vinegar rather than "hunny," which explains his sour expression) with a wasp for a mother and an asp for a key advisor.
Carol
> Makes me think of an adder with a tiger's head ;)
>
> "Tydder, Tydder, burning bright,
> In the forests of the night..."
Carol responds:
Blake's Tyger is too terrible and splendid for the Tydder. Maybe he was A. A. Milne's Tigger (so cheap that his stuffing is falling out so that he looks thin and shabby, and fed a diet of vinegar rather than "hunny," which explains his sour expression) with a wasp for a mother and an asp for a key advisor.
Carol
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-15 15:43:14
"ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Ishita thanks for this, I now know who she is. Katherine Pritchard Gibson. She lives at Garth Celyn where Llewellyn the Great used to live. He is the Welsh Prince, a real Welshman and Prince unlike H7, in Sharon's book "Here be Dragons". She gets really annoyed if anyone says anything bad about H7 and always seems to be promoting Garth Celyn. I think that people go there to look around. [snip]
Carol responds:
You might tactfully remind Ms. Gibson that Richard was descended from Llewellyn the Great--and Henry VII from his steward!
Carol
>
> Ishita thanks for this, I now know who she is. Katherine Pritchard Gibson. She lives at Garth Celyn where Llewellyn the Great used to live. He is the Welsh Prince, a real Welshman and Prince unlike H7, in Sharon's book "Here be Dragons". She gets really annoyed if anyone says anything bad about H7 and always seems to be promoting Garth Celyn. I think that people go there to look around. [snip]
Carol responds:
You might tactfully remind Ms. Gibson that Richard was descended from Llewellyn the Great--and Henry VII from his steward!
Carol
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-15 16:07:02
Way back in 1999, when the LMB ("Late Medieval Britain") group was going
through a fun fit of Millennial fever, I claimed to have found this verse,
called "Henry's Lament", in a crack in floor of the Cluny Museum in Paris
(where I'd recently been):
"Oh gyve mee a throne
That wold be myne alowne;
Ye one there in Englande wold doe,
Unfortunatlie
Ye spotte is notte free,
`Tis a real, live Plantagenet stew.
Wylde, wylde is ye see!
That Channel that roareth `gainst mee.
But mother awaits
With mie bryde at hir gates
And soonne with a crowne I schall be."
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> pansydobersby wrote:
>
> > Makes me think of an adder with a tiger's head ;)
> >
> > "Tydder, Tydder, burning bright,
> > In the forests of the night..."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Blake's Tyger is too terrible and splendid for the Tydder. Maybe he was A.
> A. Milne's Tigger (so cheap that his stuffing is falling out so that he
> looks thin and shabby, and fed a diet of vinegar rather than "hunny," which
> explains his sour expression) with a wasp for a mother and an asp for a key
> advisor.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
through a fun fit of Millennial fever, I claimed to have found this verse,
called "Henry's Lament", in a crack in floor of the Cluny Museum in Paris
(where I'd recently been):
"Oh gyve mee a throne
That wold be myne alowne;
Ye one there in Englande wold doe,
Unfortunatlie
Ye spotte is notte free,
`Tis a real, live Plantagenet stew.
Wylde, wylde is ye see!
That Channel that roareth `gainst mee.
But mother awaits
With mie bryde at hir gates
And soonne with a crowne I schall be."
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> pansydobersby wrote:
>
> > Makes me think of an adder with a tiger's head ;)
> >
> > "Tydder, Tydder, burning bright,
> > In the forests of the night..."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Blake's Tyger is too terrible and splendid for the Tydder. Maybe he was A.
> A. Milne's Tigger (so cheap that his stuffing is falling out so that he
> looks thin and shabby, and fed a diet of vinegar rather than "hunny," which
> explains his sour expression) with a wasp for a mother and an asp for a key
> advisor.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-15 16:35:55
That's very funny. LMB wasn't Geoffrey Richardson involved in that forum?
--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> Way back in 1999, when the LMB ("Late Medieval Britain") group was going
> through a fun fit of Millennial fever, I claimed to have found this verse,
> called "Henry's Lament", in a crack in floor of the Cluny Museum in Paris
> (where I'd recently been):
>
> "Oh gyve mee a throne
>
> That wold be myne alowne;
>
> Ye one there in Englande wold doe,
>
> Unfortunatlie
>
> Ye spotte is notte free,
>
> `Tis a real, live Plantagenet stew.
