What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was loo

Do we know? Is it in someone's attic? The armour alone must have been worth a fortune.
I know MB got his books but they presumably weren't with him at Bosworth?
And then there were his rings etc. I just can't see them going in a skip in the last five hundred years.

I was just thinking about this the other day! The armor itself must have been pretty expensive! I doubt if the nobles would let the riff raffs to take it! Who took his clothes and jewelry?

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

On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:52 AM, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Do we know? Is it in someone's attic? The armour alone must have been worth a fortune.
> I know MB got his books but they presumably weren't with him at Bosworth?
> And then there were his rings etc. I just can't see them going in a skip in the last five hundred years.
>
>

I know it seems a daft question but I am surprised nothing has surfaced, not even a ring. Is it kept in families who are still not revealing it?



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:27
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


 

I was just thinking about this the other day! The armor itself must have been pretty expensive! I doubt if the nobles would let the riff raffs to take it! Who took his clothes and jewelry?

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

On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:52 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> Do we know? Is it in someone's attic? The armour alone must have been worth a fortune.
> I know MB got his books but they presumably weren't with him at Bosworth?
> And then there were his rings etc. I just can't see them going in a skip in the last five hundred years.
>
>

Hilary I can help you with that...you ain't going to like it. The Stanleys received "the spoils
of the battlefield from a grateful HT (Weasel) and the hangings from Richard's tent were proudly displayed in their Lancashire residence at Knowsley, MB (Mother) had taken a personal interest in the division of this booty and had acquired the late king's book of hours with its moving prayer composed for Richard's own use, offering an insight into his troubled state of mind in the last months of his reign. It contained an appeal to Christ to 'free me, thy servant King Richard from all the tribulation, grief and anguish in which I am held and from all the snares of my enemies' ".

Can anyone reading this prayer doubt that Richard did not love and miss his wife and small son? And how could MB have kept this book after reading the prayer and knowing how, through her scheming this man was dead, alongside many others. Any yet people remark on the piousness of this woman....no wonder it was noted that she often wept on occasions when she should have been happy...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know it seems a daft question but I am surprised nothing has surfaced, not even a ring. Is it kept in families who are still not revealing it?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:27
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>  
>
> I was just thinking about this the other day! The armor itself must have been pretty expensive! I doubt if the nobles would let the riff raffs to take it! Who took his clothes and jewelry?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:52 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Do we know? Is it in someone's attic? The armour alone must have been worth a fortune.
> > I know MB got his books but they presumably weren't with him at Bosworth?
> > And then there were his rings etc. I just can't see them going in a skip in the last five hundred years.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Psychopaths like to keep trophies!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 26, 2013, at 6:11 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Hilary I can help you with that...you ain't going to like it. The Stanleys received "the spoils
> of the battlefield from a grateful HT (Weasel) and the hangings from Richard's tent were proudly displayed in their Lancashire residence at Knowsley, MB (Mother) had taken a personal interest in the division of this booty and had acquired the late king's book of hours with its moving prayer composed for Richard's own use, offering an insight into his troubled state of mind in the last months of his reign. It contained an appeal to Christ to 'free me, thy servant King Richard from all the tribulation, grief and anguish in which I am held and from all the snares of my enemies' ".
>
> Can anyone reading this prayer doubt that Richard did not love and miss his wife and small son? And how could MB have kept this book after reading the prayer and knowing how, through her scheming this man was dead, alongside many others. Any yet people remark on the piousness of this woman....no wonder it was noted that she often wept on occasions when she should have been happy...Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > I know it seems a daft question but I am surprised nothing has surfaced, not even a ring. Is it kept in families who are still not revealing it?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> > To: ">
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:27
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I was just thinking about this the other day! The armor itself must have been pretty expensive! I doubt if the nobles would let the riff raffs to take it! Who took his clothes and jewelry?
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:52 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Do we know? Is it in someone's attic? The armour alone must have been worth a fortune.
> > > I know MB got his books but they presumably weren't with him at Bosworth?
> > > And then there were his rings etc. I just can't see them going in a skip in the last five hundred years.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I think MOTHER was a narcissistic personality, a schemer, power mad, and money mad. She probably loved no one, not even her own son. She probably wept from frustration rather than sadness.



On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Hilary I can help you with that...you ain't going to like it. The Stanleys received "the spoils
of the battlefield from a grateful HT (Weasel) and the hangings from Richard's tent were proudly displayed in their Lancashire residence at Knowsley, MB (Mother) had taken a personal interest in the division of this booty and had acquired the late king's book of hours with its moving prayer composed for Richard's own use, offering an insight into his troubled state of mind in the last months of his reign. It contained an appeal to Christ to 'free me, thy servant King Richard from all the tribulation, grief and anguish in which I am held and from all the snares of my enemies' ".

Can anyone reading this prayer doubt that Richard did not love and miss his wife and small son? And how could MB have kept this book after reading the prayer and knowing how, through her scheming this man was dead, alongside many others. Any yet people remark on the piousness of this woman....no wonder it was noted that she often wept on occasions when she should have been happy...Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know it seems a daft question but I am surprised nothing has surfaced, not even a ring. Is it kept in families who are still not revealing it?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:27
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
> ý
>
> I was just thinking about this the other day! The armor itself must have been pretty expensive! I doubt if the nobles would let the riff raffs to take it! Who took his clothes and jewelry?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:52 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> > Do we know? Is it in someone's attic? The armour alone must have been worth a fortune.
> > I know MB got his books but they presumably weren't with him at Bosworth?
> > And then there were his rings etc. I just can't see them going in a skip in the last five hundred years.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Maybe she wept because she couldn't be king herself. But oh, how she tried.


--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I think MOTHER was a narcissistic personality, a schemer, power mad, and money mad. She probably loved no one, not even her own son. She probably wept from frustration rather than sadness.

There's a lovely bit in Jones and Underwood where they say she would have made a good Red Cross nurse. I for one wouldn't have wanted to be nursed by her. 


________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 23:28
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

I think MOTHER was a narcissistic personality, a schemer, power mad, and money mad. She probably loved no one, not even her own son. She probably wept from frustration rather than sadness.



On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Hilary I can help you with that...you ain't going to like it. The Stanleys received "the spoils
of the battlefield from a grateful HT (Weasel) and the hangings from Richard's tent were proudly displayed in their Lancashire residence at Knowsley, MB (Mother) had taken a personal interest in the division of this booty and had acquired the late king's book of hours with its moving prayer composed for Richard's own use, offering an insight into his troubled state of mind in the last months of his reign. It contained an appeal to Christ to 'free me, thy servant King Richard from all the tribulation, grief and anguish in which I am held and from all the snares of my enemies' ".

Can anyone reading this prayer doubt that Richard did not love and miss his wife and small son? And how could MB have kept this book after reading the prayer and knowing how, through her scheming this man was dead, alongside many others. Any yet people remark on the piousness of this woman....no wonder it was noted that she often wept on occasions when she should have been happy...Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know it seems a daft question but I am surprised nothing has surfaced, not even a ring. Is it kept in families who are still not revealing it?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:27
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
> Â
>
> I was just thinking about this the other day! The armor itself must have been pretty expensive! I doubt if the nobles would let the riff raffs to take it! Who took his clothes and jewelry?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:52 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> > Do we know? Is it in someone's attic? The armour alone must have been worth a fortune.
> > I know MB got his books but they presumably weren't with him at Bosworth?
> > And then there were his rings etc. I just can't see them going in a skip in the last five hundred years.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>









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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Dear god, why on earth do they think that?  Nurses are supposed to have compassion and nothing I have read about MB suggests she had any.  Ambition on the other hand .....


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 9:50
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 
There's a lovely bit in Jones and Underwood where they say she would have made a good Red Cross nurse. I for one wouldn't have wanted to be nursed by her. 


________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 23:28
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

I think MOTHER was a narcissistic personality, a schemer, power mad, and money mad. She probably loved no one, not even her own son. She probably wept from frustration rather than sadness.

On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "EileenB" <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com<mailto:mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>> wrote:

Hilary I can help you with that...you ain't going to like it. The Stanleys received "the spoils
of the battlefield from a grateful HT (Weasel) and the hangings from Richard's tent were proudly displayed in their Lancashire residence at Knowsley, MB (Mother) had taken a personal interest in the division of this booty and had acquired the late king's book of hours with its moving prayer composed for Richard's own use, offering an insight into his troubled state of mind in the last months of his reign. It contained an appeal to Christ to 'free me, thy servant King Richard from all the tribulation, grief and anguish in which I am held and from all the snares of my enemies' ".

Can anyone reading this prayer doubt that Richard did not love and miss his wife and small son? And how could MB have kept this book after reading the prayer and knowing how, through her scheming this man was dead, alongside many others. Any yet people remark on the piousness of this woman....no wonder it was noted that she often wept on occasions when she should have been happy...Eileen

--- In .

They quote the Memoir of the Lady Margaret published in 1924 by EMG Routh. Apparently Routh 'found her social concerns arresting; had she lived in later times one could easily imagine her as successfully mananging a Red Cross hospital or canteen.' Forgot the canteen bit!



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 10:04
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


 

Dear god, why on earth do they think that?  Nurses are supposed to have compassion and nothing I have read about MB suggests she had any.  Ambition on the other hand .....

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 9:50
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 
There's a lovely bit in Jones and Underwood where they say she would have made a good Red Cross nurse. I for one wouldn't have wanted to be nursed by her. 

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 23:28
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

I think MOTHER was a narcissistic personality, a schemer, power mad, and money mad. She probably loved no one, not even her own son. She probably wept from frustration rather than sadness.

On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "EileenB" <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com<mailto:mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>> wrote:

Hilary I can help you with that...you ain't going to like it. The Stanleys received "the spoils
of the battlefield from a grateful HT (Weasel) and the hangings from Richard's tent were proudly displayed in their Lancashire residence at Knowsley, MB (Mother) had taken a personal interest in the division of this booty and had acquired the late king's book of hours with its moving prayer composed for Richard's own use, offering an insight into his troubled state of mind in the last months of his reign. It contained an appeal to Christ to 'free me, thy servant King Richard from all the tribulation, grief and anguish in which I am held and from all the snares of my enemies' ".

Can anyone reading this prayer doubt that Richard did not love and miss his wife and small son? And how could MB have kept this book after reading the prayer and knowing how, through her scheming this man was dead, alongside many others. Any yet people remark on the piousness of this woman....no wonder it was noted that she often wept on occasions when she should have been happy...Eileen

--- In .

Thanks Eileen I didn't know about the Stanley bit. But his armour, clothes and jewellery must be out there somewhere (I doubt the Stanleys would have got to him in time to stop the body being robbed). So I wonder where they are. Hidden away in a bank vault by some millionaire? You don't throw valuable stuff like that away, do you, even if it's in bits? I wonder whether a ring might turn up on the Antiques Road Show one day, but I doubt it. 



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 23:28
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


 

Psychopaths like to keep trophies!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 26, 2013, at 6:11 PM, "EileenB" <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hilary I can help you with that...you ain't going to like it. The Stanleys received "the spoils
> of the battlefield from a grateful HT (Weasel) and the hangings from Richard's tent were proudly displayed in their Lancashire residence at Knowsley, MB (Mother) had taken a personal interest in the division of this booty and had acquired the late king's book of hours with its moving prayer composed for Richard's own use, offering an insight into his troubled state of mind in the last months of his reign. It contained an appeal to Christ to 'free me, thy servant King Richard from all the tribulation, grief and anguish in which I am held and from all the snares of my enemies' ".
>
> Can anyone reading this prayer doubt that Richard did not love and miss his wife and small son? And how could MB have kept this book after reading the prayer and knowing how, through her scheming this man was dead, alongside many others. Any yet people remark on the piousness of this woman....no wonder it was noted that she often wept on occasions when she should have been happy...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > I know it seems a daft question but I am surprised nothing has surfaced, not even a ring. Is it kept in families who are still not revealing it?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:27
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I was just thinking about this the other day! The armor itself must have been pretty expensive! I doubt if the nobles would let the riff raffs to take it! Who took his clothes and jewelry?
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:52 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Do we know? Is it in someone's attic? The armour alone must have been worth a fortune.
> > > I know MB got his books but they presumably weren't with him at Bosworth?
> > > And then there were his rings etc. I just can't see them going in a skip in the last five hundred years.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Would it not have been a beautiful and heartwarming gesture for one Mother to return to another, bereaved mother her son's prayer book...The fact that MB did not tells me a lot about this lady....Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I think MOTHER was a narcissistic personality, a schemer, power mad, and money mad. She probably loved no one, not even her own son. She probably wept from frustration rather than sadness.
>
>
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hilary I can help you with that...you ain't going to like it. The Stanleys received "the spoils
> of the battlefield from a grateful HT (Weasel) and the hangings from Richard's tent were proudly displayed in their Lancashire residence at Knowsley, MB (Mother) had taken a personal interest in the division of this booty and had acquired the late king's book of hours with its moving prayer composed for Richard's own use, offering an insight into his troubled state of mind in the last months of his reign. It contained an appeal to Christ to 'free me, thy servant King Richard from all the tribulation, grief and anguish in which I am held and from all the snares of my enemies' ".
>
> Can anyone reading this prayer doubt that Richard did not love and miss his wife and small son? And how could MB have kept this book after reading the prayer and knowing how, through her scheming this man was dead, alongside many others. Any yet people remark on the piousness of this woman....no wonder it was noted that she often wept on occasions when she should have been happy...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I know it seems a daft question but I am surprised nothing has surfaced, not even a ring. Is it kept in families who are still not revealing it?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@>
> > To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:27
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > I was just thinking about this the other day! The armor itself must have been pretty expensive! I doubt if the nobles would let the riff raffs to take it! Who took his clothes and jewelry?
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
> >
> > On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:52 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >
> > > Do we know? Is it in someone's attic? The armour alone must have been worth a fortune.
> > > I know MB got his books but they presumably weren't with him at Bosworth?
> > > And then there were his rings etc. I just can't see them going in a skip in the last five hundred years.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Eileen I didn't know about the Stanley bit. But his armour, clothes and jewellery must be out there somewhere (I doubt the Stanleys would have got to him in time to stop the body being robbed). So I wonder where they are. Hidden away in a bank vault by some millionaire? You don't throw valuable stuff like that away, do you, even if it's in bits? I wonder whether a ring might turn up on the Antiques Road Show one day, but I doubt it. 
>

I'm guessing the most valuable materials - e.g. velvets, ermines, gold and gemstones - would have been re-used and repurposed many times along the way.

I just read the other day that only approximately 8% of all gold has been lost over the centuries; the rest has been melted again and again. (Not sure how they arrived at that number! But still, it doesn't seem at all improbable.)

Sadly, even nowadays valuable pieces of antique jewellery are melted all the time because gold pays so well right now.

Yes, jewels in particular could have gone during the purges of Henry VIII or the Commonwealth. Just would be nice to think that somewhere, someone has a ring in their jewellery box. My guess is that most of Richard's stuff found its way to the Continent.  



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 10:51
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Eileen I didn't know about the Stanley bit. But his armour, clothes and jewellery must be out there somewhere (I doubt the Stanleys would have got to him in time to stop the body being robbed). So I wonder where they are. Hidden away in a bank vault by some millionaire? You don't throw valuable stuff like that away, do you, even if it's in bits? I wonder whether a ring might turn up on the Antiques Road Show one day, but I doubt it. 
>

I'm guessing the most valuable materials - e.g. velvets, ermines, gold and gemstones - would have been re-used and repurposed many times along the way.

I just read the other day that only approximately 8% of all gold has been lost over the centuries; the rest has been melted again and again. (Not sure how they arrived at that number! But still, it doesn't seem at all improbable.)

Sadly, even nowadays valuable pieces of antique jewellery are melted all the time because gold pays so well right now.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?


> Thanks Eileen I didn't know about the Stanley bit. But his armour, clothes
> and jewellery must be out there somewhere

The armour might have been too hacked about to be salvageable and would have
been tailor-made to fit his wiggly back, and so not readily transferable.
And the clothes would have decayed and fallen apart long since. But his
rings and hat brooches and so on probably survived.

I can't find it now but somewhere in the catalogue of the 1973 exhibition
there's a description of a spectacular covered chalice which belonged to
Richard, and which was later among the effects of Elizabeth I.

> You don't throw valuable stuff like that away, do you, even if it's in
> bits?

No, but if it's gold you may melt it down. A lot of it was probably
destroyed by Cromwell's lot.

Wasn't Henry strapped for money? He might have melted it down or sold it outright to make a few bob.

On Mar 27, 2013, at 5:18 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Thanks Eileen I didn't know about the Stanley bit. But his armour, clothes and jewellery must be out there somewhere (I doubt the Stanleys would have got to him in time to stop the body being robbed). So I wonder where they are. Hidden away in a bank vault by some millionaire? You don't throw valuable stuff like that away, do you, even if it's in bits? I wonder whether a ring might turn up on the Antiques Road Show one day, but I doubt it.

________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 23:28
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?




Psychopaths like to keep trophies!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 26, 2013, at 6:11 PM, "EileenB" <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com<http://40googlemail.com>> wrote:

> Hilary I can help you with that...you ain't going to like it. The Stanleys received "the spoils
> of the battlefield from a grateful HT (Weasel) and the hangings from Richard's tent were proudly displayed in their Lancashire residence at Knowsley, MB (Mother) had taken a personal interest in the division of this booty and had acquired the late king's book of hours with its moving prayer composed for Richard's own use, offering an insight into his troubled state of mind in the last months of his reign. It contained an appeal to Christ to 'free me, thy servant King Richard from all the tribulation, grief and anguish in which I am held and from all the snares of my enemies' ".
>
> Can anyone reading this prayer doubt that Richard did not love and miss his wife and small son? And how could MB have kept this book after reading the prayer and knowing how, through her scheming this man was dead, alongside many others. Any yet people remark on the piousness of this woman....no wonder it was noted that she often wept on occasions when she should have been happy...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > I know it seems a daft question but I am surprised nothing has surfaced, not even a ring. Is it kept in families who are still not revealing it?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%2540yahoogroups.com%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:27
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I was just thinking about this the other day! The armor itself must have been pretty expensive! I doubt if the nobles would let the riff raffs to take it! Who took his clothes and jewelry?
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
> >
> > On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:52 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >
> > > Do we know? Is it in someone's attic? The armour alone must have been worth a fortune.
> > > I know MB got his books but they presumably weren't with him at Bosworth?
> > > And then there were his rings etc. I just can't see them going in a skip in the last five hundred years.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I dunno Pamela...Mother was what is termed nowadays as a multi-milliioneress....Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Wasn't Henry strapped for money? He might have melted it down or sold it outright to make a few bob.
>
> On Mar 27, 2013, at 5:18 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks Eileen I didn't know about the Stanley bit. But his armour, clothes and jewellery must be out there somewhere (I doubt the Stanleys would have got to him in time to stop the body being robbed). So I wonder where they are. Hidden away in a bank vault by some millionaire? You don't throw valuable stuff like that away, do you, even if it's in bits? I wonder whether a ring might turn up on the Antiques Road Show one day, but I doubt it.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 23:28
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>
>
> Psychopaths like to keep trophies!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 6:11 PM, "EileenB" <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com<http://40googlemail.com>> wrote:
>
> > Hilary I can help you with that...you ain't going to like it. The Stanleys received "the spoils
> > of the battlefield from a grateful HT (Weasel) and the hangings from Richard's tent were proudly displayed in their Lancashire residence at Knowsley, MB (Mother) had taken a personal interest in the division of this booty and had acquired the late king's book of hours with its moving prayer composed for Richard's own use, offering an insight into his troubled state of mind in the last months of his reign. It contained an appeal to Christ to 'free me, thy servant King Richard from all the tribulation, grief and anguish in which I am held and from all the snares of my enemies' ".
> >
> > Can anyone reading this prayer doubt that Richard did not love and miss his wife and small son? And how could MB have kept this book after reading the prayer and knowing how, through her scheming this man was dead, alongside many others. Any yet people remark on the piousness of this woman....no wonder it was noted that she often wept on occasions when she should have been happy...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I know it seems a daft question but I am surprised nothing has surfaced, not even a ring. Is it kept in families who are still not revealing it?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%2540yahoogroups.com%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:27
> > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was just thinking about this the other day! The armor itself must have been pretty expensive! I doubt if the nobles would let the riff raffs to take it! Who took his clothes and jewelry?
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
> > >
> > > On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:52 AM, "hjnatdat" <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do we know? Is it in someone's attic? The armour alone must have been worth a fortune.
> > > > I know MB got his books but they presumably weren't with him at Bosworth?
> > > > And then there were his rings etc. I just can't see them going in a skip in the last five hundred years.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Gold and silver had been melted, and stones reset. I have a lovely "coffee table" book called "The Crown Jewels", not just British, and so many stunning pieces have changed hands and been reset or repurposed.

On Mar 27, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "pansydobersby" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Eileen I didn't know about the Stanley bit. But his armour, clothes and jewellery must be out there somewhere (I doubt the Stanleys would have got to him in time to stop the body being robbed). So I wonder where they are. Hidden away in a bank vault by some millionaire? You don't throw valuable stuff like that away, do you, even if it's in bits? I wonder whether a ring might turn up on the Antiques Road Show one day, but I doubt it.ý
>

I'm guessing the most valuable materials - e.g. velvets, ermines, gold and gemstones - would have been re-used and repurposed many times along the way.

I just read the other day that only approximately 8% of all gold has been lost over the centuries; the rest has been melted again and again. (Not sure how they arrived at that number! But still, it doesn't seem at all improbable.)

Sadly, even nowadays valuable pieces of antique jewellery are melted all the time because gold pays so well right now.

If it had been the ordinary soldiers who got to Richard's body before Stanley it isn't likely that they would have hung on to any rings etc. They would probably have sold them at the first opportunity. So maybe the people who have them now (if they haven't been melted down) don't realise that they once belonged to Richard. Also would he have been wearing any rings under his armour? It would be nice to think that one will surface one day.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, jewels in particular could have gone during the purges of Henry VIII or the Commonwealth. Just would be nice to think that somewhere, someone has a ring in their jewellery box. My guess is that most of Richard's stuff found its way to the Continent.  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 10:51
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>  
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Eileen I didn't know about the Stanley bit. But his armour, clothes and jewellery must be out there somewhere (I doubt the Stanleys would have got to him in time to stop the body being robbed). So I wonder where they are. Hidden away in a bank vault by some millionaire? You don't throw valuable stuff like that away, do you, even if it's in bits? I wonder whether a ring might turn up on the Antiques Road Show one day, but I doubt it. 
> >
>
> I'm guessing the most valuable materials - e.g. velvets, ermines, gold and gemstones - would have been re-used and repurposed many times along the way.
>
> I just read the other day that only approximately 8% of all gold has been lost over the centuries; the rest has been melted again and again. (Not sure how they arrived at that number! But still, it doesn't seem at all improbable.)
>
> Sadly, even nowadays valuable pieces of antique jewellery are melted all the time because gold pays so well right now.
>
>
>
>
>
>

I found this in Lost Treasures of Britain by Roy Strong.."....Charles 1 set about dispersing and destroying some of the greatest masterpieces of goldsmith's and jewellers work in the Royal Collection, in the main, an array of treasures created for the Tudor court, above all by Henry Vlll, as a result of the confiscation of the plate and jewels of the medieval Church. Although gifts,melting down, theft and damage had made some incursions during the 2nd half of the sixteenth century, the collection was remarkably intact when the Stuarts inherited it in 1603. Thereafter the story was to be a very different one". Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Gold and silver had been melted, and stones reset. I have a lovely "coffee table" book called "The Crown Jewels", not just British, and so many stunning pieces have changed hands and been reset or repurposed.
>
> On Mar 27, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "pansydobersby" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Eileen I didn't know about the Stanley bit. But his armour, clothes and jewellery must be out there somewhere (I doubt the Stanleys would have got to him in time to stop the body being robbed). So I wonder where they are. Hidden away in a bank vault by some millionaire? You don't throw valuable stuff like that away, do you, even if it's in bits? I wonder whether a ring might turn up on the Antiques Road Show one day, but I doubt it.Â
> >
>
> I'm guessing the most valuable materials - e.g. velvets, ermines, gold and gemstones - would have been re-used and repurposed many times along the way.
>
> I just read the other day that only approximately 8% of all gold has been lost over the centuries; the rest has been melted again and again. (Not sure how they arrived at that number! But still, it doesn't seem at all improbable.)
>
> Sadly, even nowadays valuable pieces of antique jewellery are melted all the time because gold pays so well right now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Did he do this to buy his art collection? I did realise after I asked all this that most of the surviving royal jewels were melted down at the time of the Commonwealth. Isn't that what happened to H7's imperial crown, I remember Starkey(!) saying. Perhaps Richard's jewels were in that?   



