Help for Richard Essay

I am doing an essay on Richards innocence for a history course.
What major points can i use to validate his innocence?
If you can help, thank you
-mike

--- In , "saucymanmike"
<saucymanmike@y...> wrote:
> I am doing an essay on Richards innocence for a history course.
> What major points can i use to validate his innocence?
> If you can help, thank you
> -mike

I suppose the first question is - innocence of what? Are you tslking
about the Princes issue only or all the crimes attributed to Richard,
including conniving at a throne to which he had no right and
eliminating any who would stand up for Truth and Right on that issue.


On the latter, I agree with the last writer. Also, I do believe that
Michael K. Jones has it right when he argues that Edward IV was
probably not york's son. Only this makes sense of Clarence and
Warwick. And it makes much better sense of the strong support Richard
apparently had from his mother and sister Margaret of Burgundy. If
Rivers and co were not planning to get Edward V to London without
Richard, why was his cortege on the point of riding out of Stony
Stratford when Richard and Buckingham arrived in the early hours of
the morning?
Also, if there was no Hastings conspiracy, why does the collection of
letters belonging to the Calais-based merchant family the Celys
include a strangely-worded note about the events of 13th June with
symbols above certain words which bear a remarkable resemblance to
secret codes of the period such as that used by Perkin Warbeck, and
with the name of the Prior of St Johns (a royal councillor hostile to
Richard) at the bottom? Remember, Hastings was Captain of Calais. Why
had Richard sent urgently for reinforcements from York and Lord
Neville only three or four days earlier? The letters sound genuinely
panicked. Why did he bother having the houses of suspects searched
after Hastings' execution - just for show? And wehy did the Queen
still trust his honour enough to give her younger son into his
keeping three days later?
As for the Princes, if he had been the sort of person to have
consolidated his position by deliberately ordering the deaths of the
Princes he would have revealed the facts of their deaths and exposed
their bodies (no point in doing it otherwise), and he would logically
have made some move to neutralise the other male cadidate who stood
before him in the strict line of primogeniture: Warwick, and would
have neutralised the threat from Tudor by marrying off Elizabeth of
York and her adult sisters. He didn't even imprison Warwick but
knighted him and appointed him to the Council of the North.
The fact that he did not display the Princes alive to neutralise
Tudor's plans may have been for two reasons:
1) He didn't wish people to know where they were or have another
rebellion start up around them
2) He had sent them abroad
3) He himself didn't know what had become of one or both of them.
That could be looked at in the context of Perkin Warbeck's story that
he and his brother had been taken by a certain lord to be killed, but
that this lord had spared him and sent him abroad, having first got
him to swear a aolemn oath not to reveal his identity for a certain
number of years. In no surviving document from the Yorkist side does
Perkin name Richard in connection with the murder plot, though he has
plenty to say about the evil usurper Henry Tudor. Molinet says
Buckingham took pity on York because he was his godson. We have no
record that this was the case but it is quite likely as York was born
in Shrewsbury on the Welsh border.
4) Whoever 'Perkin Warbeck' was, he doesn't seem likely to have been
Peter Warbeck. The family were from a very rough area, and although
the confession claims that he was educated at a cathedral school, it
completely fails to explain his perfect command of court English,
perfect court manners, perfect handwriting, perfect everything. Nor
did the Warbecks apparently show any interest in their 'son' in
prison in England. For propaganda purposes Henry sent Tournai a
letter from Perkin to his mother, but it got her first name wrong! A
surviving document from Tournai even names 'Perrechon' Warbeck as a
minor still at home with mum after the Pretender was dead.
Credibility to Henry's story of a feigned boy comes from the fact
that there had apparently already been another Yorkist rebellion
fronted up by a feigned boy - 'Lambert Simnel'. But there is no real
reason to believe the boy Henry kept as 'Lambert Simnel' actually
wasvthe pretender. The name is highly suspect (see earlier messages
on this forum), Henry's sources could never keep the story straight
about his father's occupation, AND there is apparently a document
from Margaret of Burgundy's household showing purchases for Warwick
in 1486. The displays of the priest William Simons and the Earl of
Warwick in February 1487 were stage-managed by Morton and seem highly
suspect. Certainly in the cas of Simons, as he never appeared again
and the Act of Attainder against the Yorkist rebels that autumn said
he was not captured until the Battle of Stoke - in June - and that
his name was Richard Simons. How could an Oxford priest train a boy
up to pose as a prince and convince Edward's old courtiers, anyway?
It is quite possible that Warwick had indeed escaped, and on his
capture at Stoke was slipped into the Tower (where Henry had said he
was all along), and a deal done with a young orphan to provide him
with a job and promotion prospects on condition he kept up his part.

Will that help?