>
>
>
> Wylde, wylde is ye see!
>
> That Channel that roareth `gainst mee.
>
> But mother awaits
>
> With mie bryde at hir gates
> And soonne with a crowne I schall be."
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > pansydobersby wrote:
> >
> > > Makes me think of an adder with a tiger's head ;)
> > >
> > > "Tydder, Tydder, burning bright,
> > > In the forests of the night..."
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Blake's Tyger is too terrible and splendid for the Tydder. Maybe he was A.
> > A. Milne's Tigger (so cheap that his stuffing is falling out so that he
> > looks thin and shabby, and fed a diet of vinegar rather than "hunny," which
> > explains his sour expression) with a wasp for a mother and an asp for a key
> > advisor.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> Way back in 1999, when the LMB ("Late Medieval Britain") group was going
> through a fun fit of Millennial fever, I claimed to have found this verse,
> called "Henry's Lament", in a crack in floor of the Cluny Museum in Paris
> (where I'd recently been):
>
> "Oh gyve mee a throne
>
> That wold be myne alowne;
>
> Ye one there in Englande wold doe,
>
> Unfortunatlie
>
> Ye spotte is notte free,
>
> `Tis a real, live Plantagenet stew.
>
>
>
> Wylde, wylde is ye see!
>
> That Channel that roareth `gainst mee.
>
> But mother awaits
>
> With mie bryde at hir gates
> And soonne with a crowne I schall be."
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > pansydobersby wrote:
> >
> > > Makes me think of an adder with a tiger's head ;)
> > >
> > > "Tydder, Tydder, burning bright,
> > > In the forests of the night..."
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Blake's Tyger is too terrible and splendid for the Tydder. Maybe he was A.
> > A. Milne's Tigger (so cheap that his stuffing is falling out so that he
> > looks thin and shabby, and fed a diet of vinegar rather than "hunny," which
> > explains his sour expression) with a wasp for a mother and an asp for a key
> > advisor.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-15 16:46:57
Yes he was - a lovely gentleman.
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:35 PM, ricard1an <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> That's very funny. LMB wasn't Geoffrey Richardson involved in that forum?
>
>
> --- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Way back in 1999, when the LMB ("Late Medieval Britain") group was going
> > through a fun fit of Millennial fever, I claimed to have found this
> verse,
> > called "Henry's Lament", in a crack in floor of the Cluny Museum in Paris
> > (where I'd recently been):
> >
> > "Oh gyve mee a throne
> >
> > That wold be myne alowne;
> >
> > Ye one there in Englande wold doe,
> >
> > Unfortunatlie
> >
> > Ye spotte is notte free,
> >
> > `Tis a real, live Plantagenet stew.
> >
> >
> >
> > Wylde, wylde is ye see!
> >
> > That Channel that roareth `gainst mee.
> >
> > But mother awaits
> >
> > With mie bryde at hir gates
> > And soonne with a crowne I schall be."
> >
> > Maria
> > ejbronte@...
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > pansydobersby wrote:
> > >
> > > > Makes me think of an adder with a tiger's head ;)
> > > >
> > > > "Tydder, Tydder, burning bright,
> > > > In the forests of the night..."
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Blake's Tyger is too terrible and splendid for the Tydder. Maybe he
> was A.
> > > A. Milne's Tigger (so cheap that his stuffing is falling out so that he
> > > looks thin and shabby, and fed a diet of vinegar rather than "hunny,"
> which
> > > explains his sour expression) with a wasp for a mother and an asp for
> a key
> > > advisor.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:35 PM, ricard1an <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> That's very funny. LMB wasn't Geoffrey Richardson involved in that forum?
>
>
> --- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Way back in 1999, when the LMB ("Late Medieval Britain") group was going
> > through a fun fit of Millennial fever, I claimed to have found this
> verse,
> > called "Henry's Lament", in a crack in floor of the Cluny Museum in Paris
> > (where I'd recently been):
> >
> > "Oh gyve mee a throne
> >
> > That wold be myne alowne;
> >
> > Ye one there in Englande wold doe,
> >
> > Unfortunatlie
> >
> > Ye spotte is notte free,
> >
> > `Tis a real, live Plantagenet stew.