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 14:52
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


 

I found this in Lost Treasures of Britain by Roy Strong.."....Charles 1 set about dispersing and destroying some of the greatest masterpieces of goldsmith's and jewellers work in the Royal Collection, in the main, an array of treasures created for the Tudor court, above all by Henry Vlll, as a result of the confiscation of the plate and jewels of the medieval Church. Although gifts,melting down, theft and damage had made some incursions during the 2nd half of the sixteenth century, the collection was remarkably intact when the Stuarts inherited it in 1603. Thereafter the story was to be a very different one". Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Gold and silver had been melted, and stones reset. I have a lovely "coffee table" book called "The Crown Jewels", not just British, and so many stunning pieces have changed hands and been reset or repurposed.
>
> On Mar 27, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "pansydobersby" <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Eileen I didn't know about the Stanley bit. But his armour, clothes and jewellery must be out there somewhere (I doubt the Stanleys would have got to him in time to stop the body being robbed). So I wonder where they are. Hidden away in a bank vault by some millionaire? You don't throw valuable stuff like that away, do you, even if it's in bits? I wonder whether a ring might turn up on the Antiques Road Show one day, but I doubt it.Â
> >
>
> I'm guessing the most valuable materials - e.g. velvets, ermines, gold and gemstones - would have been re-used and repurposed many times along the way.
>
> I just read the other day that only approximately 8% of all gold has been lost over the centuries; the rest has been melted again and again. (Not sure how they arrived at that number! But still, it doesn't seem at all improbable.)
>
> Sadly, even nowadays valuable pieces of antique jewellery are melted all the time because gold pays so well right now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Important jewels were certainly used over and over again. Take for example "The Three Brothers",,,three huge balas rubies. You can see them in the famous Erimine portrait of Elizabeth the lst and then later on you can see them in a portrait of James l this time being used as a brooch in his hat. The Three Brothers originally belonged to one of the Dukes of Burgundy. As they ended up in England it very possible they could have been owned by Richard at one time. James pawned them and they were last heard of in Amsterdam in 1650.

A pair of pearls worn as earrings by Elizabeth lst can still be seen in one of the crowns in the present Royal collection of Crown Jewels in the Tower of London.

They, the Royalty, must have been top heavy with so much jewellery its a wonder they didnt keep falling over...a bit like have a big head today...Eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Did he do this to buy his art collection? I did realise after I asked all this that most of the surviving royal jewels were melted down at the time of the Commonwealth. Isn't that what happened to H7's imperial crown, I remember Starkey(!) saying. Perhaps Richard's jewels were in that?   
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 14:52
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>  
>
> I found this in Lost Treasures of Britain by Roy Strong.."....Charles 1 set about dispersing and destroying some of the greatest masterpieces of goldsmith's and jewellers work in the Royal Collection, in the main, an array of treasures created for the Tudor court, above all by Henry Vlll, as a result of the confiscation of the plate and jewels of the medieval Church. Although gifts,melting down, theft and damage had made some incursions during the 2nd half of the sixteenth century, the collection was remarkably intact when the Stuarts inherited it in 1603. Thereafter the story was to be a very different one". Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > Gold and silver had been melted, and stones reset. I have a lovely "coffee table" book called "The Crown Jewels", not just British, and so many stunning pieces have changed hands and been reset or repurposed.
> >
> > On Mar 27, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "pansydobersby" <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Eileen I didn't know about the Stanley bit. But his armour, clothes and jewellery must be out there somewhere (I doubt the Stanleys would have got to him in time to stop the body being robbed). So I wonder where they are. Hidden away in a bank vault by some millionaire? You don't throw valuable stuff like that away, do you, even if it's in bits? I wonder whether a ring might turn up on the Antiques Road Show one day, but I doubt it.Â
> > >
> >
> > I'm guessing the most valuable materials - e.g. velvets, ermines, gold and gemstones - would have been re-used and repurposed many times along the way.
> >
> > I just read the other day that only approximately 8% of all gold has been lost over the centuries; the rest has been melted again and again. (Not sure how they arrived at that number! But still, it doesn't seem at all improbable.)
> >
> > Sadly, even nowadays valuable pieces of antique jewellery are melted all the time because gold pays so well right now.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Pamela Bain wrote:


"I think MOTHER was a narcissistic personality, a schemer, power mad, and
money mad. She probably loved no one, not even her own son. She probably
wept from frustration rather than sadness."

Doug here:
I'm certainly not a psychiatrist, but could any of those traits be the
result of what happened to her at age 12, when she was, essentially, still a
child? She may very well have become "a schemer, power mad, and money mad"
as a way of keeping herself safe from being so treated ever again. However,
even it *that* was what was behind her plotting and schemes, it doesn't
excuse her later actions.
I was particularly struck by Eileen B's post mentioning how MB took a
personal interest in Richard's effects, glommed onto his "Book of Hours",
presumably because of its value and, as best we know, never considered
sending such a personal item to Richard's mother. Apparently she was beyond
hope by that point.
I do wonder if those tears we hear so much about weren't tears of self-pity;
something along the lines of "Why am I not happy at this?"
Doug



On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>>
wrote:



Hilary I can help you with that...you ain't going to like it. The Stanleys
received "the spoils
of the battlefield from a grateful HT (Weasel) and the hangings from
Richard's tent were proudly displayed in their Lancashire residence at
Knowsley, MB (Mother) had taken a personal interest in the division of this
booty and had acquired the late king's book of hours with its moving prayer
composed for Richard's own use, offering an insight into his troubled state
of mind in the last months of his reign. It contained an appeal to Christ to
'free me, thy servant King Richard from all the tribulation, grief and
anguish in which I am held and from all the snares of my enemies' ".

Can anyone reading this prayer doubt that Richard did not love and miss his
wife and small son? And how could MB have kept this book after reading the
prayer and knowing how, through her scheming this man was dead, alongside
many others. Any yet people remark on the piousness of this woman....no
wonder it was noted that she often wept on occasions when she should have
been happy...Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know it seems a daft question but I am surprised nothing has surfaced,
> not even a ring. Is it kept in families who are still not revealing it?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To:
> "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:27
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
> after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
> Â
>
> I was just thinking about this the other day! The armor itself must have
> been pretty expensive! I doubt if the nobles would let the riff raffs to
> take it! Who took his clothes and jewelry?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:52 AM, "hjnatdat"
> <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> > Do we know? Is it in someone's attic? The armour alone must have been
> > worth a fortune.
> > I know MB got his books but they presumably weren't with him at
> > Bosworth?
> > And then there were his rings etc. I just can't see them going in a skip
> > in the last five hundred years.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>









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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?

> They, the Royalty, must have been top heavy with so much jewellery its a
> wonder they didnt keep falling over...a bit like have a big head
> today...Eileen

Yes, and the state crown is horrendously heavy - although the one Richard
wore into battle would have been a simple circlet and not as bad. Still, it
wouldn't do to have a bad neck and wear that: all gold is really, really
heavy.

The current state crown is just horrendous, at least compared to the medieval ones.  Anne of Bohemia's crown is divine (and yes I want it!)
 

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:49
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 
From: EileenB
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?

> They, the Royalty, must have been top heavy with so much jewellery its a
> wonder they didnt keep falling over...a bit like have a big head
> today...Eileen

Yes, and the state crown is horrendously heavy - although the one Richard
wore into battle would have been a simple circlet and not as bad. Still, it
wouldn't do to have a bad neck and wear that: all gold is really, really
heavy.


the current s

Anne of Bohemia's crown..how gorgious is that. More modest but gorgious too I would also be very happy with the engagement ring given by Napolean to Josephine that was sold the other day.....Eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> The current state crown is just horrendous, at least compared to the medieval ones.  Anne of Bohemia's crown is divine (and yes I want it!)
>  
>
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:49
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>  
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:14 PM
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
> after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
> > They, the Royalty, must have been top heavy with so much jewellery its a
> > wonder they didnt keep falling over...a bit like have a big head
> > today...Eileen
>
> Yes, and the state crown is horrendously heavy - although the one Richard
> wore into battle would have been a simple circlet and not as bad. Still, it
> wouldn't do to have a bad neck and wear that: all gold is really, really
> heavy.
>
>
> the current s
>
>
>

Or even that fifteenth century ring with the lovers' knot which appeared at the ARS a few years' ago.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 17:20
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


 

Anne of Bohemia's crown..how gorgious is that. More modest but gorgious too I would also be very happy with the engagement ring given by Napolean to Josephine that was sold the other day.....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> The current state crown is just horrendous, at least compared to the medieval ones.  Anne of Bohemia's crown is divine (and yes I want it!)
>  
>
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:49
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>  
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:14 PM
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
> after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
> > They, the Royalty, must have been top heavy with so much jewellery its a
> > wonder they didnt keep falling over...a bit like have a big head
> > today...Eileen
>
> Yes, and the state crown is horrendously heavy - although the one Richard
> wore into battle would have been a simple circlet and not as bad. Still, it
> wouldn't do to have a bad neck and wear that: all gold is really, really
> heavy.
>
>
> the current s
>
>
>

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?


> Anne of Bohemia's crown..how gorgious is that.

Oh yes, that's *very* pretty - probably still quite heavy though. What
happened to it over the years? Is it possible Anne Neville wore this?

Possibly or something very similar....AoB crown is no longer in this country but when it left I do not know..

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:20 PM
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
> after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
> > Anne of Bohemia's crown..how gorgious is that.
>
> Oh yes, that's *very* pretty - probably still quite heavy though. What
> happened to it over the years? Is it possible Anne Neville wore this?
>

snip>  even it *that* was what was behind her plotting and schemes, it doesn't
excuse her later actions.
 
Exactly.  No matter how awful something that happens in childhood, you can't blame it for ever (and MB may not have blamed it, she may not have been that self aware.) 


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:40
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 

Pamela Bain wrote:

"I think MOTHER was a narcissistic personality, a schemer, power mad, and
money mad. She probably loved no one, not even her own son. She probably
wept from frustration rather than sadness."

Doug here:
I'm certainly not a psychiatrist, but could any of those traits be the
result of what happened to her at age

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?


> Exactly. No matter how awful something that happens in childhood, you
> can't blame it for ever (and MB may not have blamed it, she may not have
> been that self aware.)

But Edward's behaviour may have led her to think that her son's only safety
lay in taking power himself. I'd like to think I'd be objective enough to
prefer the execution of a child of mine over the deaths of hundreds or
thousands of strangers killed in battle, but I'm sure many mothers wouldn't.

No - it went to Germany (where it is still is) as the dowry of, I think, Henry Iv's daughter.
 
It's in the Residenz Museum in Munich.


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 19:04
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 


Oh yes, that's *very* pretty - probably still quite heavy though. What
happened to it over the years? Is it possible Anne Neville wore this?

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?


> No - it went to Germany (where it is still is) as the dowry of, I think,
> Henry Iv's daughter.

Ah, that explains how it survived the triple depradations of Henry VIII,
Charles I and Cromwell. It shows what beautiful things must have been lost.

That's true Liz...a lot of people have had awful childhoods. Im dont buy into it actually..not with MB...casting aside the awfulness of giving birth at such a young age she also led a pampered and privileged life. According to J & U her 2nd marriage to Stafford was a happy one. She did seem to have travelled around with him a lot which proves there was affection. Although she got herself hitched to Stanley in a remarkable short time after his death....a few months. Some people see her as a cross between Mata Hari and Mother Theresa....each to their own I suppose. Eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> snip>  even it *that* was what was behind her plotting and schemes, it doesn't
> excuse her later actions.
>  
> Exactly.  No matter how awful something that happens in childhood, you can't blame it for ever (and MB may not have blamed it, she may not have been that self aware.) 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:40
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>  
>
> Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> "I think MOTHER was a narcissistic personality, a schemer, power mad, and
> money mad. She probably loved no one, not even her own son. She probably
> wept from frustration rather than sadness."
>
> Doug here:
> I'm certainly not a psychiatrist, but could any of those traits be the
> result of what happened to her at age
>
>
>
>

Eileen!  Your standards must be much higher (or blingier) than mine - modest?  Emeralds, sapphires, rubies, gold I'd settle for any of it.  :-) 
 
But then I don't like the current crown (apart from the Black Prince's Ruby) because I'm not a fan of white diamonds


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 17:20
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 
Anne of Bohemia's crown..how gorgious is that. More modest but gorgious too I would also be very happy with the engagement ring given by Napolean to Josephine that was sold the other day.....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> The current state crown is just horrendous, at least compared to the medieval ones.  Anne of Bohemia's crown is divine (and yes I want it!)
>  
>
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:49
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>  
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:14 PM
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
> after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
> > They, the Royalty, must have been top heavy with so much jewellery its a
> > wonder they didnt keep falling over...a bit like have a big head
> > today...Eileen
>
> Yes, and the state crown is horrendously heavy - although the one Richard
> wore into battle would have been a simple circlet and not as bad. Still, it
> wouldn't do to have a bad neck and wear that: all gold is really, really
> heavy.
>
>
> the current s
>
>
>

Lol...Liz...no!..I was saying that the engagement ring given by Napollean to Josephine was modest...Did you see it yesterday.Its just been sold....It is so lovely...



--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen!  Your standards must be much higher (or blingier) than mine - modest?  Emeralds, sapphires, rubies, gold I'd settle for any of it.  :-) 
>  
> But then I don't like the current crown (apart from the Black Prince's Ruby) because I'm not a fan of white diamonds
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 17:20
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>  
> Anne of Bohemia's crown..how gorgious is that. More modest but gorgious too I would also be very happy with the engagement ring given by Napolean to Josephine that was sold the other day.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > The current state crown is just horrendous, at least compared to the medieval ones.  Anne of Bohemia's crown is divine (and yes I want it!)
> >  
> >
> > From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:49
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >  
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:14 PM
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
> > after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> > > They, the Royalty, must have been top heavy with so much jewellery its a
> > > wonder they didnt keep falling over...a bit like have a big head
> > > today...Eileen
> >
> > Yes, and the state crown is horrendously heavy - although the one Richard
> > wore into battle would have been a simple circlet and not as bad. Still, it
> > wouldn't do to have a bad neck and wear that: all gold is really, really
> > heavy.
> >
> >
> > the current s
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh yes. I think it's staggerly beautiful and as I've said, far better than the current crown.  The stuff that was melted down must have been amazing.
 
And - off topic - what about the treasure King John supposedly lost in the Wash?


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:31
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 
From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?

> No - it went to Germany (where it is still is) as the dowry of, I think,
> Henry Iv's daughter.

Ah, that explains how it survived the triple depradations of Henry VIII,
Charles I and Cromwell. It shows what beautiful things must have been lost.

From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:39
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


> what about the treasure King John supposedly lost in the Wash?

The same thing happened to me with a cheque I'd left in my shirt pocket...

Jonathan



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:39
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


 
Oh yes. I think it's staggerly beautiful and as I've said, far better than the current crown.  The stuff that was melted down must have been amazing.
 
And - off topic - what about the treasure King John supposedly lost in the Wash?

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:31
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 
From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?

> No - it went to Germany (where it is still is) as the dowry of, I think,
> Henry Iv's daughter.

Ah, that explains how it survived the triple depradations of Henry VIII,
Charles I and Cromwell. It shows what beautiful things must have been lost.

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?


> Exactly. No matter how awful something that happens in childhood, you
> can't blame it for ever (and MB may not have blamed it, she may not have
> been that self aware.)

But it explains why she would be emotionally contorted enough to weep at her
son's coronation, and for people to mock at an abuse survivor's tears is not
a million miles away from enjoying watching an execution.

The morality of her plotting depends on which came first - Henry's threat to
Edward or Edward's threat to Henry.

Nobody is mocking the tears of an abuse survivor.  We are wondering what the hell she had to cry at when all her scheming had come to fruition.  Tears of relief maybe, but that's about it.
 
And if  has been suggested, either Henry or his mother  thought he was rightful king from 1471 (when he was 14 if I am correct) when I don't think Edward thought he was a threat - or much of one - you have your answer.


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:55
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 

But it explains why she would be emotionally contorted enough to weep at her
son's coronation, and for people to mock at an abuse survivor's tears is not
a million miles away from enjoying watching an execution.

The morality of her plotting depends on which came first - Henry's threat to
Edward or Edward's threat to Henry.

Oh for heaven's sake Claire..you are still going on and on about some lighthearted remarks made yesterday by me to another poster. Dont try to make out we are monsters...You really do need to get a grip! Im getting really fed up with it...Move on...Eileen

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

> and for people to mock at an abuse survivor's tears is not
> a million miles away from enjoying watching an execution.
>
>

Its really getting like walking on eggshells on this forum lately...you make a lighthearted jest and you know, you just absolutely know, you are going to get chastised about it by some holier than thou poster...Im clearing off for a while..this is not my idea of fun..Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Oh for heaven's sake Claire..you are still going on and on about some lighthearted remarks made yesterday by me to another poster. Dont try to make out we are monsters...You really do need to get a grip! Im getting really fed up with it...Move on...Eileen
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
>
> > and for people to mock at an abuse survivor's tears is not
> > a million miles away from enjoying watching an execution.
> >
> >
>

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?


> Oh for heaven's sake Claire..you are still going on and on about some
> lighthearted remarks made yesterday by me to another poster. Dont try to
> make out we are monsters...

I'm not saying you are, and nor were the people who watched the executions.
Laughing at someone else's tears (unless you're sure they're *fake* tears)
is the sort of playground-bully behaviour which is a first step on the
slippery slope that leads to that sort of acceptance of public cruelty by,
on the whole, perfectly average people. And your fair-mindedness isn't
worth the paper it isn't written on, unless you can be fair to people you
*don't like*.

I think it's bad behaviour, and that isn't going to change, so you'll just
have to get over that.

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?


> Its really getting like walking on eggshells on this forum lately...

Exactly like walking on eggshells - if I don't join in with jeering at
Richard's enemies as if they weren't people too, I get jumped on by all and
sundry. Yet, it's clear that there are several people here who agree with
me that they had reasons which probably seemed perfectly good to them, and
who are beginning to speak up.

Jeering at the Tudor faction and calling Henry "Weasel" and all that may
seem like fun at the time but it makes us look silly and childish, and so it
makes supporting Richard look like something only silly and childish people
do. A lot of the media already think that, but we don't have to hand them
anti-Ricardian ammunition on a plate.

Yep, I've always thought it rather vulgar. And Margaret of Burgundy's comes a good second-best - we'll agree to share.



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 17:07
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


 

The current state crown is just horrendous, at least compared to the medieval ones.  Anne of Bohemia's crown is divine (and yes I want it!)
 

From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:49
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 
From: EileenB
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?

> They, the Royalty, must have been top heavy with so much jewellery its a
> wonder they didnt keep falling over...a bit like have a big head
> today...Eileen

Yes, and the state crown is horrendously heavy - although the one Richard
wore into battle would have been a simple circlet and not as bad. Still, it
wouldn't do to have a bad neck and wear that: all gold is really, really
heavy.

the current s

Margaret of Burgundy's crown is teeny...probably meant to wear with a hennin...I saw it at the V&A some years ago....

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yep, I've always thought it rather vulgar. And Margaret of Burgundy's comes a good second-best - we'll agree to share.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 17:07
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>  
>
> The current state crown is just horrendous, at least compared to the medieval ones.  Anne of Bohemia's crown is divine (and yes I want it!)
>  
>
> From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:49
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>  
> From: EileenB
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:14 PM
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
> after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
> > They, the Royalty, must have been top heavy with so much jewellery its a
> > wonder they didnt keep falling over...a bit like have a big head
> > today...Eileen
>
> Yes, and the state crown is horrendously heavy - although the one Richard
> wore into battle would have been a simple circlet and not as bad. Still, it
> wouldn't do to have a bad neck and wear that: all gold is really, really
> heavy.
>
> the current s
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?


> Yep, I've always thought it rather vulgar.

Yeah, I don't like the modern state crown either, with all that puffy
velvet - like a cross between a wedding cake and a footstool. Mediaeval
crowns were much nicer, and much more dignified.

Please don't Eileen, don't let it get to you. We need to keep a sense of proportion and humour helps. Methinks some may soon end up talking to themselves.  
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 21:10
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


 

Its really getting like walking on eggshells on this forum lately...you make a lighthearted jest and you know, you just absolutely know, you are going to get chastised about it by some holier than thou poster...Im clearing off for a while..this is not my idea of fun..Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Oh for heaven's sake Claire..you are still going on and on about some lighthearted remarks made yesterday by me to another poster. Dont try to make out we are monsters...You really do need to get a grip! Im getting really fed up with it...Move on...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
>
> > and for people to mock at an abuse survivor's tears is not
> > a million miles away from enjoying watching an execution.
> >
> >
>

But Claire, it's one thing to be "fair" and quite another to always give the benefit of the doubt to people whose behaviour suggests they don't deserve it.
 
 

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 21:19
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

  PM

I'm not saying you are, and nor were the people who watched the executions.
Laughing at someone else's tears (unless you're sure they're *fake* tears)
is the sort of playground-bully behaviour which is a first step on the
slippery slope that leads to that sort of acceptance of public cruelty by,
on the whole, perfectly average people. And your fair-mindedness isn't
worth the paper it isn't written on, unless you can be fair to people you
*don't like*.

I think it's bad behaviour, and that isn't going to change, so you'll just
have to get over that.

Its Ok Hilary..Ive changed my mind....:0) You dont get rid of me that easily...eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Please don't Eileen, don't let it get to you. We need to keep a sense of proportion and humour helps. Methinks some may soon end up talking to themselves.  
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 21:10
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>  
>
> Its really getting like walking on eggshells on this forum lately...you make a lighthearted jest and you know, you just absolutely know, you are going to get chastised about it by some holier than thou poster...Im clearing off for a while..this is not my idea of fun..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh for heaven's sake Claire..you are still going on and on about some lighthearted remarks made yesterday by me to another poster. Dont try to make out we are monsters...You really do need to get a grip! Im getting really fed up with it...Move on...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > and for people to mock at an abuse survivor's tears is not
> > > a million miles away from enjoying watching an execution.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Good. I'm back to Pompeii!!