Marie

Mike
Could I respectfuly start by asking innocent of what?:-)
Smart ass reply maybe, but one has to have a crime to have a guilty or
innocent person, and I do not believe Richard committed any crimes.
Perhaps you could approach the subject with what he has been accused of by
the likes of More and the Tudor propaganda peddlers, and deconstruct the
myth that way.
And leave the disappearance of his nephews to the end. That¹ll surprise
people!
Points to discuss?
He was a usurper.
He was responsible for the fall and execution of his brother George.
He was cruel and hypocritical.
He murdered his nephews having stolen the throne from the eldest.
He murdered his wife in order to marry his niece.
Oh and when talking about his behaviour, talk about the Harrington case and
how if he hadn¹t supported these comparatively Œlittle¹ men against the
King¹s wishes and the Stanleys, maybe Bosworth would have had a different
result. This also shows Richard at his very best. When you know this story
and how he handled the affair, you end up loving the man even more. Gives
loyalty a great name.
Paul

> From: "saucymanmike" <saucymanmike@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:18:57 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Help for Richard Essay
>
> I am doing an essay on Richards innocence for a history course.
> What major points can i use to validate his innocence?
> If you can help, thank you
> -mike
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Mike asked: What major points can I use to validate
his innocence?

***

Until an impartial international team has established
through DNA testing that the bones presently on
display are those of Richard's nephews, those bones
should not be considered evidence for the murder of
Richard's nephews. Right now, no one knows for sure
who those bones belonged to.

There's no proof that Richard's nephews were murdered
in the Tower. There's no proof that they were
murdered at all.

If an impartial international team ever establishes
that the DNA of the bones has no connection to Edward
IV or his family, the Tudor myth should be discredited
once and for all.

Have you visited http://www.r3.org? There's a good
article by Isolde Wigram, which you might find
helpful. It's called: "Were the "Princes in the Tower"
Murdered?"

You'll find lots of other good information at this
website. It offers two search engines, so you can go
straight to a specific topic. Or you can browse
around the way I like to do.

Good luck with your essay,

Marion



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

> Oh and when talking about his behaviour, talk about the Harrington
case and
> how if he hadn¹t supported these comparatively Œlittle¹ men against
the
> King¹s wishes and the Stanleys, maybe Bosworth would have had a
different
> result. This also shows Richard at his very best. When you know
this story
> and how he handled the affair, you end up loving the man even more.
Gives
> loyalty a great name.
> Paul
>

Could someone tell me briefly what was the Harrington Case. Excuse me
for my ignorance.

Helen

--- In , "Helen"
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
> > Oh and when talking about his behaviour, talk about the
Harrington
> case and
> > how if he hadn¹t supported these comparatively Œlittle¹ men
against
> the
> > King¹s wishes and the Stanleys, maybe Bosworth would have had a
> different
> > result. This also shows Richard at his very best. When you know
> this story
> > and how he handled the affair, you end up loving the man even
more.
> Gives
> > loyalty a great name.
> > Paul
> >
>
> Could someone tell me briefly what was the Harrington Case. Excuse
me
> for my ignorance.
>
> Helen

Hi Helen.

I gues to be fair I should quoye two opposing spins on the subject:

1) Michael Hicks, 'Richard III' (revised edition, 2000):
"He backed Sir James Harrington, a younger son who claimed the
Harrington family estate and Hornby Castle, against his nieces, the
daughters of his elder brother, who were backed by Thomas Lord
Stanley. When the dispute was investigated, the court of chancery
found in favour of the nieces and subsequently arbitrators including
Warwick had awarded their guardianship to Stanley, who had promptly
married them to his own younger son and a Stanley cousin. Sir James
Harrington, however, refused to give way, clung on to Hornby Castle,
and found in Richard a new patron prepared to back him against all
comers. On 25 March 1470 the king referred to a variance between the
duke and Stanleys, perhaps the 'fond fray' between their tenants near
the Ribble mentioned in much later Stanley verses, and Richard was
certainly at Hornby Castle next day, 26 March 1470. . . . It was not
in fact until 1475 that Harrington settled the dispute.
This neglected episode reveals unfortunate traits in Richard's
character. His acquisitiveness, his impatience with opposition, his
over-commitment to his client, his tenacity and his unwillingness to
accept the king's ruling recur later in his career, fortunately never
again in such an unbridled manner."