> >
> >
> >
> > Wylde, wylde is ye see!
> >
> > That Channel that roareth `gainst mee.
> >
> > But mother awaits
> >
> > With mie bryde at hir gates
> > And soonne with a crowne I schall be."
> >
> > Maria
> > ejbronte@...
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > pansydobersby wrote:
> > >
> > > > Makes me think of an adder with a tiger's head ;)
> > > >
> > > > "Tydder, Tydder, burning bright,
> > > > In the forests of the night..."
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Blake's Tyger is too terrible and splendid for the Tydder. Maybe he
> was A.
> > > A. Milne's Tigger (so cheap that his stuffing is falling out so that he
> > > looks thin and shabby, and fed a diet of vinegar rather than "hunny,"
> which
> > > explains his sour expression) with a wasp for a mother and an asp for
> a key
> > > advisor.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Re: What documents did Richard destroy?
2013-03-15 22:59:59
Yes he was.
--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> Yes he was - a lovely gentleman.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:35 PM, ricard1an <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > That's very funny. LMB wasn't Geoffrey Richardson involved in that forum?
> >
> >
> > --- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Way back in 1999, when the LMB ("Late Medieval Britain") group was going
> > > through a fun fit of Millennial fever, I claimed to have found this
> > verse,
> > > called "Henry's Lament", in a crack in floor of the Cluny Museum in Paris
> > > (where I'd recently been):
> > >
> > > "Oh gyve mee a throne
> > >
> > > That wold be myne alowne;
> > >
> > > Ye one there in Englande wold doe,
> > >
> > > Unfortunatlie
> > >
> > > Ye spotte is notte free,
> > >
> > > `Tis a real, live Plantagenet stew.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Wylde, wylde is ye see!
> > >
> > > That Channel that roareth `gainst mee.
> > >
> > > But mother awaits
> > >
> > > With mie bryde at hir gates
> > > And soonne with a crowne I schall be."
> > >
> > > Maria
> > > ejbronte@
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > pansydobersby wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Makes me think of an adder with a tiger's head ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tydder, Tydder, burning bright,
> > > > > In the forests of the night..."
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Blake's Tyger is too terrible and splendid for the Tydder. Maybe he
> > was A.
> > > > A. Milne's Tigger (so cheap that his stuffing is falling out so that he
> > > > looks thin and shabby, and fed a diet of vinegar rather than "hunny,"
> > which
> > > > explains his sour expression) with a wasp for a mother and an asp for
> > a key
> > > > advisor.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> Yes he was - a lovely gentleman.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:35 PM, ricard1an <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > That's very funny. LMB wasn't Geoffrey Richardson involved in that forum?
> >
> >
> > --- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Way back in 1999, when the LMB ("Late Medieval Britain") group was going
> > > through a fun fit of Millennial fever, I claimed to have found this
> > verse,
> > > called "Henry's Lament", in a crack in floor of the Cluny Museum in Paris
> > > (where I'd recently been):
> > >
> > > "Oh gyve mee a throne
> > >
> > > That wold be myne alowne;
> > >
> > > Ye one there in Englande wold doe,
> > >
> > > Unfortunatlie
> > >
> > > Ye spotte is notte free,
> > >
> > > `Tis a real, live Plantagenet stew.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Wylde, wylde is ye see!
> > >
> > > That Channel that roareth `gainst mee.
> > >
> > > But mother awaits
> > >
> > > With mie bryde at hir gates
> > > And soonne with a crowne I schall be."
> > >
> > > Maria
> > > ejbronte@
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > pansydobersby wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Makes me think of an adder with a tiger's head ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tydder, Tydder, burning bright,
> > > > > In the forests of the night..."
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Blake's Tyger is too terrible and splendid for the Tydder. Maybe he
> > was A.
> > > > A. Milne's Tigger (so cheap that his stuffing is falling out so that he
> > > > looks thin and shabby, and fed a diet of vinegar rather than "hunny,"
> > which
> > > > explains his sour expression) with a wasp for a mother and an asp for
> > a key
> > > > advisor.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.