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 21:49
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


 

Its Ok Hilary..Ive changed my mind....:0) You dont get rid of me that easily...eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Please don't Eileen, don't let it get to you. We need to keep a sense of proportion and humour helps. Methinks some may soon end up talking to themselves.  
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 21:10
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>  
>
> Its really getting like walking on eggshells on this forum lately...you make a lighthearted jest and you know, you just absolutely know, you are going to get chastised about it by some holier than thou poster...Im clearing off for a while..this is not my idea of fun..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh for heaven's sake Claire..you are still going on and on about some lighthearted remarks made yesterday by me to another poster. Dont try to make out we are monsters...You really do need to get a grip! Im getting really fed up with it...Move on...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > and for people to mock at an abuse survivor's tears is not
> > > a million miles away from enjoying watching an execution.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ive been there...I couldnt afford the fare but I done the google map thingy...I went all over the place...

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Good. I'm back to Pompeii!!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 21:49
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>  
>
> Its Ok Hilary..Ive changed my mind....:0) You dont get rid of me that easily...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Please don't Eileen, don't let it get to you. We need to keep a sense of proportion and humour helps. Methinks some may soon end up talking to themselves.  
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 21:10
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Its really getting like walking on eggshells on this forum lately...you make a lighthearted jest and you know, you just absolutely know, you are going to get chastised about it by some holier than thou poster...Im clearing off for a while..this is not my idea of fun..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh for heaven's sake Claire..you are still going on and on about some lighthearted remarks made yesterday by me to another poster. Dont try to make out we are monsters...You really do need to get a grip! Im getting really fed up with it...Move on...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > and for people to mock at an abuse survivor's tears is not
> > > > a million miles away from enjoying watching an execution.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?


> But Claire, it's one thing to be "fair" and quite another to always give
> the benefit of the doubt to people whose behaviour suggests they don't
> deserve it.

But then you can assign probabilities - we can say ferex that Rhys ap Thomas
*might* have been motivated by sincere Welsh national sentiment but more
probably he was just a self-agrandising con-artist using Welsh nationalism
for his own advantage. But if you don't make room for the possibilities,
for the doubt, then a particular way of assessing a situation or a person
gets fossilised, it becomes an orthodoxy - like the negative view of
Richard - and quite often those orthodoxies are wrong and then they bugger
up your analysis.

Well I can't speak for Eileen  but if there are lots of other people who agree with you I wish they would all speak up on here because you seem to be  pretty much on your own.   You cannot spend your whole life bending over backwards trying to justify the behaviour of Tudor and co because most of it isn't justifiable and I'm not jeering at them in any way, just pointing out what a rotten bunch they were  (Just because Edward and others may have been nearly as rotten doesn't excuse Tudor either.)
 
I'd also like to point out that just because someone had a reason that they thought was good it doesn't mean it really is.  Frankly Jack the Ripper (and I am emphatically "not" comparing MB or Henry to them by the way) thought he had good reasons for what he did.   Henry Tudor (or his mother) thought he had good reason to claim the throne but he didn't.
 
 

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 21:26
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 
Exactly like walking on eggshells - if I don't join in with jeering at
Richard's enemies as if they weren't people too, I get jumped on by all and
sundry. Yet, it's clear that there are several people here who agree with
me that they had reasons which probably seemed perfectly good to them, and
who are beginning to speak up.

Jeering at the Tudor faction and calling Henry "Weasel" and all that may
seem like fun at the time but it makes us look silly and childish, and so it
makes supporting Richard look like something only silly and childish people
do. A lot of the media already think that, but we don't have to hand them
anti-Ricardian ammunition on a plate.

And if you keep going on and on about all the possibilitites we'll be here all year.   Personally  - and as someone who is more Welsh than anything - I don't care about Rhys's motivation - he lied and he was a traitor.  I'd have respect for him if he hadn't given Richard his promise in the first place.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 21:57
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 
From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?

> But Claire, it's one thing to be "fair" and quite another to always give
> the benefit of the doubt to people whose behaviour suggests they don't
> deserve it.

But then you can assign probabilities - we can say ferex that Rhys ap Thomas
*might* have been motivated by sincere Welsh national sentiment but more
probably he was just a self-agrandising con-artist using Welsh nationalism
for his own advantage. But if you don't make room for the possibilities,
for the doubt, then a particular way of assessing a situation or a person
gets fossilised, it becomes an orthodoxy - like the negative view of
Richard - and quite often those orthodoxies are wrong and then they bugger
up your analysis.

Oh   -  I haven't seen. Modest - was he tight with money too?



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:37
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 
Lol...Liz...no!..I was saying that the engagement ring given by Napollean to Josephine was modest...Did you see it yesterday.Its just been sold....It is so lovely...

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen!  Your standards must be much higher (or blingier) than mine - modest?  Emeralds, sapphires, rubies, gold I'd settle for any of it.  :-) 
>  
> But then I don't like the current crown (apart from the Black Prince's Ruby) because I'm not a fan of white diamonds
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 17:20
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>  
> Anne of Bohemia's crown..how gorgious is that. More modest but gorgious too I would also be very happy with the engagement ring given by Napolean to Josephine that was sold the other day.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > The current state crown is just horrendous, at least compared to the medieval ones.à Anne of Bohemia's crown is divine (and yes I want it!)
> > à
> >
> > From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:49
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> > à
> > From: EileenB
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:14 PM
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
> > after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> > > They, the Royalty, must have been top heavy with so much jewellery its a
> > > wonder they didnt keep falling over...a bit like have a big head
> > > today...Eileen
> >
> > Yes, and the state crown is horrendously heavy - although the one Richard
> > wore into battle would have been a simple circlet and not as bad. Still, it
> > wouldn't do to have a bad neck and wear that: all gold is really, really
> > heavy.
> >
> >
> > the current s
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

don't you just love it?  



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 21:52
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 
Ive been there...I couldnt afford the fare but I done the google map thingy...I went all over the place...

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Good. I'm back to Pompeii!!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 21:49
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>  
>
> Its Ok Hilary..Ive changed my mind....:0) You dont get rid of me that easily...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Please don't Eileen, don't let it get to you. We need to keep a sense of proportion and humouràhelps. Methinks some may soon end upàtalking to themselves.àà
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 21:10
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > Its really getting like walking on eggshells on this forum lately...you make a lighthearted jest and you know, you just absolutely know, you are going to get chastised about it by some holier than thou poster...Im clearing off for a while..this is not my idea of fun..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh for heaven's sake Claire..you are still going on and on about some lighthearted remarks made yesterday by me to another poster. Dont try to make out we are monsters...You really do need to get a grip! Im getting really fed up with it...Move on...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > and for people to mock at an abuse survivor's tears is not
> > > > a million miles away from enjoying watching an execution.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Its this one....I love it..I want it...(It was in the DM yesterday but I found this USA link)

http://gma.yahoo.com/napoleon-josephines-engagement-ring-sells-201508615.htm

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Oh   -  I haven't seen. Modest - was he tight with money too?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:37
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>  
> Lol...Liz...no!..I was saying that the engagement ring given by Napollean to Josephine was modest...Did you see it yesterday.Its just been sold....It is so lovely...
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen!  Your standards must be much higher (or blingier) than mine - modest?  Emeralds, sapphires, rubies, gold I'd settle for any of it.  :-) 
> >  
> > But then I don't like the current crown (apart from the Black Prince's Ruby) because I'm not a fan of white diamonds
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 17:20
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >  
> > Anne of Bohemia's crown..how gorgious is that. More modest but gorgious too I would also be very happy with the engagement ring given by Napolean to Josephine that was sold the other day.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The current state crown is just horrendous, at least compared to the medieval ones.  Anne of Bohemia's crown is divine (and yes I want it!)
> > >  
> > >
> > > From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:49
> > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > >
> > >  
> > > From: EileenB
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:14 PM
> > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
> > > after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > >
> > > > They, the Royalty, must have been top heavy with so much jewellery its a
> > > > wonder they didnt keep falling over...a bit like have a big head
> > > > today...Eileen
> > >
> > > Yes, and the state crown is horrendously heavy - although the one Richard
> > > wore into battle would have been a simple circlet and not as bad. Still, it
> > > wouldn't do to have a bad neck and wear that: all gold is really, really
> > > heavy.
> > >
> > >
> > > the current s
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I don't know what is all this about Margaret Beaufort's tears as I haven't been reading all the posts lately, so I hope I'm not speaking out of turn... but I just wanted to say that, for me, one of the greatest pleasures of history is being able to see the many different sides to a story. For me, the act of studying history and trying to understand these people and what they did and their motivations for doing what they did is, at its best, a lesson in objectivity. Sometimes it means assessing a certain situation in a cold and impersonal way. On the other hand, sometimes it means trying to get as close to these people's personal histories - imaginative leaps, 'what-ifs', 'what-might-have-he-been-thinkings', alternative interpretations to the existing evidence...

Of course I've got my favourites; of course I like some people in history books better than I like others. Of course I often tend to see one side of a conflict as more 'right' than the other. But very few people of any era are completely, irredeemably bad, or the kind of bad that you can't understand them anymore. Behind every inhuman deed is a human being.

For me, it's not about making excuses for anyone. At all. That includes not making excuses for people I like. It also includes not making excuses for myself, when I (in a very human way) sometimes find myself taking sides to the extent that I'm demonising the other side. That isn't the right way to go, I feel; it certainly isn't why I read history.

The only side I'd like to be on is the side of truth, even if that truth is sometimes not what I'd like to hear. It isn't always easy, but it's the thing that really matters.

>
> I'd also like to point out that just because someone had a reason that they thought was good it doesn't mean it really is.  Frankly Jack the Ripper (and I am emphatically "not" comparing MB or Henry to them by the way) thought he had good reasons for what he did.   Henry Tudor (or his mother) thought he had good reason to claim the throne but he didn't.
>

Still, if we study history we must try to analyse - even, if possible, to understand - those reasons. That doesn't mean we agree with them.

Oh I did see it!  I wasn't paying attention to it  - I am trying not to read the DM anymore, it is "such" dross



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 22:21
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 
Its this one....I love it..I want it...(It was in the DM yesterday but I found this USA link)

http://gma.yahoo.com/napoleon-josephines-engagement-ring-sells-201508615.htm

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Oh   -  I haven't seen. Modest - was he tight with money too?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 20:37
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>  
> Lol...Liz...no!..I was saying that the engagement ring given by Napollean to Josephine was modest...Did you see it yesterday.Its just been sold....It is so lovely...
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen!à Your standards must be much higher (or blingier) than mine - modest?à Emeralds, sapphires, rubies, gold I'd settle for any of it.à :-)à
> > à
> > But then I don't like the current crown (apart from the Black Prince's Ruby) because I'm not a fan of white diamonds
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 17:20
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> > à
> > Anne of Bohemia's crown..how gorgious is that. More modest but gorgious too I would also be very happy with the engagement ring given by Napolean to Josephine that was sold the other day.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The current state crown is just horrendous, at least compared to the medieval ones.Ã’â¬aà Anne of Bohemia's crown is divine (and yes I want it!)
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > > From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 16:49
> > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > From: EileenB
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:14 PM
> > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
> > > after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > >
> > > > They, the Royalty, must have been top heavy with so much jewellery its a
> > > > wonder they didnt keep falling over...a bit like have a big head
> > > > today...Eileen
> > >
> > > Yes, and the state crown is horrendously heavy - although the one Richard
> > > wore into battle would have been a simple circlet and not as bad. Still, it
> > > wouldn't do to have a bad neck and wear that: all gold is really, really
> > > heavy.
> > >
> > >
> > > the current s
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?


> The only side I'd like to be on is the side of truth, even if that truth
> is sometimes not what I'd like to hear. It isn't always easy, but it's the
> thing that really matters.

A beautifully expressed post.

Hang on a moment. This is the Richard III Society and we're supposed to admire, sympathise and agree with the Tudor faction? I'm not really interested in what you agree with Claire, only what I believe to be the correct interpretation of events. In some instances I have a degree of sympathy with Henry, but I certainly have a greater degree of sympathy with Richard who was deposed by someone who had no entitlement to the crown whatsoever. And Richard is the subject of this forum; not Henry or his mother. As I understand it the moderator has made this forum closed to all but its members so your concerns and comments are both unfounded, and I would say insulting.
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 21:26
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?

> Its really getting like walking on eggshells on this forum lately...

Exactly like walking on eggshells - if I don't join in with jeering at
Richard's enemies as if they weren't people too, I get jumped on by all and
sundry. Yet, it's clear that there are several people here who agree with
me that they had reasons which probably seemed perfectly good to them, and
who are beginning to speak up.

Jeering at the Tudor faction and calling Henry "Weasel" and all that may
seem like fun at the time but it makes us look silly and childish, and so it
makes supporting Richard look like something only silly and childish people
do. A lot of the media already think that, but we don't have to hand them
anti-Ricardian ammunition on a plate.

liz williams wrote:
>
> Dear god, why on earth do they think that?  Nurses are supposed to have compassion and nothing I have read about MB suggests she had any.  Ambition on the other hand .....

Carol responds:

If she were alive today, she'd be the world's most competitive soccer {American for what you call football) mom or stage mother, still ruthlessly managing twenty-seven-year-old Henry from the sidelines or behind the scenes. At least, she wouldn't be responsible for any bloodshed in this era.

Re Baynard's castle, Henry evidently turned it into a royal palace. No one seems to mention that it didn't belong to him.

Can we get back to Richard now? I feel as if I've strayed onto the Henry Tudor list!

carol

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?


> Hang on a moment. This is the Richard III Society and we're supposed to
> admire, sympathise and agree with the Tudor faction?

Possibly sympathise with, or at least understand - not the other two.
Richard's prayer was to establish concord with his enemies, not to be a
cause of continued strife and hatred.

> I'm not really interested in what you agree with Claire, only what I
> believe to be the correct interpretation of events.

And I feel the same about you, so that's mutual.

> In some instances I have a degree of sympathy with Henry, but I certainly
> have a greater degree of sympathy with Richard who was deposed by someone
> who had no entitlement to the crown whatsoever.

Yes, definitely.

> And Richard is the subject of this forum; not Henry or his mother.

Actually the subject of the forum is Richard and his times, of which Henry
and MB are a part, but I'm not the one who wants to talk about them all the
time. All I want is to be able to make a simple, uncontroversial remark
like "Henry and MB probably felt that becoming king was his best chance of
survival, and his survival was her firsr priority, which is understandable"
without everybody starting to scream.

> As I understand it the moderator has made this forum closed to all but its
> members so your concerns and comments are both unfounded, and I would say
> insulting.

And at least one of its members is also a member of a Tudor forum. Plus,
what happens on the net *stays* on the net. Somebody could be reading an
archive of this list three hundred years from now.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> The armour might have been too hacked about to be salvageable and would have been tailor-made to fit his wiggly back, and so not readily transferable. And the clothes would have decayed and fallen apart long since. But his rings and hat brooches and so on probably survived.

Carol responds:

I *don't* think that the common soldiers would have started stripping Richard's body with at least one Stanley and Rhys ap Thomas present, not to mention that Richard evidently got within yards of Tudor himself. You would think that the armor, if it was at all distinctive, would have been a great prize and that the owner would have made a big deal about Richard's "deformity." That they didn't makes me think that the crooked back was not as apparent as the skeleton makes it appear and that the armor, undoubtedly the finest available, was not otherwise distinctive.

Regarding Richard's belongings, at least the coronation crowns (his and Anne's) survived. They were the same ones that had been used by all the sovereigns since the Anglo-Saxon era (the crowns of King Edward, I don't know which one, and Queen Edith). Hammond and Sutton show a photograph of them in "The Road to Bosworth Field." Apparently, Henry had a new crown made for his coronation, but I haven't confirmed that detail.

Carol

We are back to being " normal" again. Aren't we? We had that patch of bad weather in February after the bones were displayed.........

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 27, 2013, at 5:46 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Please don't Eileen, don't let it get to you. We need to keep a sense of proportion and humour helps. Methinks some may soon end up talking to themselves.
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 21:10
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>
> Its really getting like walking on eggshells on this forum lately...you make a lighthearted jest and you know, you just absolutely know, you are going to get chastised about it by some holier than thou poster...Im clearing off for a while..this is not my idea of fun..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > Oh for heaven's sake Claire..you are still going on and on about some lighthearted remarks made yesterday by me to another poster. Dont try to make out we are monsters...You really do need to get a grip! Im getting really fed up with it...Move on...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > and for people to mock at an abuse survivor's tears is not
> > > a million miles away from enjoying watching an execution.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

I really hope we are - I'm not going anywhere, except to bed. And I hope Eileen isn't either.



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 23:48
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


 

We are back to being " normal" again. Aren't we? We had that patch of bad weather in February after the bones were displayed.........

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 27, 2013, at 5:46 PM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> Please don't Eileen, don't let it get to you. We need to keep a sense of proportion and humour helps. Methinks some may soon end up talking to themselves.
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 21:10
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>
> Its really getting like walking on eggshells on this forum lately...you make a lighthearted jest and you know, you just absolutely know, you are going to get chastised about it by some holier than thou poster...Im clearing off for a while..this is not my idea of fun..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > Oh for heaven's sake Claire..you are still going on and on about some lighthearted remarks made yesterday by me to another poster. Dont try to make out we are monsters...You really do need to get a grip! Im getting really fed up with it...Move on...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > and for people to mock at an abuse survivor's tears is not
> > > a million miles away from enjoying watching an execution.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

Nighty night!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> I really hope we are - I'm not going anywhere, except to bed. And I hope Eileen isn't either.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 23:48
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>
>
> We are back to being " normal" again. Aren't we? We had that patch of bad weather in February after the bones were displayed.........
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 27, 2013, at 5:46 PM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Please don't Eileen, don't let it get to you. We need to keep a sense of proportion and humour helps. Methinks some may soon end up talking to themselves.
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 21:10
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> >
> > Its really getting like walking on eggshells on this forum lately...you make a lighthearted jest and you know, you just absolutely know, you are going to get chastised about it by some holier than thou poster...Im clearing off for a while..this is not my idea of fun..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh for heaven's sake Claire..you are still going on and on about some lighthearted remarks made yesterday by me to another poster. Dont try to make out we are monsters...You really do need to get a grip! Im getting really fed up with it...Move on...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > and for people to mock at an abuse survivor's tears is not
> > > > a million miles away from enjoying watching an execution.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh yes please. Re the Privy Council minutes, they seem to be at the NA in Latin. Has anyone done any work on them? Was that what Marie was working on?



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 23:19
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 


liz williams wrote:
>
> Dear god, why on earth do they think that?  Nurses are supposed to have compassion and nothing I have read about MB suggests she had any.  Ambition on the other hand .....

Carol responds:

If she were alive today, she'd be the world's most competitive soccer {American for what you call football) mom or stage mother, still ruthlessly managing twenty-seven-year-old Henry from the sidelines or behind the scenes. At least, she wouldn't be responsible for any bloodshed in this era.

Re Baynard's castle, Henry evidently turned it into a royal palace. No one seems to mention that it didn't belong to him.

Can we get back to Richard now? I feel as if I've strayed onto the Henry Tudor list!

carol

Lol...Im wondering what Ishita's definition of 'normal' is...Anyway Im off too...goodnight peoples....Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I really hope we are - I'm not going anywhere, except to bed. And I hope Eileen isn't either.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 23:48
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>  
>
> We are back to being " normal" again. Aren't we? We had that patch of bad weather in February after the bones were displayed.........
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 27, 2013, at 5:46 PM, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Please don't Eileen, don't let it get to you. We need to keep a sense of proportion and humour helps. Methinks some may soon end up talking to themselves.
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 21:10
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> >
> > Its really getting like walking on eggshells on this forum lately...you make a lighthearted jest and you know, you just absolutely know, you are going to get chastised about it by some holier than thou poster...Im clearing off for a while..this is not my idea of fun..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh for heaven's sake Claire..you are still going on and on about some lighthearted remarks made yesterday by me to another poster. Dont try to make out we are monsters...You really do need to get a grip! Im getting really fed up with it...Move on...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > and for people to mock at an abuse survivor's tears is not
> > > > a million miles away from enjoying watching an execution.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes Starkey's programme went on to explain about the Tudor imperial crown - very large - melted down by the Commonwealth. Presumably that happened to Richard and Anne's? 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2013, 23:47
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> The armour might have been too hacked about to be salvageable and would have been tailor-made to fit his wiggly back, and so not readily transferable. And the clothes would have decayed and fallen apart long since. But his rings and hat brooches and so on probably survived.

Carol responds:

I *don't* think that the common soldiers would have started stripping Richard's body with at least one Stanley and Rhys ap Thomas present, not to mention that Richard evidently got within yards of Tudor himself. You would think that the armor, if it was at all distinctive, would have been a great prize and that the owner would have made a big deal about Richard's "deformity." That they didn't makes me think that the crooked back was not as apparent as the skeleton makes it appear and that the armor, undoubtedly the finest available, was not otherwise distinctive.

Regarding Richard's belongings, at least the coronation crowns (his and Anne's) survived. They were the same ones that had been used by all the sovereigns since the Anglo-Saxon era (the crowns of King Edward, I don't know which one, and Queen Edith). Hammond and Sutton show a photograph of them in "The Road to Bosworth Field." Apparently, Henry had a new crown made for his coronation, but I haven't confirmed that detail.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes Starkey's programme went on to explain about the Tudor imperial crown - very large - melted down by the Commonwealth. Presumably that happened to Richard and Anne's? 

Carol responds:

They can't have been melted as "The Road to Bosworth Field" has a black-and-white photo of them (p. 121). They are ceremonial crowns, apparently very heavy. The taller one has a little cross on top. The caption calls them the crowns of Queen Edith [probably Eagdyth?] and Saint Edward [presumably Edward the Confessor, the last Sazon king except Harold] and states that they are "the mediaeval coronation crowns with which Richard and Anne were crowned in 1483."

I just realized that the illustration is actually of a drawing by someone named Julian Rowe, but it's so detailed, intricate, and realistic that it looks like a photograph and must have been done from the originals. Surely, Henry wouldn't melt down ancient crowns worn by every English king before him, including the Lancastrians he was supposedly heir to, only to have a new and expensive crown made for himself. That would be a crime against tradition and history.

Sigh. I'm back on HT again!

I can't find any representations of Richard's crown or Anne's online that look at all like the real thing. It's only vaguely like the one he's wearing in the Beauchamp Pageant, and Anne's isn't the same at all. http://media-cache-ec4.pinterest.com/550x/5e/8b/c0/5e8bc04fbf79211a85151459bf304d6c.jpg

Sorry I can't be more helpful.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?


> That they didn't makes me think that the crooked back was not as apparent
> as the skeleton makes it appear and that the armor, undoubtedly the finest
> available, was not otherwise distinctive.

Or that the accommodation to fit his back was all in the internal padding,
not the metal. There would be a thick quilted jacket inside the steel.

> Regarding Richard's belongings, at least the coronation crowns (his and
> Anne's) survived. They were the same ones that had been used by all the
> sovereigns since the Anglo-Saxon era (the crowns of King Edward, I don't
> know which one, and Queen Edith). Hammond and Sutton show a photograph of
> them in "The Road to Bosworth Field."

A *photograph*? Are you sure? I thought Cromwell had all the old English
regalia melted down.