2) Michael K. Jones 'Bosworth 1485' (2002)
"And Stanley sights were fixed on a particular castle, that of Hornby
in northern Lancashire. It was an impressive fortress, with its great
gates, battlements and keep set high above the confluence of two
rivers, dominating the great north road from Lancaster to Carlisle,
It belonged to the Harringtons.
The Harringtons were a prosperous gentry family who had suffered
their own disaster at the battle of Wakefield, for they had been key
members of the army led by Richard's father, the Duke of York. The
head of the family was killed in the action; his eldest son John died
of his wounds the next day. This calamity left part of the family
inheritance vulnerable, for by the terms of landed estate, Hornby was
then to pass to John's young daughters as heiresses of the estate.
This gave the Stanleys a chance to intervene. In quite predatory
fashion they used their influence at court to gain control of the
girls. They then carried them off and forcibly married them, one to
their own kin, another to a chief supporter. This gave them a right
to the Harrington lands at Hornby. Their behaviour should remind us
that Richard III held no monopoly of ruthlessness in pursuit of
family inheritance. The Stanleys pulled together in this unsavoury
act of aggrandisement, and it was Sir William who played a crucial
role, locking the young women up in the remote fortress of Holt in
North Wales to prevent the Harringtons rescuing them from their
clutches.
The remaining Harringtons refused to kow-tow to the Stanleys. John's
younger brothers stuffed Hornby Castle with provisions and military
equipment and refused them admission to the estate. The result was a
full-scale siege. Hornby was put under a massive artillery
bombardment, the Stanleys bringing one great cannon all the way up
from Bristol. The Harringtons still held out. It was a desperate rear-
guard action.
Edward IV seems to have taken a pragmatic approach to the dispute. He
relied on the Stanleys in the north-west and did not want to
jeopardize their support. A succession of royal commissioners
therefore endeavoured to secure a hand-over of the property. But
while King Edward was prepared to acquiesce to Stanley ambition and
greed, Richard's response was very different. In defiance of his
brother's wishes he wholeheartedly backed the Harrington family, at
considerable risk to himself. At the height of the fighting, in the
early 1470s, he on one occasion actually joined the Harringtons at
Hornby Castle, and his men engaged in a number of skirmishes with
Stanley followers.
This course of action was decidedly against Richard's own interests.
If we imagine him solely as acquisitive and unprincipled, he would be
more likely to ally himself with Stanley influence and continue to
build up his own power base in north-eastern England. If we see him
as a loyal lieutenant of Edward IV, he would accept his brother's
broader policy. . . Instead he championed a family of minor influence
and standing. . . A settlement was finally brokered before the French
expedition of 1475 and Richard seems to have done all he could for
them. Although they were forced to surrender Hornby to the Stanleys,
their other Lancashire possessions were safeguarded. . . . A property
exchange between him [Richard] and Lord Stanley, allowing the
Stanleys to strengthen their position in North Wales, [Richard gave
them Chirk Castle in return for Skipton] may have been a key reason
why a deal was at last secured.
Richard's actions on behalf of the Harrington family were
extraordinary and forged strong bonds of friendship. He took both
younger Harrington brothers into his service, where they were amply
rewarded. . . Richard's generous patronage was reciprocated with
unswerving loyalty.. . .
There is only one likely explanation for Richard's conduct. The
Harringtons had been steadfast in their loyalty to his father and the
head of their family and his heir had fought and died for his cause.
It was inconceievable that they should now suffer for it."

Thank you for that information.

It is interesting how historians can have such a different
interpretation on the same events. I noticed how Hicks brushed over
the heiresses' marriages and made no mention of them being locked up.

I read an earlier edition of Hick's book and I did not like it. I
found he kept making all these claims about Richard and events but I
looked in vain for supporting evidence. In this earlier edition he
just had a list of books and documents he consulted for each chapter
but that was all, nothing specified for the various claims he made.
Maybe it has improved in the new edition.

I wondered what eventually happened to the Harrington sisters. Of
course we never hear of what they think in all of this. Perhaps not
the place to discuss the position of women in the Fifteenth Century
so I'll sign off now.

Helen

> From: "Helen" <sweethelly2003@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 04:28:36 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Help for Richard Essay (Harrington
> Case)
>
> Could someone tell me briefly what was the Harrington Case. Excuse me
> for my ignorance.

The Harringtons were longtime supporters of the house of York and Richard¹s
father the duke in particular with two memebrs of the family dying at
Wakefield. In the 1470s the Stanleys laid claim to some of their lands and
King Edward lent them his support. Richard was understandably furious that
such loyalty the the house of York could be, as he saw it, betrayed, and he
openly sided with the Harringtons, even turning up at Hornby castle (I think
it was Hornby) which was under seige, and joining them, with his men even
joining in some of the fighting. His intervention swung the day, and the
Harrington family would stay steadfastly loyal to him from then on. When
loyalty to his family was an issue, Richard would do everything he could to
help those who had displayed such loyalty. Of course we all know what the
Stanleys did for having their greed opposed. Michael Jones makes the point
that it is extraordinary to think that perhaps one of Richard¹s best moments
may well have cost him his throne at Bosworth.
Paul