The link to the picture was interesting, Carol. I know I am showing my layman ignorance here, but my curiosity is prompted by the picture from the Beauchamp Pageant. Why the armour? Crown, orb, coronation robes (or the next best thing) but with armour? Is it merely the stylised norm? Symbolic? Or did it have some factual basis? Or am I being really, really dumb? I have an awful suspicion the dumb part is correct.
http://media-cache-ec4.pinterest.com/550x/5e/8b/c0/5e8bc04fbf79211a85151459bf304d6c.jpg


Sandra

Parliament et al certainly melted down most when they got rid of Charles I. They had to make a new one for Charles II. In Jones's Bosworth there is an illustration of the crown Richard wore from a contemporary Esholt Priory Charter and fig 5 is  'Sandford's engraving of St Edward's crown made for Charles II in 1661 apparently from the fragments of the earlier one ' totally broken and defaced' in 1649  (illustration by Geoffrey Wheeler)


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 1:42
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes Starkey's programme went on to explain about the Tudor imperial crown - very large - melted down by the Commonwealth. Presumably that happened to Richard and Anne's? 

Carol responds:

They can't have been melted as "The Road to Bosworth Field" has a black-and-white photo of them (p. 121). They are ceremonial crowns, apparently very heavy. The taller one has a little cross on top. The caption calls them the crowns of Queen Edith [probably Eagdyth?] and Saint Edward [presumably Edward the Confessor, the last Sazon king except Harold] and states that they are "the mediaeval coronation crowns with which Richard and Anne were crowned in 1483."

I just realized that the illustration is actually of a drawing by someone named Julian Rowe, but it's so detailed, intricate, and realistic that it looks like a photograph and must have been done from the originals. Surely, Henry wouldn't melt down ancient crowns worn by every English king before him, including the Lancastrians he was supposedly heir to, only to have a new and expensive crown made for himself. That would be a crime against tradition and history.

Sigh. I'm back on HT again!

I can't find any representations of Richard's crown or Anne's online that look at all like the real thing. It's only vaguely like the one he's wearing in the Beauchamp Pageant, and Anne's isn't the same at all. http://media-cache-ec4.pinterest.com/550x/5e/8b/c0/5e8bc04fbf79211a85151459bf304d6c.jpg

Sorry I can't be more helpful.

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> They can't have been melted as "The Road to Bosworth Field" has a black-and-white photo of them (p. 121). They are ceremonial crowns, apparently very heavy. The taller one has a little cross on top. The caption calls them the crowns of Queen Edith [probably Eagdyth?] and Saint Edward [presumably Edward the Confessor, the last Sazon king except Harold] and states that they are "the mediaeval coronation crowns with which Richard and Anne were crowned in 1483."
>
> I just realized that the illustration is actually of a drawing by someone named Julian Rowe, but it's so detailed, intricate, and realistic that it looks like a photograph and must have been done from the originals. Surely, Henry wouldn't melt down ancient crowns worn by every English king before him, including the Lancastrians he was supposedly heir to, only to have a new and expensive crown made for himself. That would be a crime against tradition and history.
>

Could these have been replica crowns? Every source I come across seems to say that both Queen Edith's crown and St Edward's crown were melted by Cromwell (not Henry!) and that St Edward's crown was replaced by the current coronation crown in the 17th century, also called St Edward's crown:
http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/images/jewels/edwards_crown.jpg

Interestingly, though, the Tudors seem to have had a coronation crown of their own:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2012/oct/07/henry-viii-crown-recreated

Yes, my sources say that too, which is why only the ampula is 'original' at the Coronation. That and one of the sceptres (?) I think? All the surviving jewels had to be re-set for Charles II and bits added later for various monarchs 



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 9:59
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> They can't have been melted as "The Road to Bosworth Field" has a black-and-white photo of them (p. 121). They are ceremonial crowns, apparently very heavy. The taller one has a little cross on top. The caption calls them the crowns of Queen Edith [probably Eagdyth?] and Saint Edward [presumably Edward the Confessor, the last Sazon king except Harold] and states that they are "the mediaeval coronation crowns with which Richard and Anne were crowned in 1483."
>
> I just realized that the illustration is actually of a drawing by someone named Julian Rowe, but it's so detailed, intricate, and realistic that it looks like a photograph and must have been done from the originals. Surely, Henry wouldn't melt down ancient crowns worn by every English king before him, including the Lancastrians he was supposedly heir to, only to have a new and expensive crown made for himself. That would be a crime against tradition and history.
>

Could these have been replica crowns? Every source I come across seems to say that both Queen Edith's crown and St Edward's crown were melted by Cromwell (not Henry!) and that St Edward's crown was replaced by the current coronation crown in the 17th century, also called St Edward's crown:
http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/images/jewels/edwards_crown.jpg

Interestingly, though, the Tudors seem to have had a coronation crown of their own:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2012/oct/07/henry-viii-crown-recreated

Perhaps that's because Henry knew he wasn't entitled to wear the other one?  :-)



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 9:59
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 >Snip>
Interestingly, though, the Tudors seem to have had a coronation crown of their own:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2012/oct/07/henry-viii-crown-recreated

Carol earlier:
>
> > Regarding Richard's belongings, at least the coronation crowns (his and Anne's) survived. They were the same ones that had been used by all the sovereigns since the Anglo-Saxon era (the crowns of King Edward, I don't know which one, and Queen Edith). Hammond and Sutton show a photograph of them in "The Road to Bosworth Field."

Claire responded:

> A *photograph*? Are you sure? I thought Cromwell had all the old English regalia melted down.
>
Carol responds:

Sorry. As I said in another post, the photograph is of a detailed drawing of the crowns (which had been used in all coronations from the time of Edward the Confessor and his queen to the time of Richard and Anne) by an artist named Julian Rowe, who also drew the plaque with the entwined R and A found at Middleham. The drawing of the crowns is highly detailed and looks as if it was made by someone who saw the originals. Rowe is credited in the acknowledgements and is clearly a modern artist. the book ("Road to Bosworth") was published in 1985. That's all I know.

Carol

.

Wowsers...... That is stunning, no the recreation is quite a project.

On Mar 28, 2013, at 11:50 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



Perhaps that's because Henry knew he wasn't entitled to wear the other one? :-)

________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 9:59
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

>Snip>
Interestingly, though, the Tudors seem to have had a coronation crown of their own:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2012/oct/07/henry-viii-crown-recreated

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> The link to the picture was interesting, Carol. I know I am showing my layman ignorance here, but my curiosity is prompted by the picture from the Beauchamp Pageant. Why the armour? Crown, orb, coronation robes (or the next best thing) but with armour? Is it merely the stylised norm? Symbolic? Or did it have some factual basis? Or am I being really, really dumb? I have an awful suspicion the dumb part is correct.
> http://media-cache-ec4.pinterest.com/550x/5e/8b/c0/5e8bc04fbf79211a85151459bf304d6c.jpg

Carol responds:

Sorry. My mistake. The colored drawing of Richard and Anne in coronation robes is not from the Beauchamp Pageant, made for the Countess of Warwick after Richard's death. That picture (which makes Richard look rather older than he was but is no more unflattering than the other drawings) is here:

http://www.richardiii.net/images/beauchamp_pageant_family_tree.jpg

The entire pageant (mostly about Richard Beauchamp)can be found here:
http://archive.org/details/pageantsofricard00privuoft Choose the PdF format to see the pictures. The introduction is more interesting than the pageant itself because it discusses the date of composition and eliminates Rous as the author. The main thing of importance, in my view, is that it says nothing bad about Richard and seems to show that the Countess or Warwick bore him no malice.

I know nothing about the Salisbury Roll except that it contains that picture and is apparently earlier than or contemporary with the English version of the Rous roll, which means that it was made during Richard's reign.

Anybody have any additional information?

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Sorry. My mistake. The colored drawing of Richard and Anne in coronation robes is not from the Beauchamp Pageant, made for the Countess of Warwick after Richard's death. That picture (which makes Richard look rather older than he was but is no more unflattering than the other drawings) is here:
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/images/beauchamp_pageant_family_tree.jpg
>

Oh, Lord... I can never look at that picture without giggling. It makes Richard look like Omar Sharif, and Anne like Vicky Pollard.

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Parliament et al certainly melted down most when they got rid of Charles I. They had to make a new one for Charles II. In Jones's Bosworth there is an illustration of the crown Richard wore from a contemporary Esholt Priory Charter [snip]

Carol responds:

Is it a tall, heavy-looking peaked crown with large round stones (pearls?) running up the sides and a cross on top (no velvet)? If so, that may be the illustration that Julian Rowe used as the basis for the drawing that appears in "Road to Bosworth." Is the Esholt Priory Charter contemporary with Charles I, Charles II, or Richard?

Carol

Claire wrote:

> Oh yes, that's *very* pretty - probably still quite heavy though. What happened to it over the years? Is it possible Anne Neville wore this?
>
Carol responds:

If you mean for her coronation, no. She wore Queen Edith's crown, the mate to the one Richard (and all his predecessors for hundred of years) wore, the crown of Edward the Confessor. However, she may have worn Anne of Bohemia's crown on ceremonial occasions. I really don't know. This site and several others say that it's the only surviving medieval crown, but where it is now I have no idea:

http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/the-execution-of-mary-queen-of-scots/4197/

Carol

Carol, you may have missed my post the other day.  It's in Munich and apparently has been in Germany since 1402
 
http://www.residenz-muenchen.de/englisch/treasury/pic11.htm
 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 19:13
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 
Claire wrote:

> Oh yes, that's *very* pretty - probably still quite heavy though. What happened to it over the years? Is it possible Anne Neville wore this?
>
Carol responds:

If you mean for her coronation, no. She wore Queen Edith's crown, the mate to the one Richard (and all his predecessors for hundred of years) wore, the crown of Edward the Confessor. However, she may have worn Anne of Bohemia's crown on ceremonial occasions. I really don't know. This site and several others say that it's the only surviving medieval crown, but where it is now I have no idea:

http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/the-execution-of-mary-queen-of-scots/4197/

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> But it explains why she would be emotionally contorted enough to weep at her son's coronation, and for people to mock at an abuse survivor's tears is not a million miles away from enjoying watching an execution.

Carol responds:

The concept of "abuse survivor" would have been utterly foreign to anyone born before the twentieth century. We have no idea how MB felt about her husband's premature consummation of their marriage. Maybe he was very gentle; maybe she loved him; maybe it was a grim duty for both of them. Whatever pain she felt was no doubt overshadowed by the pain of early childbirth. Clearly, she had a successful though childless marriage to Henry Stafford. She and her husband (like all the Beauforts and most of the Staffords) were devoted Lancastrians until his death, followed by the deaths of Edward of Lancaster and Henry VI in quick succession, apparently changed her focus to her son.

Almost all of our main characters (to use Pansy's term) suffered traumatic childhoods (Edward and his brother Edmund appear to have been notable exceptions up till their early to mid-teens). Richard and George in particular lived through a tumultuous series of ups and downs that would have had today's child psychologists analyzing them and stuffing them with Adderall.

Whatever MB suffered at ages twelve and thirteen, it was no different from the lot of many women of her era. Some of those women were as greedy as any man in their pursuit of land that wasn't their own (Eleanor Butler's mother and Joan Beaufort come to mind), but few other than Margaret Beaufort and Margaret of Anjou caused bloody civil wars in the "interests" of their sons.

I don't think we can use childhood trauma to excuse or explain later actions. That's the reason Desmond Seward and other extreme traditionalists give to explain Richard's "ruthlessness." I think ambition, revenge, and maybe a desire to make up to Henry for her inability to mother him in his childhood make more plausible explanations for MB's actions. Moreover, she was an intelligent woman with few outlets for her talents other than plotting and conspiring, and, like Morton, she seems to have been very good at taking advantage of opportunities to pursue her interests via Henry. She was a survivor, certainly, as was her son, but I doubt that either of them equated "survivor" with "victim."

As for her tears, please note that I haven't said a single word about them until now. I suspect that they were tears of joy and relief. But they may well have been the sort of tears that Alexander the Great is said to have shed when he thought that there were no more worlds to conquer. Having achieved her goal, she may have felt that she had nothing more to strive for. If she felt any guilt at the blood that had been shed to achieve her goal, maybe her tears reflected that, too, but I don't see any signs of it in her subsequent conduct.

Carol

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, you may have missed my post the other day.  It's in Munich and apparently has been in Germany since 1402
>  
> http://www.residenz-muenchen.de/englisch/treasury/pic11.htm

Carol responds:

I did. I'm playing catch up again, and it doesn't help to be in the "wrong" time zone. Should have read the whole thread before posting!

At least we know how that one crown survived. Just think how many more treasures we would have today if the Stuarts hadn't come to the throne via the Tudors. Imagine a Yorkist king in the seventeenth century cooperating with Cromwell and Parliament--no Interregnum, no execution of a king, no temporary suppression of Christmas and the theater. Of course, men might still have been playing female parts into the eighteenth century!

On a side note, I'm reading a novel called "The Traitor's Wife" by Kathleen Kent about my ancestors Thomas Carrier (born Thomas Morgan), executioner of Charles I, and his wife, Martha Allen (the Martha Carrier hanged in the Salem Witch Trials). At one point, the narrator says that Wales supported Charles I because the "royal House of Tudor" had been born in Wales. Poor deluded Welshmen! Even assuming that Henry Tudor's grandfather was Owen Tudor and he was one quarter Welsh, Charles I would only have been something like one/sixty-fourth Welsh. All those deaths resulting from the Tudor myth.

Carol

I did a Google search this morning, and I think it said Munich. I will recheck to make certain.

On Mar 28, 2013, at 2:13 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Claire wrote:

> Oh yes, that's *very* pretty - probably still quite heavy though. What happened to it over the years? Is it possible Anne Neville wore this?
>
Carol responds:

If you mean for her coronation, no. She wore Queen Edith's crown, the mate to the one Richard (and all his predecessors for hundred of years) wore, the crown of Edward the Confessor. However, she may have worn Anne of Bohemia's crown on ceremonial occasions. I really don't know. This site and several others say that it's the only surviving medieval crown, but where it is now I have no idea:

http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/the-execution-of-mary-queen-of-scots/4197/

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The concept of "abuse survivor" would have been utterly foreign to anyone born before the twentieth century. We have no idea how MB felt about her husband's premature consummation of their marriage. Maybe he was very gentle; maybe she loved him; maybe it was a grim duty for both of them. Whatever pain she felt was no doubt overshadowed by the pain of early childbirth.
>

I'm sorry but I can't really agree on this. The concept of 'abuse survivor' is utterly foreign to many people living in many countries *now*, but that doesn't mean that the abuse isn't real.

I'm not saying Margaret Beaufort had a more traumatic childhood than many if not most of the other 'main characters'; my point is just that there are some things that are traumatising no matter how you look at them. We can't apply 21st-century morality to 15th-century people, but that doesn't mean that those experiences weren't traumatising to those who went through them. A 24-year-old man having sex with a 12-year-old girl is, *from the girl's point of view*, exactly the same scenario in the 15th century as it would be now. Not necessarily violent rape, but certainly not beneficial for the girl's mental health.

Just like it wouldn't have been uncommon to see a 13-year-old prostitute in 18th-century London. We can't judge her clients strictly by our 21st-century moral standards, but we can still concede that the 13-year-old prostitute herself would have suffered just as much as the 13-year-old prostitute of our day.

>
> Whatever MB suffered at ages twelve and thirteen, it was no different from the lot of many women of her era. Some of those women were as greedy as any man in their pursuit of land that wasn't their own (Eleanor Butler's mother and Joan Beaufort come to mind), but few other than Margaret Beaufort and Margaret of Anjou caused bloody civil wars in the "interests" of their sons.
>

Not sure you can compare the two Margarets, and I think that's unfair on Margaret of Anjou. Her husband had already been the King, and she no doubt was 100% convinced of his and their son's divine right to the throne, with *much* greater justification than Margaret Beaufort. She was her father's daughter as well, and with a better cause to fight than René of Anjou had.

Had Henry himself had a different personality and taken up arms to claim his throne back, would you say he had started a completely futile civil war, or would it be understandable that he was fighting to reclaim what he rightfully believed to be his? Why is it less understandable that Margaret of Anjou was doing this on her husband's and son's behalf?

Carol earlier:
> >
> > The concept of "abuse survivor" would have been utterly foreign to anyone born before the twentieth century. We have no idea how MB felt about her husband's premature consummation of their marriage. Maybe he was very gentle; maybe she loved him; maybe it was a grim duty for both of them. Whatever pain she felt was no doubt overshadowed by the pain of early childbirth.
> >
Pansy responded:
> I'm sorry but I can't really agree on this. The concept of 'abuse survivor' is utterly foreign to many people living in many countries *now*, but that doesn't mean that the abuse isn't real.
>
> I'm not saying Margaret Beaufort had a more traumatic childhood than many if not most of the other 'main characters'; my point is just that there are some things that are traumatising no matter how you look at them. We can't apply 21st-century morality to 15th-century people, but that doesn't mean that those experiences weren't traumatising to those who went through them. A 24-year-old man having sex with a 12-year-old girl is, *from the girl's point of view*, exactly the same scenario in the 15th century as it would be now. Not necessarily violent rape, but certainly not beneficial for the girl's mental health. [snip]

Carol earlier:
> > Whatever MB suffered at ages twelve and thirteen, it was no different from the lot of many women of her era. Some of those women were as greedy as any man in their pursuit of land that wasn't their own (Eleanor Butler's mother and Joan Beaufort come to mind), but few other than Margaret Beaufort and Margaret of Anjou caused bloody civil wars in the "interests" of their sons.
> >
Pansy:
> Not sure you can compare the two Margarets, and I think that's unfair on Margaret of Anjou. Her husband had already been the King, and she no doubt was 100% convinced of his and their son's divine right to the throne, with *much* greater justification than Margaret Beaufort. She was her father's daughter as well, and with a better cause to fight than René of Anjou had.
>
> Had Henry himself had a different personality and taken up arms to claim his throne back, would you say he had started a completely futile civil war, or would it be understandable that he was fighting to reclaim what he rightfully believed to be his? Why is it less understandable that Margaret of Anjou was doing this on her husband's and son's behalf?
>
Carol responds:

Good heavens, Pansy. Are you going to moralize, too? I only meant that both women caused a lot of bloodshed to defend their son's claim to the throne. Certainly, Edward of Lancaster (assuming that Warwick was wrong and he really was Henry VI's legitimate son) had a much better claim to the throne than Henry Tudor did, but Margaret of Anjou seems (I say "seems" because it's very hard to form an objective opinion based on the biased chronicles of this period) to have treated England as a conquered province, allowing her troops to rape and pillage, the sack of Ludlow being just one example. Moreover, the Duke of York was Henry VI's loyal subject, trying to undo the damage caused by Henry's weakness and Margaret's favoritism of Suffolk and Somerset. By treating him as an enemy, Margaret turned him into one.

And we can't talk about Henry's starting a completely useless civil war because if he had been a competent king, the civil war would not have happened.

Can we tone down the hostility and suspicion, please? The concept of "abuse survivor" (entirely modern) and the concept of abuse (probably much older than the word itself, which dates to the fifteenth century) are two different things. I'm not condoning what we would now call marital rape; I'm only saying that the fifteenth century viewed it differently than we do and that Margaret Beaufort probably did not let it ruin her life any more than Cecily Neville let the loss of five babies ruin hers.

Eileen, George, somebody please say something funny as I'm finding the accusing and morally judgmental atmosphere stifling at the moment. Not just Pansy. Claire, too. There. I've said it.

If we can't get back to friendly, occasionally humorous, live-and=let-live discussion, I'm out of here.

Carol

Henry's  biographer Thomas Penn actually says she's weeping because of the insurmountable task ahead ! 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 19:46
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> But it explains why she would be emotionally contorted enough to weep at her son's coronation, and for people to mock at an abuse survivor's tears is not a million miles away from enjoying watching an execution.

Carol responds:

The concept of "abuse survivor" would have been utterly foreign to anyone born before the twentieth century. We have no idea how MB felt about her husband's premature consummation of their marriage. Maybe he was very gentle; maybe she loved him; maybe it was a grim duty for both of them. Whatever pain she felt was no doubt overshadowed by the pain of early childbirth. Clearly, she had a successful though childless marriage to Henry Stafford. She and her husband (like all the Beauforts and most of the Staffords) were devoted Lancastrians until his death, followed by the deaths of Edward of Lancaster and Henry VI in quick succession, apparently changed her focus to her son.

Almost all of our main characters (to use Pansy's term) suffered traumatic childhoods (Edward and his brother Edmund appear to have been notable exceptions up till their early to mid-teens). Richard and George in particular lived through a tumultuous series of ups and downs that would have had today's child psychologists analyzing them and stuffing them with Adderall.

Whatever MB suffered at ages twelve and thirteen, it was no different from the lot of many women of her era. Some of those women were as greedy as any man in their pursuit of land that wasn't their own (Eleanor Butler's mother and Joan Beaufort come to mind), but few other than Margaret Beaufort and Margaret of Anjou caused bloody civil wars in the "interests" of their sons.

I don't think we can use childhood trauma to excuse or explain later actions. That's the reason Desmond Seward and other extreme traditionalists give to explain Richard's "ruthlessness." I think ambition, revenge, and maybe a desire to make up to Henry for her inability to mother him in his childhood make more plausible explanations for MB's actions. Moreover, she was an intelligent woman with few outlets for her talents other than plotting and conspiring, and, like Morton, she seems to have been very good at taking advantage of opportunities to pursue her interests via Henry. She was a survivor, certainly, as was her son, but I doubt that either of them equated "survivor" with "victim."

As for her tears, please note that I haven't said a single word about them until now. I suspect that they were tears of joy and relief. But they may well have been the sort of tears that Alexander the Great is said to have shed when he thought that there were no more worlds to conquer. Having achieved her goal, she may have felt that she had nothing more to strive for. If she felt any guilt at the blood that had been shed to achieve her goal, maybe her tears reflected that, too, but I don't see any signs of it in her subsequent conduct.

Carol

liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>

> But Claire, it's one thing to be "fair" and quite another to always give the benefit of the doubt to people whose behaviour suggests they don't deserve it.

Carol responds:

I agree, Liz. And I think it's time to give the benefit of the doubt to fellow list members as well. None of us is in the habit of laughing at people's tears, and none of us would enjoy watching an execution.

And bending over backwards to be fair to the man who allowed Richard's body to be hauled on a horse by his own herald, not to mention subjected to humiliation wounds, is getting harder and harder to tolerate. Objectivity is one thing; partiality to the Tudors and pleading their cause with insufficient grounds is quite another.

If we want to talk about a bad childhood, let's talk about Edward of Warwick, whom Henry imprisoned from the age of ten.

Carol

Carol ..don't you dare! We have already haemorrhaged too many good posters here...I live in hope they will return...There are some marvellous and kind hearted people on here...A lovely forum member emailed me and offered to send me Hicks' book on George...all the way from USA..which she did...How lovely was that. Plus supportive emails....Come on now...gird your loins girl...Richard needs us...

Oh by the way...I found out the meaning of the term 'thick' today which means stupid here in uk...(I applied this term to myself by way...)...Its from Shakespeare..Falstaff I think says it,,,"as thick as Tewkesbury mustard"...imagine that?...love it...

best wishes Eileen

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

> Eileen, George, somebody please say something funny as I'm finding the accusing and morally judgmental atmosphere stifling at the moment. Not just Pansy. Claire, too. There. I've said it.
>
> If we can't get back to friendly, occasionally humorous, live-and=let-live discussion, I'm out of here.
>
> Carol
>

Carol don't!!!



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 21:25
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 

Carol earlier:
> >
> > The concept of "abuse survivor" would have been utterly foreign to anyone born before the twentieth century. We have no idea how MB felt about her husband's premature consummation of their marriage. Maybe he was very gentle; maybe she loved him; maybe it was a grim duty for both of them. Whatever pain she felt was no doubt overshadowed by the pain of early childbirth.
> >
Pansy responded:
> I'm sorry but I can't really agree on this. The concept of 'abuse survivor' is utterly foreign to many people living in many countries *now*, but that doesn't mean that the abuse isn't real.
>
> I'm not saying Margaret Beaufort had a more traumatic childhood than many if not most of the other 'main characters'; my point is just that there are some things that are traumatising no matter how you look at them. We can't apply 21st-century morality to 15th-century people, but that doesn't mean that those experiences weren't traumatising to those who went through them. A 24-year-old man having sex with a 12-year-old girl is, *from the girl's point of view*, exactly the same scenario in the 15th century as it would be now. Not necessarily violent rape, but certainly not beneficial for the girl's mental health. [snip]

Carol earlier:
> > Whatever MB suffered at ages twelve and thirteen, it was no different from the lot of many women of her era. Some of those women were as greedy as any man in their pursuit of land that wasn't their own (Eleanor Butler's mother and Joan Beaufort come to mind), but few other than Margaret Beaufort and Margaret of Anjou caused bloody civil wars in the "interests" of their sons.
> >
Pansy:
> Not sure you can compare the two Margarets, and I think that's unfair on Margaret of Anjou. Her husband had already been the King, and she no doubt was 100% convinced of his and their son's divine right to the throne, with *much* greater justification than Margaret Beaufort. She was her father's daughter as well, and with a better cause to fight than René of Anjou had.
>
> Had Henry himself had a different personality and taken up arms to claim his throne back, would you say he had started a completely futile civil war, or would it be understandable that he was fighting to reclaim what he rightfully believed to be his? Why is it less understandable that Margaret of Anjou was doing this on her husband's and son's behalf?
>
Carol responds:

Good heavens, Pansy. Are you going to moralize, too? I only meant that both women caused a lot of bloodshed to defend their son's claim to the throne. Certainly, Edward of Lancaster (assuming that Warwick was wrong and he really was Henry VI's legitimate son) had a much better claim to the throne than Henry Tudor did, but Margaret of Anjou seems (I say "seems" because it's very hard to form an objective opinion based on the biased chronicles of this period) to have treated England as a conquered province, allowing her troops to rape and pillage, the sack of Ludlow being just one example. Moreover, the Duke of York was Henry VI's loyal subject, trying to undo the damage caused by Henry's weakness and Margaret's favoritism of Suffolk and Somerset. By treating him as an enemy, Margaret turned him into one.

And we can't talk about Henry's starting a completely useless civil war because if he had been a competent king, the civil war would not have happened.

Can we tone down the hostility and suspicion, please? The concept of "abuse survivor" (entirely modern) and the concept of abuse (probably much older than the word itself, which dates to the fifteenth century) are two different things. I'm not condoning what we would now call marital rape; I'm only saying that the fifteenth century viewed it differently than we do and that Margaret Beaufort probably did not let it ruin her life any more than Cecily Neville let the loss of five babies ruin hers.

Eileen, George, somebody please say something funny as I'm finding the accusing and morally judgmental atmosphere stifling at the moment. Not just Pansy. Claire, too. There. I've said it.

If we can't get back to friendly, occasionally humorous, live-and=let-live discussion, I'm out of here.

Carol

Esholt Priory Charter was 1485. And yes it is as you suggest, not the one of Charles II (the St Edward's crown now used) or the Tudor crown imperial



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 18:52
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 


Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Parliament et al certainly melted down most when they got rid of Charles I. They had to make a new one for Charles II. In Jones's Bosworth there is an illustration of the crown Richard wore from a contemporary Esholt Priory Charter [snip]

Carol responds:

Is it a tall, heavy-looking peaked crown with large round stones (pearls?) running up the sides and a cross on top (no velvet)? If so, that may be the illustration that Julian Rowe used as the basis for the drawing that appears in "Road to Bosworth." Is the Esholt Priory Charter contemporary with Charles I, Charles II, or Richard?

Carol

No additional information, but one note of my own day-dreaming. There's one illustration in Beauchamps of a king, seated at table, and the face looks more like Richard's than his official portrait. It occurred to me that artist(s) like to use the faces at hand. While the other nobles have the usual pudgy, cherubic features, this "king" looks like a real person, drawn from life. Artists have been known to do sneakier stuff...

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:52 PM
Subject: Beauchamp Pageant and Salisbury Roll (Was: What happened to Richard's stuff?)


 


--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> The link to the picture was interesting, Carol. I know I am showing my layman ignorance here, but my curiosity is prompted by the picture from the Beauchamp Pageant. Why the armour? Crown, orb, coronation robes (or the next best thing) but with armour? Is it merely the stylised norm? Symbolic? Or did it have some factual basis? Or am I being really, really dumb? I have an awful suspicion the dumb part is correct.
> http://media-cache-ec4.pinterest.com/550x/5e/8b/c0/5e8bc04fbf79211a85151459bf304d6c.jpg

Carol responds:

Sorry. My mistake. The colored drawing of Richard and Anne in coronation robes is not from the Beauchamp Pageant, made for the Countess of Warwick after Richard's death. That picture (which makes Richard look rather older than he was but is no more unflattering than the other drawings) is here:

http://www.richardiii.net/images/beauchamp_pageant_family_tree.jpg

The entire pageant (mostly about Richard Beauchamp)can be found here:
http://archive.org/details/pageantsofricard00privuoft Choose the PdF format to see the pictures. The introduction is more interesting than the pageant itself because it discusses the date of composition and eliminates Rous as the author. The main thing of importance, in my view, is that it says nothing bad about Richard and seems to show that the Countess or Warwick bore him no malice.

I know nothing about the Salisbury Roll except that it contains that picture and is apparently earlier than or contemporary with the English version of the Rous roll, which means that it was made during Richard's reign.

Anybody have any additional information?

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Good heavens, Pansy. Are you going to moralize, too? I only meant that both women caused a lot of bloodshed to defend their son's claim to the throne. Certainly, Edward of Lancaster (assuming that Warwick was wrong and he really was Henry VI's legitimate son) had a much better claim to the throne than Henry Tudor did, but Margaret of Anjou seems (I say "seems" because it's very hard to form an objective opinion based on the biased chronicles of this period) to have treated England as a conquered province, allowing her troops to rape and pillage, the sack of Ludlow being just one example. Moreover, the Duke of York was Henry VI's loyal subject, trying to undo the damage caused by Henry's weakness and Margaret's favoritism of Suffolk and Somerset. By treating him as an enemy, Margaret turned him into one.
>
> And we can't talk about Henry's starting a completely useless civil war because if he had been a competent king, the civil war would not have happened.
>
> Can we tone down the hostility and suspicion, please? The concept of "abuse survivor" (entirely modern) and the concept of abuse (probably much older than the word itself, which dates to the fifteenth century) are two different things. I'm not condoning what we would now call marital rape; I'm only saying that the fifteenth century viewed it differently than we do and that Margaret Beaufort probably did not let it ruin her life any more than Cecily Neville let the loss of five babies ruin hers.
>
> Eileen, George, somebody please say something funny as I'm finding the accusing and morally judgmental atmosphere stifling at the moment. Not just Pansy. Claire, too. There. I've said it.
>
> If we can't get back to friendly, occasionally humorous, live-and=let-live discussion, I'm out of here.
>
> Carol
>

No, no - good grief, I wasn't trying to moralise at all, or to sound in any way hostile or suspicious! Nor was I directing my comments directly at anyone, though I answered to your message, Carol: believe me, I was just musing on these things on a theoretical level.

I don't think whatever abuse Margaret Beaufort suffered in her youth defined who she was, nor do I think it excuses any wrongs she committed at a later age. Like I said, I was thinking about this on a more theoretical level: moral relativism vs. the reality of the victim's experience (whether that victim is a 12-year-old Margaret Beaufort or anyone else in any other century is not even the point).

As for Margaret of Anjou, I do think the traditional view of her and her role in the Wars of the Roses is almost as much a Shakespearean construct as the traditional view of Richard... but I won't go into that now.

I'm very sorry that I managed to come across as hostile. Please believe that was not my intention! I'm just not very good at expressing myself - I tend to focus on whatever topic is being discussed and never realise it might be taken personally. :-/

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?



> On a side note, I'm reading a novel called "The Traitor's Wife" by
> Kathleen Kent about my ancestors Thomas Carrier (born Thomas Morgan),
> executioner of Charles I, and his wife, Martha Allen (the Martha Carrier
> hanged in the Salem Witch Trials). At one point, the narrator says that
> Wales supported Charles I because the "royal House of Tudor" had been born
> in Wales. Poor deluded Welshmen! Even assuming that Henry Tudor's
> grandfather was Owen Tudor and he was one quarter Welsh, Charles I would
> only have been something like one/sixty-fourth Welsh. All those deaths
> resulting from the Tudor myth.

It's not really any odder than the whole idea of bloodline kingship, though.
If we take Alfred as the starting-point for legitimate English kingship,
what proportion of any of the 15th C royal claimants was actually Alfred?
What proportion of you is Thomas Carrier and Martha Allen? [Congrats on
having such interesting ancestors btw.]

I'm very proud to have discovered that I am descended from the folk poet
"Jamie Shirran frae New Deer" who (probably) wrote a famous and very bouncy
ballad about the building of the Buchan turnpike road in 1808 - but he is
only one sixty-fourth of me.

Is that the Beauchamp Pageant book from the Society Judy..I will take a look...Its a gorgious book...Eileen

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> No additional information, but one note of my own day-dreaming. There's one illustration in Beauchamps of a king, seated at table, and the face looks more like Richard's than his official portrait. It occurred to me that artist(s) like to use the faces at hand. While the other nobles have the usual pudgy, cherubic features, this "king" looks like a real person, drawn from life. Artists have been known to do sneakier stuff...
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:52 PM
> Subject: Beauchamp Pageant and Salisbury Roll (Was: What happened to Richard's stuff?)
>
>
>  
>
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > The link to the picture was interesting, Carol. I know I am showing my layman ignorance here, but my curiosity is prompted by the picture from the Beauchamp Pageant. Why the armour? Crown, orb, coronation robes (or the next best thing) but with armour? Is it merely the stylised norm? Symbolic? Or did it have some factual basis? Or am I being really, really dumb? I have an awful suspicion the dumb part is correct.
> > http://media-cache-ec4.pinterest.com/550x/5e/8b/c0/5e8bc04fbf79211a85151459bf304d6c.jpg
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Sorry. My mistake. The colored drawing of Richard and Anne in coronation robes is not from the Beauchamp Pageant, made for the Countess of Warwick after Richard's death. That picture (which makes Richard look rather older than he was but is no more unflattering than the other drawings) is here:
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/images/beauchamp_pageant_family_tree.jpg
>
> The entire pageant (mostly about Richard Beauchamp)can be found here:
> http://archive.org/details/pageantsofricard00privuoft Choose the PdF format to see the pictures. The introduction is more interesting than the pageant itself because it discusses the date of composition and eliminates Rous as the author. The main thing of importance, in my view, is that it says nothing bad about Richard and seems to show that the Countess or Warwick bore him no malice.
>
> I know nothing about the Salisbury Roll except that it contains that picture and is apparently earlier than or contemporary with the English version of the Rous roll, which means that it was made during Richard's reign.
>
> Anybody have any additional information?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Its OK Pansy...we are all rather edgy on here of late...all will be well in the end..Eileen

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Good heavens, Pansy. Are you going to moralize, too? I only meant that both women caused a lot of bloodshed to defend their son's claim to the throne. Certainly, Edward of Lancaster (assuming that Warwick was wrong and he really was Henry VI's legitimate son) had a much better claim to the throne than Henry Tudor did, but Margaret of Anjou seems (I say "seems" because it's very hard to form an objective opinion based on the biased chronicles of this period) to have treated England as a conquered province, allowing her troops to rape and pillage, the sack of Ludlow being just one example. Moreover, the Duke of York was Henry VI's loyal subject, trying to undo the damage caused by Henry's weakness and Margaret's favoritism of Suffolk and Somerset. By treating him as an enemy, Margaret turned him into one.
> >
> > And we can't talk about Henry's starting a completely useless civil war because if he had been a competent king, the civil war would not have happened.
> >
> > Can we tone down the hostility and suspicion, please? The concept of "abuse survivor" (entirely modern) and the concept of abuse (probably much older than the word itself, which dates to the fifteenth century) are two different things. I'm not condoning what we would now call marital rape; I'm only saying that the fifteenth century viewed it differently than we do and that Margaret Beaufort probably did not let it ruin her life any more than Cecily Neville let the loss of five babies ruin hers.
> >
> > Eileen, George, somebody please say something funny as I'm finding the accusing and morally judgmental atmosphere stifling at the moment. Not just Pansy. Claire, too. There. I've said it.
> >
> > If we can't get back to friendly, occasionally humorous, live-and=let-live discussion, I'm out of here.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
> No, no - good grief, I wasn't trying to moralise at all, or to sound in any way hostile or suspicious! Nor was I directing my comments directly at anyone, though I answered to your message, Carol: believe me, I was just musing on these things on a theoretical level.
>
> I don't think whatever abuse Margaret Beaufort suffered in her youth defined who she was, nor do I think it excuses any wrongs she committed at a later age. Like I said, I was thinking about this on a more theoretical level: moral relativism vs. the reality of the victim's experience (whether that victim is a 12-year-old Margaret Beaufort or anyone else in any other century is not even the point).
>
> As for Margaret of Anjou, I do think the traditional view of her and her role in the Wars of the Roses is almost as much a Shakespearean construct as the traditional view of Richard... but I won't go into that now.
>
> I'm very sorry that I managed to come across as hostile. Please believe that was not my intention! I'm just not very good at expressing myself - I tend to focus on whatever topic is being discussed and never realise it might be taken personally. :-/
>

Pansy, I leave Carol to respond to your other bits but I do think you're right about Margaret of Anjou - in a lot of ways she is as much maligned as Richard. She was after all a crowned Queen, far from home with an incompetent husband and one only hope in a son who she was to lose so soon. And she fought, hard, although she could not always control her troops or trust her generals. We still tend to see her as Shadespeare created her ' a tiger's heart set in a woman's hide', My heart goes out to her much more than MB or indeed to Cis. To be ransomed back home for your hunting dogs is indeed a sad plight. 
 

________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 21:48
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Good heavens, Pansy. Are you going to moralize, too? I only meant that both women caused a lot of bloodshed to defend their son's claim to the throne. Certainly, Edward of Lancaster (assuming that Warwick was wrong and he really was Henry VI's legitimate son) had a much better claim to the throne than Henry Tudor did, but Margaret of Anjou seems (I say "seems" because it's very hard to form an objective opinion based on the biased chronicles of this period) to have treated England as a conquered province, allowing her troops to rape and pillage, the sack of Ludlow being just one example. Moreover, the Duke of York was Henry VI's loyal subject, trying to undo the damage caused by Henry's weakness and Margaret's favoritism of Suffolk and Somerset. By treating him as an enemy, Margaret turned him into one.
>
> And we can't talk about Henry's starting a completely useless civil war because if he had been a competent king, the civil war would not have happened.
>
> Can we tone down the hostility and suspicion, please? The concept of "abuse survivor" (entirely modern) and the concept of abuse (probably much older than the word itself, which dates to the fifteenth century) are two different things. I'm not condoning what we would now call marital rape; I'm only saying that the fifteenth century viewed it differently than we do and that Margaret Beaufort probably did not let it ruin her life any more than Cecily Neville let the loss of five babies ruin hers.
>
> Eileen, George, somebody please say something funny as I'm finding the accusing and morally judgmental atmosphere stifling at the moment. Not just Pansy. Claire, too. There. I've said it.
>
> If we can't get back to friendly, occasionally humorous, live-and=let-live discussion, I'm out of here.
>
> Carol
>

No, no - good grief, I wasn't trying to moralise at all, or to sound in any way hostile or suspicious! Nor was I directing my comments directly at anyone, though I answered to your message, Carol: believe me, I was just musing on these things on a theoretical level.

I don't think whatever abuse Margaret Beaufort suffered in her youth defined who she was, nor do I think it excuses any wrongs she committed at a later age. Like I said, I was thinking about this on a more theoretical level: moral relativism vs. the reality of the victim's experience (whether that victim is a 12-year-old Margaret Beaufort or anyone else in any other century is not even the point).

As for Margaret of Anjou, I do think the traditional view of her and her role in the Wars of the Roses is almost as much a Shakespearean construct as the traditional view of Richard... but I won't go into that now.

I'm very sorry that I managed to come across as hostile. Please believe that was not my intention! I'm just not very good at expressing myself - I tend to focus on whatever topic is being discussed and never realise it might be taken personally. :-/

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Pansy, I leave Carol to respond to your other bits but I do think you're right about Margaret of Anjou - in a lot of ways she is as much maligned as Richard. She was after all a crowned Queen, far from home with an incompetent husband and one only hope in a son who she was to lose so soon. And she fought, hard, although she could not always control her troops or trust her generals. We still tend to see her as Shadespeare created her ' a tiger's heart set in a woman's hide', My heart goes out to her much more than MB or indeed to Cis. To be ransomed back home for your hunting dogs is indeed a sad plight. 
>

I agree, Hilary.

I think Margaret of Anjou and Richard are cast in a similar scapegoat role. First along came Margaret, who was obviously an unnatural woman, malicious and meddlesome and murderous, and thus officially Ruined Everything by being such a bad unwomanly woman. By so doing, she paved the way for Richard, who was an unnatural brother and uncle and malicious usurper, and officially Ruined Everything there was left to ruin by being an all-around awful human being.

But then, the Tudors! Those heavenly restorers of the natural order of things.

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> Carol ..don't you dare! We have already haemorrhaged too many good posters here...I live in hope they will return.. [snip]

Carol responds:

Don't worry, Eileen. Just momentary frustration with posters moralizing or criticizing each other--the very reason that some of our old friends have hemorrhaged out of here. (BTW, that word is hard enough to spell the American way. Thank goodness for good old Noah Webster, who got rid of the extra a.) I'll stay around, but I do hope we'll all take note and be less critical of one another. A house divided against itself cannot stand, and we need to stand strong against the tide of Richard's detractors.*And* we need to encourage our friends who are still out there but refraining from posting to rejoin the conversation--which they won't if the environment seems judgmental or uninviting.

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> And I think it's time to give the benefit of the doubt to fellow list members as well.
>

But might this not go both ways?

To be honest, I'm saddened and more than a bit startled that I'm suddenly seen as some kind of a hostile and judgmental force on this forum, when I struggle to understand how my (admittedly short) posting history here has managed to give that impression.

A longwinded waffler - guilty as charged. Focusing too much on pointless details - definitely. Annoying nitpicker - oh yes. In the habit of making unfunny jokes - yes. Often too frivolous - yes... I can think of many irritating things about my posts, but I honestly didn't realise 'being judgmental' was one of them.

Sorry, I don't mean to start a discussion about me (or indeed Claire) - I just think the benefit of the doubt might also be given to members who might occasionally disagree on some matters of principle, without automatically assuming they're doing so from a moral high horse, or to be hostile and disruptive.

Pansy wrote:


> [snip] I'm very sorry that I managed to come across as hostile. Please believe that was not my intention! I'm just not very good at expressing myself - I tend to focus on whatever topic is being discussed and never realise it might be taken personally. :-/
>
Carol responds:

Thanks for the clarification, Pansy. I'm sorry if I misconstrued you. I've been known to do the same thing you mentioned--start by responding to someone's point and then get rolling with my own thoughts.

When the forum quiets down, I'd love to talk about Margaret of Anjou with you. She's another figure who tends to be seen in terms of black and white depending on the chronicler, historian, or novelist. But I don't want to go off on a semi-OT tangent until the number of posts returns to normal.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Henry's biographer Thomas Penn actually says she's weeping because of the insurmountable task ahead!

Carol responds:

That's almost funny. Definitely a male perspective, if I dare say so. Now granted, inexperienced, unpopular, unqualified *Henry* faced an insurmountable task, but I think MB may have feared being set aside as extraneous now that she'd achieved her goal of ousting the Yorkists and placing Henry where Richard should have remained.

Carol 

Carol earlier:
> > And I think it's time to give the benefit of the doubt to fellow list members as well.

Pansy responded:

> But might this not go both ways?

Carol again:

Absolutely, Pansy. I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your post.

Carol

Anne of Bohemia's crown went to Germany when Henry IV's daughter married a German Prince, so Anne Neville would not have worn it.  It's a good job it did, otherwise it would have been destroyed later.

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

 
Claire wrote:

> Oh yes, that's *very* pretty - probably still quite heavy though. What happened to it over the years? Is it possible Anne Neville wore this?
>
Carol responds:

If you mean for her coronation, no. She wore Queen Edith's crown, the mate to the one Richard (and all his predecessors for hundred of years) wore, the crown of Edward the Confessor. However, she may have worn Anne of Bohemia's crown on ceremonial occasions. I really don't know. This site and several others say that it's the only surviving medieval crown, but where it is now I have no idea:

http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/the-execution-of-mary-queen-of-scots/4197/

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?


> The concept of "abuse survivor" would have been utterly foreign to anyone
> born before the twentieth century. We have no idea how MB felt about her
> husband's premature consummation of their marriage. Maybe he was very
> gentle; maybe she loved him; maybe it was a grim duty for both of them.

If she loved him, then she was bereaved at 13 - another trauma of a
different kind :(

> Almost all of our main characters (to use Pansy's term) suffered traumatic
> childhoods

Oh yes, absolutely - nearly all of them were stressed and mixed up.
Wednesday mentioned to me the other day that Northumberland, ferex, spent
most of his childhood and teens in prison. Most of them probably had some
level of PTSD, which they dealt with by prayer - you can see that that long
prayer of Richard's seems to be an aid to self-hypnotism, designed to calm
him. And something else which is generally forgotten is that most of them
were probably slightly drunk most of the time, because unless you had access
to a spring it wasn't safe to drink the water and tea was very rare, so they
all drank weak beer whenever they were thirsty.

> I don't think we can use childhood trauma to excuse or explain later
> actions.

I'm not, although it may explain how she could be manipulated (if it was
that way round, which we don't know) by Morton. I'm saying that the traumas
she'd suffered, especially being separated from her son when he was only a
toddler, followed by probably spending the intervening years worrying
whether he was going to be killed, explains why she would have complex
emotions which would make her cry at her son's coronation - though I'm not
sure why anyone thinks it remarkable that she did so. A coronation is a
sort of marriage between the monarch and the country (there's a whole
complex theology to do with this that I won't go into unless you really want
me to), and we *expect* mothers to cry at weddings!

*If* it's the case that becoming king was Henry's best chance of survival,
or if MB thought it was (which is being discussed separately by Jonathan),
then I do think that to some extent excuses her plotting, because it's
natural (even if not very admirable) for a mother to place her child'
survival above all other considerations. If there were other surviveable
alternatives and she just wanted Henry to take power out of the sort of
soccer mum ambition you see in her, then I agree with you that that's
entirely reprehensible.

> Moreover, she was an intelligent woman with few outlets for her talents
> other than plotting and conspiring,

Yes, that too. She seems to have had the kind of mind which nowadays would
probably see her working in sub-atomic physics or running a large chunk of
the UN, but in those days there wasn't much you could do with a brain like
that except play chess even if you were a man, let alone if you were a
woman. It's probably not surprising if she took to playing chess with live
pieces - even if it's not admirable.

> As for her tears, please note that I haven't said a single word about them
> until now.

Sure. And I wasn't really moralising about other people's comments on list,
I was arguing with them for moralising about other people's behaviour in the
past! Specifically, in this case, saying that it was unintelligible that
people in the past watched executions and enjoyed them. I'm just saying
it's an extension of an instinct that's in most poeple. Laughing at
somebody else's tears is probably the mildest form of it, then the next rung
up is watching things like Big Brother and enjoying seeing people being
voted out. Most people nowadays would be horrified by actually watching
scenes of torture and death, and that's good, but the people who *did* enjoy
those things weren't a million miles from the audience for the Jeremy Kyle
show - they just grew up in a different culture.

Me, I hate that sort of thing, I'm repelled by seeing people humiliated like
that - but I *love* to win a debate and if I find an argument which will
really flatten my opponent I hug myself with glee and gloat over it for
weeks, and when I was a kid I enjoyed freaking other kids out by ambushing
them with realistic rubber snakes. There's a bit of that sot of "Haha, got
you!" predatory instinct in nearly everybody I think, and it's something we
have to be aware of and watch out for.

> If she felt any guilt at the blood that had been shed to achieve her goal,
> maybe her tears reflected that, too, but I don't see any signs of it in
> her subsequent conduct.

I don't know - did any of them feel guilt over the deaths they caused? Who
said (was it Jonathan?) that they couldn't afford to, because of their
belief in damnation? We know Richard felt regret (not quite the same as
guilt) about the deaths of ordinary soldiers, and *perhaps* the tombstone
Henry commissioned for Richard also indicated regret - even though there was
a definite element of the photo-opportunity about it. And perhaps MB
actually wanted to use Richard's long prayer herself - rather than just
gloating over what she'd taken which, of course, she *may* have done, and
which is horrible if she did. I'd need to read a lot more about her in
later life to form an opinion as to whether she did or not.

'Shadespeare' a freudian slip. Thomas Penn points out that Henry VII was the one history play that Shakespeare didn't write and speculates that it's because it is 'too dark'.


________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 22:37
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Pansy, I leave Carol to respond to your other bits but I do think you're right about Margaret of Anjou - in a lot of ways she is as much maligned as Richard. She was after all a crowned Queen, far from home with an incompetent husband and one only hope in a son who she was to lose so soon. And she fought, hard, although she could not always control her troops or trust her generals. We still tend to see her as Shadespeare created her ' a tiger's heart set in a woman's hide', My heart goes out to her much more than MB or indeed to Cis. To be ransomed back home for your hunting dogs is indeed a sad plight. 
>

I agree, Hilary.

I think Margaret of Anjou and Richard are cast in a similar scapegoat role. First along came Margaret, who was obviously an unnatural woman, malicious and meddlesome and murderous, and thus officially Ruined Everything by being such a bad unwomanly woman. By so doing, she paved the way for Richard, who was an unnatural brother and uncle and malicious usurper, and officially Ruined Everything there was left to ruin by being an all-around awful human being.

But then, the Tudors! Those heavenly restorers of the natural order of things.

Ordered Penn's book last night...Although when I get to read it...having at present put aside The Kings Mother...good book.. to read False Fleeting Perjured Clarence...which I am enjoying. The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. Still with the weather still remaining freezing what else is there to do but snuggle down with some good book. Happy Easter everyone :0)

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> 'Shadespeare' a freudian slip. Thomas Penn points out that Henry VII was the one history play that Shakespeare didn't write and speculates that it's because it is 'too dark'.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 22:37
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>  
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Pansy, I leave Carol to respond to your other bits but I do think you're right about Margaret of Anjou - in a lot of ways she is as much maligned as Richard. She was after all a crowned Queen, far from home with an incompetent husband and one only hope in a son who she was to lose so soon. And she fought, hard, although she could not always control her troops or trust her generals. We still tend to see her as Shadespeare created her ' a tiger's heart set in a woman's hide', My heart goes out to her much more than MB or indeed to Cis. To be ransomed back home for your hunting dogs is indeed a sad plight. 
> >
>
> I agree, Hilary.
>
> I think Margaret of Anjou and Richard are cast in a similar scapegoat role. First along came Margaret, who was obviously an unnatural woman, malicious and meddlesome and murderous, and thus officially Ruined Everything by being such a bad unwomanly woman. By so doing, she paved the way for Richard, who was an unnatural brother and uncle and malicious usurper, and officially Ruined Everything there was left to ruin by being an all-around awful human being.
>
> But then, the Tudors! Those heavenly restorers of the natural order of things.
>
>
>
>
>
>

And to all too. I have Audrey Williamson, which believe it or not I have never read.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 9:50
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


 

Ordered Penn's book last night...Although when I get to read it...having at present put aside The Kings Mother...good book.. to read False Fleeting Perjured Clarence...which I am enjoying. The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. Still with the weather still remaining freezing what else is there to do but snuggle down with some good book. Happy Easter everyone :0)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> 'Shadespeare' a freudian slip. Thomas Penn points out that Henry VII was the one history play that Shakespeare didn't write and speculates that it's because it is 'too dark'.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 22:37
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>  
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Pansy, I leave Carol to respond to your other bits but I do think you're right about Margaret of Anjou - in a lot of ways she is as much maligned as Richard. She was after all a crowned Queen, far from home with an incompetent husband and one only hope in a son who she was to lose so soon. And she fought, hard, although she could not always control her troops or trust her generals. We still tend to see her as Shadespeare created her ' a tiger's heart set in a woman's hide', My heart goes out to her much more than MB or indeed to Cis. To be ransomed back home for your hunting dogs is indeed a sad plight.à
> >
>
> I agree, Hilary.
>
> I think Margaret of Anjou and Richard are cast in a similar scapegoat role. First along came Margaret, who was obviously an unnatural woman, malicious and meddlesome and murderous, and thus officially Ruined Everything by being such a bad unwomanly woman. By so doing, she paved the way for Richard, who was an unnatural brother and uncle and malicious usurper, and officially Ruined Everything there was left to ruin by being an all-around awful human being.
>
> But then, the Tudors! Those heavenly restorers of the natural order of things.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes..its wonderful it has survived...and although Anne never wore it at least we know what
what was de rigueur in crown wearing and can safely picture Anne wearing something similar and very beautiful she must have looked too...

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Anne of Bohemia's crown went to Germany when Henry IV's daughter married a German Prince, so Anne Neville would not have worn it.  It's a good job it did, otherwise it would have been destroyed later.
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>  
> Claire wrote:
>
> > Oh yes, that's *very* pretty - probably still quite heavy though. What happened to it over the years? Is it possible Anne Neville wore this?
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> If you mean for her coronation, no. She wore Queen Edith's crown, the mate to the one Richard (and all his predecessors for hundred of years) wore, the crown of Edward the Confessor. However, she may have worn Anne of Bohemia's crown on ceremonial occasions. I really don't know. This site and several others say that it's the only surviving medieval crown, but where it is now I have no idea:
>
> http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/the-execution-of-mary-queen-of-scots/4197/
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well hopefully one day you will...I enjoyed Williamson's book..The Mystery of the Princes...very much. Ive read it a couple of times in the days back when we did not have so much choice...now we have plenty to choose from and give thanks for that. Eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And to all too. I have Audrey Williamson, which believe it or not I have never read.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 9:50
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>  
>
> Ordered Penn's book last night...Although when I get to read it...having at present put aside The Kings Mother...good book.. to read False Fleeting Perjured Clarence...which I am enjoying. The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. Still with the weather still remaining freezing what else is there to do but snuggle down with some good book. Happy Easter everyone :0)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > 'Shadespeare' a freudian slip. Thomas Penn points out that Henry VII was the one history play that Shakespeare didn't write and speculates that it's because it is 'too dark'.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: pansydobersby <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 22:37
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >  
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Pansy, I leave Carol to respond to your other bits but I do think you're right about Margaret of Anjou - in a lot of ways she is as much maligned as Richard. She was after all a crowned Queen, far from home with an incompetent husband and one only hope in a son who she was to lose so soon. And she fought, hard, although she could not always control her troops or trust her generals. We still tend to see her as Shadespeare created her ' a tiger's heart set in a woman's hide', My heart goes out to her much more than MB or indeed to Cis. To be ransomed back home for your hunting dogs is indeed a sad plight. 
> > >
> >
> > I agree, Hilary.
> >
> > I think Margaret of Anjou and Richard are cast in a similar scapegoat role. First along came Margaret, who was obviously an unnatural woman, malicious and meddlesome and murderous, and thus officially Ruined Everything by being such a bad unwomanly woman. By so doing, she paved the way for Richard, who was an unnatural brother and uncle and malicious usurper, and officially Ruined Everything there was left to ruin by being an all-around awful human being.
> >
> > But then, the Tudors! Those heavenly restorers of the natural order of things.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Carol earlier:
> > Almost all of our main characters (to use Pansy's term) suffered traumatic childhoods

Claire responded:
> Oh yes, absolutely - nearly all of them were stressed and mixed up. Wednesday mentioned to me the other day that Northumberland, ferex, spent most of his childhood and teens in prison.

Carol responds:

"Northumberland ferex"? I know you're referring to Henry Percy, the earl of Northumberland before and after John Neville, but haven't heard that term and am too lazy to look it up. I know that he was at first imprisoned in the Fleet when he was about twelve but moved to the Tower three years later where, probably, his imprisonment was much more comfortable. He wasn't in a dungeon, I'm sure. But, still, those first three years could not have made him love Edward. I'm surprised that he served the Yorkists at all (too lazy to be a bitter conspirator like Oxford?). Or maybe he was just practical. You came to terms with whoever was in power, whether it was Edward, Richard, or Henry. Northumberland is a mystery. We don't even know whether he betrayed Richard by deliberately sitting out the battle or just couldn't get to him on time.

I know that in the nineteenth century, a prisoner's family could pay to make sure that he was well fed and well lodged. Did the same apply to wealthy prisoners in the fifteenth century?

Carol earlier:
> > Moreover, she was an intelligent woman with few outlets for her talents other than plotting and conspiring,

Claire responded:
> Yes, that too. She seems to have had the kind of mind which nowadays would probably see her working in sub-atomic physics or running a large chunk of the UN, but in those days there wasn't much you could do with a brain like that except play chess even if you were a man, let alone if you were a woman. It's probably not surprising if she took to playing chess with live pieces - even if it's not admirable.

Carol responds:

I see her as a cutthroat CEO who will do anything for profits (in part for the sake of her only son who will inherit the company and in part for sheer love of competition, power, and her own cleverness). That chess game with live pieces ended, like the board game, with checkmate, the death of the (rightful) king. As the queen (or queen mother to be) in her own mind, she was the most powerful piece on the board, Richard's queen having died so that he had no one to inspire him.

If it weren't for Richard, I would almost hate the fifteenth century for its brutality and betrayal. But the sixteenth and seventeenth were in some respects even worse. And our own time, despite electricity and modern plumbing (neither of which I would like to live without) has lost so much beauty, artificial and natural, and the brutality has become so mechanized, that I still long for that lost late medieval world--if only there had been no WOTR. Of course, Richard would have been only a minor figure, the youngest son of a duke, but he might have been happier--and Henry Tudor would have been an even more obscure Lancastrian noble, also happier.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> 'Shadespeare' a freudian slip. Thomas Penn points out that Henry VII was the one history play that Shakespeare didn't write and speculates that it's because it is 'too dark'.

Carol writes:

Or too boring? In any case, Henry Tudor has already appeared as the savior of England from the "tyranny" of Richard III. There's nowhere to go from there except down, and no way to make Henry a hero at the end of his career.

Also, the Richard II through Richard III plays formed a cycle (tyrannical usurper Henry deposes rightful king Richard brought full circle when "rightful king" Henry deposes "tyrannical usurper" Richard), so a Henry VII play was superfluous and a Henry VIII play merely an addition for the benefit of the current ruler, his daughter. I forget where King John fits in; it's not part of the cycle, either.

Carol

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]

Carol responds:

"The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.

I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> And to all too. I have Audrey Williamson, which believe it or not I have never read.
>
Carol responds:

You'll like it, and it's quick, easy reading. Her Tyrell theory alone is worth the price of the book.

Carol

Pansydobersby wrote:

"I think Margaret of Anjou and Richard are cast in a similar scapegoat role.
First along came Margaret, who was obviously an unnatural woman, malicious
and meddlesome and murderous, and thus officially Ruined Everything by being
such a bad unwomanly woman. By so doing, she paved the way for Richard, who
was an unnatural brother and uncle and malicious usurper, and officially
Ruined Everything there was left to ruin by being an all-around awful human
being.
But then, the Tudors! Those heavenly restorers of the natural order of
things."

Well now, who's going to replace my just-exploded "snarkometer"?
Doug



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

But this is Henry's biographer who says his reign is too dark. Interesting that the 'Shadow of the Tower' struggled on TV as well, despite a great performance from the guy who played H7, James Maxwell.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 15:50
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> 'Shadespeare' a freudian slip. Thomas Penn points out that Henry VII was the one history play that Shakespeare didn't write and speculates that it's because it is 'too dark'.

Carol writes:

Or too boring? In any case, Henry Tudor has already appeared as the savior of England from the "tyranny" of Richard III. There's nowhere to go from there except down, and no way to make Henry a hero at the end of his career.

Also, the Richard II through Richard III plays formed a cycle (tyrannical usurper Henry deposes rightful king Richard brought full circle when "rightful king" Henry deposes "tyrannical usurper" Richard), so a Henry VII play was superfluous and a Henry VIII play merely an addition for the benefit of the current ruler, his daughter. I forget where King John fits in; it's not part of the cycle, either.

Carol

Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
>
> I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
>
> Carol
>

I still like Jones and Underwood who having her running a Red Cross camp or a canteen. Perhaps Florence Nightingale was the re-incarnation? 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 15:23
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 

Carol earlier:
> > Almost all of our main characters (to use Pansy's term) suffered traumatic childhoods

Claire responded:
> Oh yes, absolutely - nearly all of them were stressed and mixed up. Wednesday mentioned to me the other day that Northumberland, ferex, spent most of his childhood and teens in prison.

Carol responds:

"Northumberland ferex"? I know you're referring to Henry Percy, the earl of Northumberland before and after John Neville, but haven't heard that term and am too lazy to look it up. I know that he was at first imprisoned in the Fleet when he was about twelve but moved to the Tower three years later where, probably, his imprisonment was much more comfortable. He wasn't in a dungeon, I'm sure. But, still, those first three years could not have made him love Edward. I'm surprised that he served the Yorkists at all (too lazy to be a bitter conspirator like Oxford?). Or maybe he was just practical. You came to terms with whoever was in power, whether it was Edward, Richard, or Henry. Northumberland is a mystery. We don't even know whether he betrayed Richard by deliberately sitting out the battle or just couldn't get to him on time.

I know that in the nineteenth century, a prisoner's family could pay to make sure that he was well fed and well lodged. Did the same apply to wealthy prisoners in the fifteenth century?

Carol earlier:
> > Moreover, she was an intelligent woman with few outlets for her talents other than plotting and conspiring,

Claire responded:
> Yes, that too. She seems to have had the kind of mind which nowadays would probably see her working in sub-atomic physics or running a large chunk of the UN, but in those days there wasn't much you could do with a brain like that except play chess even if you were a man, let alone if you were a woman. It's probably not surprising if she took to playing chess with live pieces - even if it's not admirable.

Carol responds:

I see her as a cutthroat CEO who will do anything for profits (in part for the sake of her only son who will inherit the company and in part for sheer love of competition, power, and her own cleverness). That chess game with live pieces ended, like the board game, with checkmate, the death of the (rightful) king. As the queen (or queen mother to be) in her own mind, she was the most powerful piece on the board, Richard's queen having died so that he had no one to inspire him.

If it weren't for Richard, I would almost hate the fifteenth century for its brutality and betrayal. But the sixteenth and seventeenth were in some respects even worse. And our own time, despite electricity and modern plumbing (neither of which I would like to live without) has lost so much beauty, artificial and natural, and the brutality has become so mechanized, that I still long for that lost late medieval world--if only there had been no WOTR. Of course, Richard would have been only a minor figure, the youngest son of a duke, but he might have been happier--and Henry Tudor would have been an even more obscure Lancastrian noble, also happier.

Carol

Yes days to turn on the oven for extra warmth - checking for tools of course!  



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 16:38
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


 

Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
>
> I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
>
> Carol
>

Will it never end?? But I digress...Back to Rous...casting aside, for the moment, the fact he was a turncoat of humungeous proportions...I wonder if he had heard rumours of Richard poisoing Anne? Leading thus to his hatred of Richard. He would have known the Warwicks being connected to the church in Warwick. Of course he just could have been a nasty old man with a spiteful disposition but Im giving him the benefit of the doubt. Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes days to turn on the oven for extra warmth - checking for tools of course!  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 16:38
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>  
>
> Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> >
> > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?



Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
>
> I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
>
> Carol
>

My theory, and it is just my theory, is that he was a Beauchamp man. He probably doted on the old Beauchamp Earl of Warwick and was put up to this after Richard's demise by his daughter Anne Beauchamp in an effort to toady with H7 to get her lands back. 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 16:50
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


 

Will it never end?? But I digress...Back to Rous...casting aside, for the moment, the fact he was a turncoat of humungeous proportions...I wonder if he had heard rumours of Richard poisoing Anne? Leading thus to his hatred of Richard. He would have known the Warwicks being connected to the church in Warwick. Of course he just could have been a nasty old man with a spiteful disposition but Im giving him the benefit of the doubt. Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes days to turn on the oven for extra warmth - checking for tools of course!  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 16:38
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>  
>
> Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> >
> > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I not sure he was a nasty old man with a spiteful disposition - like many, he was quick to turn his coat in response to the new regime.  It wouldn't have looked good to have a wonderful history of the now defeated king, so he changed it to be more acceptable to the new king.  He was old by 1485 and had seen most of  his Warwick 'family' pass away - quite a sad creature in many respects.

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote


...Back to Rous...casting aside, for the moment, the fact he was a turncoat of humungeous proportions...I wonder if he had heard rumours of Richard poisoing Anne? Leading thus to his hatred of Richard. He would have known the Warwicks being connected to the church in Warwick. Of course he just could have been a nasty old man with a spiteful disposition but Im giving him the benefit of the doubt. Eileen

Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)

I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>
> Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> >
> > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>

He was 80 when he died...and is buried in the church at Warwick...

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I not sure he was a nasty old man with a spiteful disposition - like many, he was quick to turn his coat in response to the new regime.  It wouldn't have looked good to have a wonderful history of the now defeated king, so he changed it to be more acceptable to the new king.  He was old by 1485 and had seen most of  his Warwick 'family' pass away - quite a sad creature in many respects.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote
>
>
> ...Back to Rous...casting aside, for the moment, the fact he was a turncoat of humungeous proportions...I wonder if he had heard rumours of Richard poisoing Anne? Leading thus to his hatred of Richard. He would have known the Warwicks being connected to the church in Warwick. Of course he just could have been a nasty old man with a spiteful disposition but Im giving him the benefit of the doubt. Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

That is exactly how I get......and yes, I try and connect the dots in my head. I am constantly paging the "Who's Who", and also consulting maps and my Fodor's Great Britain and Google for places and locations of castles, monasteries and abbeys. It really was amazing the sheer greed for land, which gave money and power! Back to Weds legos, it is rather like a game between selfish boys, who has the most, and damn the rest!

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 12:12 PM
To:
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?



Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)

I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
>
> ________________________________
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>
> Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> >
> > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>

 IIRC, nobly born traitors weren't hanged, drawn and quartered - they were beheaded.  Afterwards their heads might have been displayed on a bridge.  I wonder why Hicks implied that George would have been.

________________________________
EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

(snip)

 
. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>
> Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> >
> > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>

I don't know whether you were around some time ago when I pointed out Ross (who is not the greatest Ricardian) went to some lengths to say that, because the Yorks hadn't been kings before, they tended still to think like the nobility. Edward, way into his reign was still acquiring land, swapping land etc. A king in the past usually confiscated it as punishment and then gave it as a reward. He didn't need to grab land; he was the king, he owned it already. Perhaps it came from the instability in their early years to which the Yorks had been subjected? Edward was certainly as bad, if not worse, than George and Richard.   



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 17:20
Subject: RE: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 

That is exactly how I get......and yes, I try and connect the dots in my head. I am constantly paging the "Who's Who", and also consulting maps and my Fodor's Great Britain and Google for places and locations of castles, monasteries and abbeys. It really was amazing the sheer greed for land, which gave money and power! Back to Weds legos, it is rather like a game between selfish boys, who has the most, and damn the rest!

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 12:12 PM
To:
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)

I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot marriage but
then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
>
> ________________________________
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>
> Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> >
> > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Because he is Hicks .......
----- Original Message -----
From: Pamela Furmidge
To:
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?





IIRC, nobly born traitors weren't hanged, drawn and quartered - they were beheaded. Afterwards their heads might have been displayed on a bridge. I wonder why Hicks implied that George would have been.

________________________________
EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

(snip)


. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>
> Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> >
> > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>

I thought it rather odd too but then again a lot of it seems odd to me. Hicks took it from Vergil....Hicks writes "....it was not on Edward's own motion that the rigour of the sentence against Clarence - hanging drawing and quartering" was commuted. It was obtained 'by the great prayer and request of the mother of the said Edward and Clarence' so it is not unlikely that the Duchess Cecily sought also to save Clarence's life." ( personally I would have thought it very likely...)

He also mentions that both More and Vergil believed that Edward repented the deed - according to More "he pitiously bewailed and sorrowfully repented" According to Vergil - 'yt ys very lykly that king Edward soone repentyd that dede; he was woont to cry out in a rage 'O infortunate broother, (me: you can say that again!) for whose lyfe no man in this world wold once make request"...(me: a bit late mate...)..Of course if More took his history from Virgil this would explain the similar line... Eileen

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>  IIRC, nobly born traitors weren't hanged, drawn and quartered - they were beheaded.  Afterwards their heads might have been displayed on a bridge.  I wonder why Hicks implied that George would have been.
>
> ________________________________
> EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>  
> . According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> Eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > >
> > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It wasn't unknown for those of noble birth to be hanged, drawn and quartered: The Earl of Carlisle in 1323 and Lord Despenser in 1326 for example. It was ultimately at "The King's Pleasure" and usually the King would commute to beheading for the nobility.....but not always.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Because he is Hicks .......
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 5:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>
>
>
> IIRC, nobly born traitors weren't hanged, drawn and quartered - they were beheaded. Afterwards their heads might have been displayed on a bridge. I wonder why Hicks implied that George would have been.
>
> ________________________________
> EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
> . According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> Eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > >
> > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I do the same, Eileen. I'm reading the Jones book on Bosworth at the moment and as I almost always read before going to bed, I find that suppositions and speculations whirl in my head when the lights go out. It's hard to turn them off and get to sleep...not so good when one has to be up for work early the next morning.

As to Clarence's execution, I've always felt that there had to have been something that finally pushed Edward over the edge in 1478--something much more than the death of Ankarette Twnyho. A final, deadly straw, as it were. George had certainly done worse in the past, so why the ultimate punishment now? It's so very tempting to believe that the "something" was his knowledge of and/or threats about Edward's prior marriage. And there's always been speculation that it was the Woodvilles who pushed hard for Clarence's execution. What better reason than explosive revelations like the Talbot marriage that could destroy EW and her family? Unfortunately, there's no proof of any of it, but it sure is a persuasive argument. For me, the whole matter of George's execution is as hard to reconcile as Richard's sudden execution of Hastings.

Pamela Garrett

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)
>
> I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> Eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > >
> > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

That's what I was thinking. Maybe Hicks doesn't know what he's talking about?



________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 17:35
Subject: Re: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 


 IIRC, nobly born traitors weren't hanged, drawn and quartered - they were beheaded.  Afterwards their heads might have been displayed on a bridge.  I wonder why Hicks implied that George would have been.

________________________________
EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> wrote:

(snip)

 
. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
>
> ________________________________
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>
> Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> >
> > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Hallo Pamela...Looks as if you are thinking along the same lines as me re George's execution...although I have never had any trouble with Richard's execution of Hastings who was involved in an assassination plot on Richard's life. We went into this subject at great length before you begun posting although you may have read the messages if you didnt you could go back. It eventually became quite tedious but the general consensus was, I think I can safely say, that Richard as Protector was legally within the law to execute Hastings and had just cause. If I recall I think I started off that topic when I said I could not really understand the angst associated with Hasting's execution.

There was a really interesting article in the Bulletin "Why Hastings Lost His Head" which very much strengthened my thoughts on this. Once again...oh what a tangled web we weave....etc., etc.,

Eileen

--- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@...> wrote:
>
> I do the same, Eileen. I'm reading the Jones book on Bosworth at the moment and as I almost always read before going to bed, I find that suppositions and speculations whirl in my head when the lights go out. It's hard to turn them off and get to sleep...not so good when one has to be up for work early the next morning.
>
> As to Clarence's execution, I've always felt that there had to have been something that finally pushed Edward over the edge in 1478--something much more than the death of Ankarette Twnyho. A final, deadly straw, as it were. George had certainly done worse in the past, so why the ultimate punishment now? It's so very tempting to believe that the "something" was his knowledge of and/or threats about Edward's prior marriage. And there's always been speculation that it was the Woodvilles who pushed hard for Clarence's execution. What better reason than explosive revelations like the Talbot marriage that could destroy EW and her family? Unfortunately, there's no proof of any of it, but it sure is a persuasive argument. For me, the whole matter of George's execution is as hard to reconcile as Richard's sudden execution of Hastings.
>
> Pamela Garrett
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)
> >
> > I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > > >
> > > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Or Virgil?
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> That's what I was thinking. Maybe Hicks doesn't know what he's talking about?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 17:35
> Subject: Re: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>  
>
>
>  IIRC, nobly born traitors weren't hanged, drawn and quartered - they were beheaded.  Afterwards their heads might have been displayed on a bridge.  I wonder why Hicks implied that George would have been.
>
> ________________________________
> EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>  
> . According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > >
> > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Pamela
To:
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was looted?


> It's so very tempting to believe that the "something" was his knowledge
> of and/or threats about Edward's prior marriage. And there's always been
> speculation that it was the Woodvilles who pushed hard for Clarence's
> execution. What better reason than explosive revelations like the Talbot
> marriage that could destroy EW and her family?

And if the Woodvilles knew about the pre-contract, it explains why Dorset
would choose to cut his losses and make a bolt for it with the cash when
Edward died. If he was expecting his half-brother to become king, even with
Richard as Portector, then emptying the treasury seems like an odd move -
but if he knew about the pre-contract and feared it was going to come out,
cutting his losses and ahving it away with the cash would make sense.

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff
after Bosworth - that which was

> Northumberland is a mystery. We don't even know whether he betrayed
> Richard by deliberately sitting out the battle or just couldn't get to him
> on time.

That's something I've been meaning to ask. What are the sources for the
course of the battle? De Valera says that "Lord Tamorlant", which *has* to
be a slurring of "Northumberland", switched sides and moved in to attack
Richard and that it was that which prompted Richard to charge.

Now, De Valera definitely isn't very accurate - he's wildly wrong about
events preceding Richard's accession and places Edward in Scotland and
Richard in London - and his sources are mostly hearsay and rumour. But it's
hearsay and rumour which was gathered in the first six months after the
battle and one of his sources is Salazar, who was apparently on Ambien Hill
with Richard.

So, has De Valera simply confused Northumberland's actions with those of
William Stanley? How do we know?

> I know that in the nineteenth century, a prisoner's family could pay to
> make sure that he was well fed and well lodged. Did the same apply to
> wealthy prisoners in the fifteenth century?

Not sure but I *think* so.

> I see her as a cutthroat CEO who will do anything for profits (in part for
> the sake of her only son who will inherit the company and in part for
> sheer love of competition, power, and her own cleverness). That chess game
> with live pieces ended, like the board game, with checkmate, the death of
> the (rightful) king. As the queen (or queen mother to be) in her own mind,
> she was the most powerful piece on the board, Richard's queen having died
> so that he had no one to inspire him.

I wish I could find that damned Victorian chronicle which used to be in the
library off Fleet Street. I don't think it can have been Baker unless it
was a *very* different edition form the one on the net. This was the one
which claimed that Anne pressed Richard to accept the throne - which if true
would make her another major female player.

I think btw (that's "by the way", by the way) that you and Pansy are both
right about issues of abuse in the 15th C. Those aspects of the psychology
of abuse which have to do with loss of autonomy and having sex while not old
enough to deal with the emotional consequences or to decide on your own
preferences would be much the same as today - possibly even worse, if it's
true that people hit puberty later. OTOH (that's "on the other hand") those
aspects which have to do with feeling dirty and singled out for oppression,
isolated from "normal" people, would be much less, maybe even nonexistent,
in a society in which very early sex wasn't all that abnormal.

I'm inclined to think MB was abused because in later life she doesn't seem
to have been a very sexual being, making it unlikely she was just an
enthusiastic early starter, and if it's true as someone suggested that
Edmund had sex with her at twelve just to cement his claim to her lands that
would be like holding up a banner saying "You are of no individual
importance at all, I only want you for your property". But of course she
*might* have been a starry-eyed romantic, like Juliet in the play, and have
Loved Only Him, and that was why she later became chaste.

> If it weren't for Richard, I would almost hate the fifteenth century for
> its brutality and betrayal. But the sixteenth and seventeenth were in some
> respects even worse. And our own time, despite electricity and modern
> plumbing (neither of which I would like to live without)

Think of Richard's poor teeth, at least some of which seem to have been lost
to decay, and him having to either endure the pain or have them yanked out
with a nasty little metal key and no anaesthetic - probably not even clove
oil, at that time.

> has lost so much beauty, artificial and natural, and the brutality has
> become so mechanized, that I still long for that lost late medieval
> world--

Yes. To some extent it seems to still exist in the Himalayan states, where
many people still wear jewel-bright clothes and decorate their houses and
have pagaentry and ceremony and time to enjoy it, but Goths aside most white
culture these days seems to be pretty mundane and lacklustre. But you could
always join the SCA, and have the pageantry and the fine clothes and the
courtliness without the toothache and the fleas and the dry-cleaning your
clothes with powdered horse-shit.

And if you long for it, maybe you had a life then, and it still feels like
home...?

> if only there had been no WOTR. Of course, Richard would have been only a
> minor figure, the youngest son of a duke, but he might have been
> happier--and Henry Tudor would have been an even more obscure Lancastrian
> noble, also happier.

I still like my scenario of Henry ending up as Richard's chancellor. They
would have complemented each other: Richard could have taught Henry to be a
bit less dreary and to at least *try* to think about the needs of the common
people, and Henry could have taught Richard not to spend all his money on
alms for the poor and velvet gowns for his wife without first thinking about
how he was going to replace it. And if it's true that Henry was a dutifully
hen-pecked husband Richard would have liked that in him.

But we do have to ask what made Hastings go over to the dark side. Through all Edward's Parliaments he is the only one descibed by the king as 'faithful' and that must have been attractive to Richard. Could he have been got at, I don't know. I just wish he'd been at Bosworth with Richard.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 19:06
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


 

Hallo Pamela...Looks as if you are thinking along the same lines as me re George's execution...although I have never had any trouble with Richard's execution of Hastings who was involved in an assassination plot on Richard's life. We went into this subject at great length before you begun posting although you may have read the messages if you didnt you could go back. It eventually became quite tedious but the general consensus was, I think I can safely say, that Richard as Protector was legally within the law to execute Hastings and had just cause. If I recall I think I started off that topic when I said I could not really understand the angst associated with Hasting's execution.

There was a really interesting article in the Bulletin "Why Hastings Lost His Head" which very much strengthened my thoughts on this. Once again...oh what a tangled web we weave....etc., etc.,

Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@...> wrote:
>
> I do the same, Eileen. I'm reading the Jones book on Bosworth at the moment and as I almost always read before going to bed, I find that suppositions and speculations whirl in my head when the lights go out. It's hard to turn them off and get to sleep...not so good when one has to be up for work early the next morning.
>
> As to Clarence's execution, I've always felt that there had to have been something that finally pushed Edward over the edge in 1478--something much more than the death of Ankarette Twnyho. A final, deadly straw, as it were. George had certainly done worse in the past, so why the ultimate punishment now? It's so very tempting to believe that the "something" was his knowledge of and/or threats about Edward's prior marriage. And there's always been speculation that it was the Woodvilles who pushed hard for Clarence's execution. What better reason than explosive revelations like the Talbot marriage that could destroy EW and her family? Unfortunately, there's no proof of any of it, but it sure is a persuasive argument. For me, the whole matter of George's execution is as hard to reconcile as Richard's sudden execution of Hastings.
>
> Pamela Garrett
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)
> >
> > I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot
marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > > >
> > > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Possibly because he was worried about what fate would befall him if the Woodvilles achieved absolutely power...inititially he knew EW but had earned her anger because he encouraged Edward in his philandering..Once he had warned Richard...someone wrote that he was "bursting with joy' he fully expected rewards for his efforts...( I do not blame him there..quite a human thing really) but wait! It was others, particularly Bucks who were raised to dizzy heights very quicky.. Green with envy Hastings thereupon done a turnaround and plotted the fall of Richard and Bucks...perchance Morton was involved somewhere, as per usual. Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> But we do have to ask what made Hastings go over to the dark side. Through all Edward's Parliaments he is the only one descibed by the king as 'faithful' and that must have been attractive to Richard. Could he have been got at, I don't know. I just wish he'd been at Bosworth with Richard.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 19:06
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>  
>
> Hallo Pamela...Looks as if you are thinking along the same lines as me re George's execution...although I have never had any trouble with Richard's execution of Hastings who was involved in an assassination plot on Richard's life. We went into this subject at great length before you begun posting although you may have read the messages if you didnt you could go back. It eventually became quite tedious but the general consensus was, I think I can safely say, that Richard as Protector was legally within the law to execute Hastings and had just cause. If I recall I think I started off that topic when I said I could not really understand the angst associated with Hasting's execution.
>
> There was a really interesting article in the Bulletin "Why Hastings Lost His Head" which very much strengthened my thoughts on this. Once again...oh what a tangled web we weave....etc., etc.,
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> >
> > I do the same, Eileen. I'm reading the Jones book on Bosworth at the moment and as I almost always read before going to bed, I find that suppositions and speculations whirl in my head when the lights go out. It's hard to turn them off and get to sleep...not so good when one has to be up for work early the next morning.
> >
> > As to Clarence's execution, I've always felt that there had to have been something that finally pushed Edward over the edge in 1478--something much more than the death of Ankarette Twnyho. A final, deadly straw, as it were. George had certainly done worse in the past, so why the ultimate punishment now? It's so very tempting to believe that the "something" was his knowledge of and/or threats about Edward's prior marriage. And there's always been speculation that it was the Woodvilles who pushed hard for Clarence's execution. What better reason than explosive revelations like the Talbot marriage that could destroy EW and her family? Unfortunately, there's no proof of any of it, but it sure is a persuasive argument. For me, the whole matter of George's execution is as hard to reconcile as Richard's sudden execution of Hastings.
> >
> > Pamela Garrett
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)
> > >
> > > I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot
> marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's one thing I honestly just can't work out. Was Buckingham, remembering his visits to Guildford and aunt etc even at this stage, being managed by Morton and MB to upset the apple cart? Take Rivers out, take Hastings out, frighten EW and the whole governance is weakened. I don't know, I certainly can't prove anything, but it is convenient how everything fell to bits. 


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 20:43
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


 

Possibly because he was worried about what fate would befall him if the Woodvilles achieved absolutely power...inititially he knew EW but had earned her anger because he encouraged Edward in his philandering..Once he had warned Richard...someone wrote that he was "bursting with joy' he fully expected rewards for his efforts...( I do not blame him there..quite a human thing really) but wait! It was others, particularly Bucks who were raised to dizzy heights very quicky.. Green with envy Hastings thereupon done a turnaround and plotted the fall of Richard and Bucks...perchance Morton was involved somewhere, as per usual. Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> But we do have to ask what made Hastings go over to the dark side. Through all Edward's Parliaments he is the only one descibed by the king as 'faithful' and that must have been attractive to Richard. Could he have been got at, I don't know. I just wish he'd been at Bosworth with Richard.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 19:06
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>  
>
> Hallo Pamela...Looks as if you are thinking along the same lines as me re George's execution...although I have never had any trouble with Richard's execution of Hastings who was involved in an assassination plot on Richard's life. We went into this subject at great length before you begun posting although you may have read the messages if you didnt you could go back. It eventually became quite tedious but the general consensus was, I think I can safely say, that Richard as Protector was legally within the law to execute Hastings and had just cause. If I recall I think I started off that topic when I said I could not really understand the angst associated with Hasting's execution.
>
> There was a really interesting article in the Bulletin "Why Hastings Lost His Head" which very much strengthened my thoughts on this. Once again...oh what a tangled web we weave....etc., etc.,
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> >
> > I do the same, Eileen. I'm reading the Jones book on Bosworth at the moment and as I almost always read before going to bed, I find that suppositions and speculations whirl in my head when the lights go out. It's hard to turn them off and get to sleep...not so good when one has to be up for work early the next morning.
> >
> > As to Clarence's execution, I've always felt that there had to have been something that finally pushed Edward over the edge in 1478--something much more than the death of Ankarette Twnyho. A final, deadly straw, as it were. George had certainly done worse in the past, so why the ultimate punishment now? It's so very tempting to believe that the "something" was his knowledge of and/or threats about Edward's prior marriage. And there's always been speculation that it was the Woodvilles who pushed hard for Clarence's execution. What better reason than explosive revelations like the Talbot marriage that could destroy EW and her family? Unfortunately, there's no proof of any of it, but it sure is a persuasive argument. For me, the whole matter of George's execution is as hard to reconcile as Richard's sudden execution of Hastings.
> >
> > Pamela Garrett
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)
> > >
> > > I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot
> marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry, I wasn't very clear about Hastings. I agree that Richard was within his legal rights as Protector to execute him and I do believe he was involved in plotting against Richard's life. I finally reached that conclusion only after a lot of years of, yes, angst about it. I think the article in the Bulletin that you mention probably helped push me in that direction. When I was first starting to learn about Richard some 40-odd years ago, I remember reading about those events and it all seemed so sudden and so violent. With the lack of a trial and a vision I conjured in my head of Richard flying into a rage and screaming, "Off with his head!" or some such cliche...killing his brother's best friend, a man he himself had shared exile with and fought alongside, all while letting the others off the hook, I was rather dismayed by it back then. For a long time, I believed it was as much about Richard's rage at Hastings for encouraging and participating in Edward's corruption and excesses of the flesh, leading to his decline and eventual death. I've learned a lot since then and I've made peace with it now. But Edward's meting out the ultimate punishment to George when he'd forgiven him so many times, including welcoming him back into the fold before Barnet, still puzzles me.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Hallo Pamela...Looks as if you are thinking along the same lines as me re George's execution...although I have never had any trouble with Richard's execution of Hastings who was involved in an assassination plot on Richard's life. We went into this subject at great length before you begun posting although you may have read the messages if you didnt you could go back. It eventually became quite tedious but the general consensus was, I think I can safely say, that Richard as Protector was legally within the law to execute Hastings and had just cause. If I recall I think I started off that topic when I said I could not really understand the angst associated with Hasting's execution.
>
> There was a really interesting article in the Bulletin "Why Hastings Lost His Head" which very much strengthened my thoughts on this. Once again...oh what a tangled web we weave....etc., etc.,
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> >
> > I do the same, Eileen. I'm reading the Jones book on Bosworth at the moment and as I almost always read before going to bed, I find that suppositions and speculations whirl in my head when the lights go out. It's hard to turn them off and get to sleep...not so good when one has to be up for work early the next morning.
> >
> > As to Clarence's execution, I've always felt that there had to have been something that finally pushed Edward over the edge in 1478--something much more than the death of Ankarette Twnyho. A final, deadly straw, as it were. George had certainly done worse in the past, so why the ultimate punishment now? It's so very tempting to believe that the "something" was his knowledge of and/or threats about Edward's prior marriage. And there's always been speculation that it was the Woodvilles who pushed hard for Clarence's execution. What better reason than explosive revelations like the Talbot marriage that could destroy EW and her family? Unfortunately, there's no proof of any of it, but it sure is a persuasive argument. For me, the whole matter of George's execution is as hard to reconcile as Richard's sudden execution of Hastings.
> >
> > Pamela Garrett
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)
> > >
> > > I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Yes I believe he was...If I recall correct Hilary you told me you had a copy of The Deceivers by Geoffrey Richardson?..which I promptly purchased....I believe Geoffrey was very much barking up the right tree with his theory.

Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's one thing I honestly just can't work out. Was Buckingham, remembering his visits to Guildford and aunt etc even at this stage, being managed by Morton and MB to upset the apple cart? Take Rivers out, take Hastings out, frighten EW and the whole governance is weakened. I don't know, I certainly can't prove anything, but it is convenient how everything fell to bits. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 20:43
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>  
>
> Possibly because he was worried about what fate would befall him if the Woodvilles achieved absolutely power...inititially he knew EW but had earned her anger because he encouraged Edward in his philandering..Once he had warned Richard...someone wrote that he was "bursting with joy' he fully expected rewards for his efforts...( I do not blame him there..quite a human thing really) but wait! It was others, particularly Bucks who were raised to dizzy heights very quicky.. Green with envy Hastings thereupon done a turnaround and plotted the fall of Richard and Bucks...perchance Morton was involved somewhere, as per usual. Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > But we do have to ask what made Hastings go over to the dark side. Through all Edward's Parliaments he is the only one descibed by the king as 'faithful' and that must have been attractive to Richard. Could he have been got at, I don't know. I just wish he'd been at Bosworth with Richard.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 19:06
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Hallo Pamela...Looks as if you are thinking along the same lines as me re George's execution...although I have never had any trouble with Richard's execution of Hastings who was involved in an assassination plot on Richard's life. We went into this subject at great length before you begun posting although you may have read the messages if you didnt you could go back. It eventually became quite tedious but the general consensus was, I think I can safely say, that Richard as Protector was legally within the law to execute Hastings and had just cause. If I recall I think I started off that topic when I said I could not really understand the angst associated with Hasting's execution.
> >
> > There was a really interesting article in the Bulletin "Why Hastings Lost His Head" which very much strengthened my thoughts on this. Once again...oh what a tangled web we weave....etc., etc.,
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I do the same, Eileen. I'm reading the Jones book on Bosworth at the moment and as I almost always read before going to bed, I find that suppositions and speculations whirl in my head when the lights go out. It's hard to turn them off and get to sleep...not so good when one has to be up for work early the next morning.
> > >
> > > As to Clarence's execution, I've always felt that there had to have been something that finally pushed Edward over the edge in 1478--something much more than the death of Ankarette Twnyho. A final, deadly straw, as it were. George had certainly done worse in the past, so why the ultimate punishment now? It's so very tempting to believe that the "something" was his knowledge of and/or threats about Edward's prior marriage. And there's always been speculation that it was the Woodvilles who pushed hard for Clarence's execution. What better reason than explosive revelations like the Talbot marriage that could destroy EW and her family? Unfortunately, there's no proof of any of it, but it sure is a persuasive argument. For me, the whole matter of George's execution is as hard to reconcile as Richard's sudden execution of Hastings.
> > >
> > > Pamela Garrett
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)
> > > >
> > > > I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot
> > marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> But this is Henry's biographer who says his reign is too dark. Interesting that the 'Shadow of the Tower' struggled on TV as well, despite a great performance from the guy who played H7, James Maxwell.

Carol responds:

Too dark to make good drama? Has he never heard of tragedy? (Unfortunately, Henry's death from tuberculosis doesn't fit the bill or die as the inevitable consequence of his fatal flaw as the Tudor version of Richard does.) Or too dark to allow Shakespeare to write a play that would satisfy his granddaughter? I still say that there's nothing in his reign to structure a play around. The climax comes at the beginning and the reign, like Henry himself, fails to be great.

Carol

Yes twas I. Richardson makes it all seem so obvious. But even when you put his theories aside, to spilt Richard from Hastings and Rivers was clever indeed. You see, again just my observations from being around a long time, if you've shared some sort of crisis, however long ago it was, it binds you together forever. And Rivers, Richard and Hastings had in 1470. Though they were very different people and life had moved. on there would always be a common bond there. It would have taken an awful lot to make Richard forget that. 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 21:38
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


 

Yes I believe he was...If I recall correct Hilary you told me you had a copy of The Deceivers by Geoffrey Richardson?..which I promptly purchased....I believe Geoffrey was very much barking up the right tree with his theory.

Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's one thing I honestly just can't work out. Was Buckingham, remembering his visits to Guildford and aunt etc even at this stage, being managed by Morton and MB to upset the apple cart? Take Rivers out, take Hastings out, frighten EW and the whole governance is weakened. I don't know, I certainly can't prove anything, but it is convenient how everything fell to bits. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 20:43
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>  
>
> Possibly because he was worried about what fate would befall him if the Woodvilles achieved absolutely power...inititially he knew EW but had earned her anger because he encouraged Edward in his philandering..Once he had warned Richard...someone wrote that he was "bursting with joy' he fully expected rewards for his efforts...( I do not blame him there..quite a human thing really) but wait! It was others, particularly Bucks who were raised to dizzy heights very quicky.. Green with envy Hastings thereupon done a turnaround and plotted the fall of Richard and Bucks...perchance Morton was involved somewhere, as per usual. Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Butàwe do have to ask what made Hastings go over to the dark side. Through all Edward's Parliaments he is the only one descibed by the king as 'faithful' and that must have been attractive to Richard. Could he have been got at, I don't know. I just wish he'd been at Bosworth with Richard.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 19:06
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > Hallo Pamela...Looks as if you are thinking along the same lines as me re George's execution...although I have never had any trouble with Richard's execution of Hastings who was involved in an assassination plot on Richard's life. We went into this subject at great length before you begun posting although you may have read the messages if you didnt you could go back. It eventually became quite tedious but the general consensus was, I think I can safely say, that Richard as Protector was legally within the law to execute Hastings and had just cause. If I recall I think I started off that topic when I said I could not really understand the angst associated with Hasting's execution.
> >
> > There was a really interesting article in the Bulletin "Why Hastings Lost His Head" which very much strengthened my thoughts on this. Once again...oh what a tangled web we weave....etc., etc.,
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I do the same, Eileen. I'm reading the Jones book on Bosworth at the moment and as I almost always read before going to bed, I find that suppositions and speculations whirl in my head when the lights go out. It's hard to turn them off and get to sleep...not so good when one has to be up for work early the next morning.
> > >
> > > As to Clarence's execution, I've always felt that there had to have been something that finally pushed Edward over the edge in 1478--something much more than the death of Ankarette Twnyho. A final, deadly straw, as it were. George had certainly done worse in the past, so why the ultimate punishment now? It's so very tempting to believe that the "something" was his knowledge of and/or threats about Edward's prior marriage. And there's always been speculation that it was the Woodvilles who pushed hard for Clarence's execution. What better reason than explosive revelations like the Talbot marriage that could destroy EW and her family? Unfortunately, there's no proof of any of it, but it sure is a persuasive argument. For me, the whole matter of George's execution is as hard to reconcile as Richard's sudden execution of Hastings.
> > >
> > > Pamela Garrett
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)
> > > >
> > > > I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot
> > marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Probably as well not enough characters that you could exaggerate without upsetting someone, like poor Margaret of Anjou as we said last night. And there isn't much heroism in sending person after person to the scaffold. The BBC managed to make about 8 episodes out of it, but the trouble with most of Henry's reign is that there is no-one to love or pity; no fallen women, no heroic failures, just the odd cleric hiding in a corner (guess who) and a rather unattractive miser.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 21:41
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 


Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> But this is Henry's biographer who says his reign is too dark. Interesting that the 'Shadow of the Tower' struggled on TV as well, despite a great performance from the guy who played H7, James Maxwell.

Carol responds:

Too dark to make good drama? Has he never heard of tragedy? (Unfortunately, Henry's death from tuberculosis doesn't fit the bill or die as the inevitable consequence of his fatal flaw as the Tudor version of Richard does.) Or too dark to allow Shakespeare to write a play that would satisfy his granddaughter? I still say that there's nothing in his reign to structure a play around. The climax comes at the beginning and the reign, like Henry himself, fails to be great.

Carol

I agree Pamela...prima facie that is the impression you are left with. Until you learn more and more about Richard's character. And of course, at first, it may be hard to believe that the sainted More could possibly tell porkies.. But I believe the rage part because one thing you get a very strong impression with Richard is that he was unswerving about loyalty or lack of it as witnessed by his famous letter describing Buckey as "the most untrue creature living....'There is still dispute as to what Friday Hastings was executed on. Richard made sure that Edward's wishes were granted and that his friend Hastings was buried close to him in St George's Chapel. Eileen

--- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I wasn't very clear about Hastings. I agree that Richard was within his legal rights as Protector to execute him and I do believe he was involved in plotting against Richard's life. I finally reached that conclusion only after a lot of years of, yes, angst about it. I think the article in the Bulletin that you mention probably helped push me in that direction. When I was first starting to learn about Richard some 40-odd years ago, I remember reading about those events and it all seemed so sudden and so violent. With the lack of a trial and a vision I conjured in my head of Richard flying into a rage and screaming, "Off with his head!" or some such cliche...killing his brother's best friend, a man he himself had shared exile with and fought alongside, all while letting the others off the hook, I was rather dismayed by it back then. For a long time, I believed it was as much about Richard's rage at Hastings for encouraging and participating in Edward's corruption and excesses of the flesh, leading to his decline and eventual death. I've learned a lot since then and I've made peace with it now. But Edward's meting out the ultimate punishment to George when he'd forgiven him so many times, including welcoming him back into the fold before Barnet, still puzzles me.
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Hallo Pamela...Looks as if you are thinking along the same lines as me re George's execution...although I have never had any trouble with Richard's execution of Hastings who was involved in an assassination plot on Richard's life. We went into this subject at great length before you begun posting although you may have read the messages if you didnt you could go back. It eventually became quite tedious but the general consensus was, I think I can safely say, that Richard as Protector was legally within the law to execute Hastings and had just cause. If I recall I think I started off that topic when I said I could not really understand the angst associated with Hasting's execution.
> >
> > There was a really interesting article in the Bulletin "Why Hastings Lost His Head" which very much strengthened my thoughts on this. Once again...oh what a tangled web we weave....etc., etc.,
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I do the same, Eileen. I'm reading the Jones book on Bosworth at the moment and as I almost always read before going to bed, I find that suppositions and speculations whirl in my head when the lights go out. It's hard to turn them off and get to sleep...not so good when one has to be up for work early the next morning.
> > >
> > > As to Clarence's execution, I've always felt that there had to have been something that finally pushed Edward over the edge in 1478--something much more than the death of Ankarette Twnyho. A final, deadly straw, as it were. George had certainly done worse in the past, so why the ultimate punishment now? It's so very tempting to believe that the "something" was his knowledge of and/or threats about Edward's prior marriage. And there's always been speculation that it was the Woodvilles who pushed hard for Clarence's execution. What better reason than explosive revelations like the Talbot marriage that could destroy EW and her family? Unfortunately, there's no proof of any of it, but it sure is a persuasive argument. For me, the whole matter of George's execution is as hard to reconcile as Richard's sudden execution of Hastings.
> > >
> > > Pamela Garrett
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)
> > > >
> > > > I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> My theory, and it is just my theory, is that he was a Beauchamp man. He probably doted on the old Beauchamp Earl of Warwick and was put up to this after Richard's demise by his daughter Anne Beauchamp in an effort to toady with H7 to get her lands back. 

Carol responds:

I don't know. The Beauchamp Pageant, apparently commissioned by the dowager countess after Richard's death (and apparently not by Rous) is not hostile to Richard, merely picturing him, along with Anne, their son, and, on Anne's left, her first husband, Edward of Lancaster, indicating that *she* had nothing against her late son-in-law. Rous certainly felt a personal loyalty to her, but I think he may have trimmed his sails to Henry *after* Henry gave back her lands only to demand that she give them to him. She died in September 1492, so that would give him only a limited time to write his Anglica Historia before the effort became futile if that were his motive. Maybe, seeing Henry's treatment of the countess, he sucked up to him for fear that he would treat the young earl of Warwick even worse. Warwick was twenty by the time Rous died, and his danger would increase with every year that he lived.

I would like to think that Rous had some such motive in blackening Richard's name (though I wish he hadn't made that futile effort). He certainly knew immediately that Henry had imprisoned little Edward and by 1486 or so (I don't know the exact date when Henry took the countess's lands) that Henry was treating her worse than Richard had. He could not have believed a word he was writing (except the few good things he managed to sneak in, such as Richard's courage at Bosworth). Essentially, he perjured himself to no purpose.

And regardless of his motives, the damage he has caused to Richard's reputation, taken as truth and built upon by subsequent chroniclers, historians, and biographers, is incalculable. I almost said irreparable, but if we believe that, we'll give up in despair.

Carol

Agree with all that. Looking back, because these things are all we've got to look upon, we tend to attribute hostile words about Richard as the equivalent of a modern day press smear campaign. Croyland and Vergil aside (and who knows about More) it could be much more to do with selfish things on the part of the writer who stood to benefit by blackening the names of some people. And Richard being dead and undefended was a very convenient scapegoat to choose. But yes such people, if Rous is one of them, are a real pain, to put it mildly.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 22:07
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> My theory, and it is just my theory, is that he was a Beauchamp man. He probably doted on the old Beauchamp Earl of Warwick and was put up to this after Richard's demise by his daughter Anne Beauchamp in an effort to toady with H7 to get her lands back. 

Carol responds:

I don't know. The Beauchamp Pageant, apparently commissioned by the dowager countess after Richard's death (and apparently not by Rous) is not hostile to Richard, merely picturing him, along with Anne, their son, and, on Anne's left, her first husband, Edward of Lancaster, indicating that *she* had nothing against her late son-in-law. Rous certainly felt a personal loyalty to her, but I think he may have trimmed his sails to Henry *after* Henry gave back her lands only to demand that she give them to him. She died in September 1492, so that would give him only a limited time to write his Anglica Historia before the effort became futile if that were his motive. Maybe, seeing Henry's treatment of the countess, he sucked up to him for fear that he would treat the young earl of Warwick even worse. Warwick was twenty by the time Rous died, and his danger would increase with every year that he lived.

I would like to think that Rous had some such motive in blackening Richard's name (though I wish he hadn't made that futile effort). He certainly knew immediately that Henry had imprisoned little Edward and by 1486 or so (I don't know the exact date when Henry took the countess's lands) that Henry was treating her worse than Richard had. He could not have believed a word he was writing (except the few good things he managed to sneak in, such as Richard's courage at Bosworth). Essentially, he perjured himself to no purpose.

And regardless of his motives, the damage he has caused to Richard's reputation, taken as truth and built upon by subsequent chroniclers, historians, and biographers, is incalculable. I almost said irreparable, but if we believe that, we'll give up in despair.

Carol

Rous overegged the pudding to such an extent that it was transparently clear he was writing a complete nonsense...two years in the womb, hair streaming and a full set of teeth if my memory serves me right. And yet but did he not write the beautiful words that are now on Anne's plaque..."In person she was seemly, amiable and beauteous....and in interpretation of her name full gracious.." Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Agree with all that. Looking back, because these things are all we've got to look upon, we tend to attribute hostile words about Richard as the equivalent of a modern day press smear campaign. Croyland and Vergil aside (and who knows about More) it could be much more to do with selfish things on the part of the writer who stood to benefit by blackening the names of some people. And Richard being dead and undefended was a very convenient scapegoat to choose. But yes such people, if Rous is one of them, are a real pain, to put it mildly.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 22:07
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > My theory, and it is just my theory, is that he was a Beauchamp man. He probably doted on the old Beauchamp Earl of Warwick and was put up to this after Richard's demise by his daughter Anne Beauchamp in an effort to toady with H7 to get her lands back. 
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know. The Beauchamp Pageant, apparently commissioned by the dowager countess after Richard's death (and apparently not by Rous) is not hostile to Richard, merely picturing him, along with Anne, their son, and, on Anne's left, her first husband, Edward of Lancaster, indicating that *she* had nothing against her late son-in-law. Rous certainly felt a personal loyalty to her, but I think he may have trimmed his sails to Henry *after* Henry gave back her lands only to demand that she give them to him. She died in September 1492, so that would give him only a limited time to write his Anglica Historia before the effort became futile if that were his motive. Maybe, seeing Henry's treatment of the countess, he sucked up to him for fear that he would treat the young earl of Warwick even worse. Warwick was twenty by the time Rous died, and his danger would increase with every year that he lived.
>
> I would like to think that Rous had some such motive in blackening Richard's name (though I wish he hadn't made that futile effort). He certainly knew immediately that Henry had imprisoned little Edward and by 1486 or so (I don't know the exact date when Henry took the countess's lands) that Henry was treating her worse than Richard had. He could not have believed a word he was writing (except the few good things he managed to sneak in, such as Richard's courage at Bosworth). Essentially, he perjured himself to no purpose.
>
> And regardless of his motives, the damage he has caused to Richard's reputation, taken as truth and built upon by subsequent chroniclers, historians, and biographers, is incalculable. I almost said irreparable, but if we believe that, we'll give up in despair.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> I not sure he was a nasty old man with a spiteful disposition - like many, he was quick to turn his coat in response to the new regime. It wouldn't have looked good to have a wonderful history of the now defeated king, so he changed it to be more acceptable to the new king. He was old by 1485 and had seen most of his Warwick 'family' pass away - quite a sad creature in many respects.

Carol responds:

It was only the Latin version of the Rous Roll that he changed, not a whole history. The Anglica Historia (which contains the scorpion and anti-Christ imagery) is a different, and, I think, a new work, dedicated to Henry VII (who probably didn't think it sufficient just to excise the good passages about Richard and substitute "infelix maritus" ("unhappy husband"). So we get the beginnings of the monstrous birth myth and the raised shoulder instead.

BTW, I don't think that the Anglica Historia has ever been published in English translation. I've only seen bits of it quoted in biographies of Richard. (The English version of the Rous Roll is available used if you want to pay $250.00 or more, but I don't think it has been transcribed. You (group members in general) might prefer to pay for a larger, clearer image of the only relevant page if you can read the fifteenth-century writing (largish preview image available here:

http://www.agefotostock.com/en/Stock-Images/Rights-Managed/RPL-066764

I can't find quite all of the original passage in the English Rous Roll, but most of it is here:

"The most mighty Prince Richard . . . all avarice set aside ruled his subjects in his realm full commendably, punishing offenders of his laws, especially extortioners and oppressors of his commons, and cherishing those that were virtuous, by the which discreet guiding he got great thanks of God and love of all his subjects, rich and poor, and great praise of the people of all other lands about him."

http://www.richard111.com/what_history_has_to_say_about_ri.htm

Another source, "The Memoirs of King Richard III" by John Heneage Jesse (1862) adds two other partial quotations from the Rous Roll: "the most victorious Prince, King Richard III" and "mighty prince in his day, special good lord to the town and wardship of Warwick" (p. 512)

http://books.google.com/books?id=UE4LAAAAYAAJ&q=Richard+III#v=snippet&q=Rous%20Roll&f=false

These words must have reflected Rous's real sentiments at the time of writing; they are an accurate description of Richard as he appeared on his progress, which may have been the last time that Rous actually saw him. I suspect that he also approved of Richard's Parliament.

I don't have time to check, but I *think* that the information we have from Rous about the Prince of Wales's investiture and the trial of Rivers et al. by Northumberland come from the otherwise hostile Anglica Historia, for which we badly need a good modern translation (that doesn't translate "curtam habiens faciem" as "having a short face" when it apparently means "having a distorted figure" in reference to the raised shoulder).

Anyway, if anyone wants to pursue this idea (what comes from the Rous Roll and what from the Anglica Historia), please do so.

I should be doing something else!

Carol

Eileen wrote:
>
> Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)
>
> [snip] Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?

Carol responds:

Wait. What? Hicks thinks that Edward executed George because of Ankarette Twynyho? Sad to say, that poor woman's judicial murder doesn't even appear in the attainder. Lots of other charges do, including publicly declaring George a bastard and planning to smuggle his little boy overseas and put another child in his place (Marie tried to explain that one to me, but I still don't understand what George was trying to accomplish). But not a word in that detailed attainder about Ankarette or the man executed with her for supposedly poisoning George's baby son. Even if Hicks doesn't mention the marriage to Dame Eleanor Butler (and, as you say, he wouldn't) there were plenty of other charges that he *should* have listed.

And it's ridiculous to suppose that Edward would have considered having George drawn and quartered. That punishment was reserved for commoners. If he had, say, Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset (a triple traitor--Lancastrian turned Yorkist turned Lancastrian) beheaded, surely he would extend the same privilege to his own brother (or allow him to choose his own mode of execution as he appears to have done)?

Rather than quoting the whole act, which you can find in the appendices to J A-H's "Eleanor: The Secret Queen," I'll just quote his summary from the same book:

"Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert the king's subjects from their true obedience. Specifically: •   Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett •   He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts •   He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs •   He has claimed that the king is a bastard •   He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved'25 •   He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him •   Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI •   He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place •   He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force. For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property.

Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

Hicks clearly doesn't know what he's talking about here any more than he did when he said that by marrying his brother's wife's sister Richard was committing incest.

What is a tardis, by the way, and can we use one to send Hicks somewhere far away, say to the planet Venus?

Carol, wishing she could send all of you the lovely spring weather southern Arizona is having in exchange for some soon-to-be-April showers

>liz williams wrote:
> >
> > That's what I was thinking. Maybe Hicks doesn't know what he's talking about?

Eileen responded:

> Or Virgil?

Carol comments:

Exactly. Vergil was in no position to know how Edward reacted to his brother's execution. The Croyland Chronicler, who was one of Edward's councilors, thinks that Edward "*inwardly* repented very often of this act, [he nevertheless} after this period performed the duties of his office with such a high hand, that he appeared to be dreaded by all his subjects, while he himself stood in fear of no one." In other words, Edward became a tyrant (but Croyland doesn't go into detail, probably because it would reflect badly on Edward).

At any rate, I suspect that Edward regretted killing George much more deeply than he regretted executing Henry VI, but I doubt that he went around muttering, "Oh, my poor brother!" (especially in the hearing of the Woodville faction).

As for drawing and quartering, it wouldn't have been considered as has already been pointed out. That Cecily would have pleaded for George's life seems likely (didn't she retire to Berkhamstead Castle (I keep wanting to say Bermondsey Abbey) after George's death?) but Croyland doesn't mention her (or Richard) in relation to the execution, so as far as I know, that move is all we have to go on.

At any rate, I was thinking that maybe Vergil, hearing all this second or third hand, could have misunderstood her motives in pleading to Edward, but he could also just have been making things up as he does with EW supposedly hearing the news of her sons' murder on Richard's orders. But when I went to see what Vergil had actually written, I found no reference to Cecily, only this complete nonsense (forgive the typos in the digital copy I've copied and pasted}:

"sudaynly he [Edward] fell into a fact most horryble, commandyng rashly and uppon the suddane his brother George duke of Clarence to be George apprehendyd and put to death, who was drowned (as they say) in a butte of malmesey; the woorst example that ever man cowld committed remember. And as touching the cause of his death, thowgh I
have enqueryd of many, who wer not of leest authorytie emongest The maner the kinges cownsaylle at that time, yeat have I no certaintie
therof to leave in memory. A report was eaven then spred rences
emongest the common people, that the king was afeard, by reason
of a soothsayers prophecy, and so became incensyd agaynst his
broother George, which prophecy was, that, after king Edward,
showld raigne soome one the first letter of whose name should be
G. [snip] Others lay an other cause of his death, which ys in this sort. That abowt the same time thold hatryd renewing betwixt the two brothers, then the which nothing ys more vehement, the duke, being a wydower, requyryd, by meane of his sister Margaret, to have in maryage Mary, thonely dowghter of Charles duke of Burgoigne, and that king Edward, envying his brothers prosperytie, hinderyd that affynytie. Theruppon pryvy grudge further growing, a certane servant of the dukes was the very same time also convict of sorcery and exe-
cutyd, against which dede whan the duke could not hold him con-
tent, but vehemently speake and cry owt, the king muche movyd
with this exclamation commyttyd the duke to warde, and not long
after, being condemnyd, by right or wrong, put him to death.
But yt ys very lykly that king Edward right soone repentyd that
dede ; for (as men say) whan so ever any sewyd for saving a mans
lyfe, he was woont to cry owt in a rage, " O infortunate broother, for whose lyfe no man in this world wold once make request " affirm-
ing in that manifestly, that he was cast away by envy of the
nobylytie."

So the reasons Vergil gives include George's desire to marry Mary of Burgundy (with Edward interfering because he envied his brother's prosperity (!), George's protest when Edward convicted one of his men of sorcery (no mention that this was supposed to be a lesson to George after his own illegal executions of Ankarette Twynyho and the man whose name I can't remember), and the Tudor myth, apparently Vergil's own invention, of the prophecy involving the letter G. So Richard's "wickedness" is foreshadowed, Edward is deluded into an evil act that makes others afraid of him and turns him into a tyrant (a view similar to CC's), and George is an innocent victim.

Nothing about drawing and quartering or about Cecily pleading against that punishment. Where is Hicks getting this stuff?

Eileen, if he's this unreliable on other points, you might want to demand your money back!

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> But we do have to ask what made Hastings go over to the dark side. Through all Edward's Parliaments he is the only one descibed by the king as 'faithful' and that must have been attractive to Richard. Could he have been got at, I don't know. I just wish he'd been at Bosworth with Richard.

Carol responds:

So do I. I suspect that at least some of the disaffected Yorkists who sided with Tudor did so because Richard had executed Hastings, most notably James Blount, who helped the Earl of Oxford escape. If it weren't for that piece of treason, there might have been no Battle of Bosworth--or Henry would have had to rely on a French general, with a very different outcome.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:


"It's one thing I honestly just can't work out. Was Buckingham, remembering
his visits to Guildford and aunt etc even at this stage, being managed by
Morton and MB to upset the apple cart? Take Rivers out, take Hastings out,
frighten EW and the whole governance is weakened. I don't know, I certainly
can't prove anything, but it is convenient how everything fell to bits."

Doug here:
I look at it as the "falling to bits" occurring in two stages:

First the Woodvilles tried to grab control of Edward (V) and the government.
Their failure caused the first crack in the unity of the Yorkists; ie,
Woodvilles (and *their* supporters) and the remaining Yorkists. However, all
that occurred as a result of that failure was to banish the Queen's family
from the government - something the rest of the Yorkists didn't object to at
all apparently. And even if the Queen's family was barred from the
government, it was *her* son, and their relative, who was king. There might
eventually be some squabbling over being kept out of power after Edward was
crowned, but *at that point* there was no division over *who* was the king.
Only who was to *guide* him and/or act in his stead for three or four years.
Cracks among the Yorkists, yes; divisions, no.
That changes with Stillington's revelation of Edward's marriage to Dame
Eleanor and is where I believe Morton started taking advantage of events.
Suddenly there were *two* possible kings - Edward or Richard and that's when
Hastings was, I believe, "got at."
Richard had demonstrated that he thought Buckingham a better choice to
promote into positions of power. Strike one against Richard. Because, if
Hastings wasn't a major player any longer, there went Hastings' power and
and a major source of his money. That was strike two against Richard. Strike
three was Richard letting it be known that he felt some of Edward's
"debauchery" could be laid at Hastings' feet. The order might be changed,
but those three are what I believe mattered to Hastings.
(You have to imagine the next sentence being whispered "privily" into
Hastings' ear):
"And all that could be avoided *if* Richard died and Edward (V) remained
king..."
Remember, Rivers, Grey and (argggh! I've forgotten his name!) weren't
executed until *after* Hastings. I have no idea how much Rivers and the rest
knew about the details of the plot against Richard, but their subsequent
trials tells me that at the very least they knew there *was* a plot; their
deaths resulted because they supported it, either actively or by not
informing Richard about its' existence.
And, of course, once Edward's sons were barred from the throne, there was
exactly one adult between Buckingham and his occupation of that throne. *We*
know Buckingham had an undeservedly high opinion of his own worth, so I
doubt it would be difficult for Morton to discover it! If Richard could be
King, why not Buckingham? Especially if Buckingham got to the throne be
means of attempting to "rescue" Edward IV's sons?
So, start a revolt to replace Richard with Edward (V), something untoward
happens when the boys are "rescued", their deaths are laid at Richard's feet
and everyone rallies around good ol' Harry Buckingham and begs him to be
king!
Pity about MOrton double-crossing Buckingham and spreading that rumor about
the boys *already* being dead before the rebellion takes off...
Now, the fun part - finding enough evidence to change this from what I think
*possibly* occurred to what *probably* did happen.
Doug
(sorry about the length)

Or it may simply mean that Dorset wanted to deny Richard access to royal funds and thus weaken his position as Protector.

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


And if the Woodvilles knew about the pre-contract, it explains why Dorset
would choose to cut his losses and make a bolt for it with the cash when
Edward died. If he was expecting his half-brother to become king, even with
Richard as Portector, then emptying the treasury seems like an odd move -
but if he knew about the pre-contract and feared it was going to come out,
cutting his losses and ahving it away with the cash would make sense.

Carol this is just a quickie..but no...Hicks is not naming the sole reason for George's execution as Ankarette...he does go through the other charges...such as George was the Lancastrian heir back in the days...but more on this later...must rush..last wanted to clarify that..
Oh a tardis is a box (a telephone box I think) in which Dr Who and his pals can enter and transport themselves back in time...maybe to the future for all I know...not a Dr Who fan but that is something that sticks out...off now..Eileen

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

> Carol responds:
>
> Wait. What? Hicks thinks that Edward executed George because of Ankarette Twynyho? Sad to say, that poor woman's judicial murder doesn't even appear in the attainder. Lots of other charges do, including publicly declaring George a bastard and planning to smuggle his little boy overseas and put another child in his place (Marie tried to explain that one to me, but I still don't understand what George was trying to accomplish). But not a word in that detailed attainder about Ankarette or the man executed with her for supposedly poisoning George's baby son. Even if Hicks doesn't mention the marriage to Dame Eleanor Butler (and, as you say, he wouldn't) there were plenty of other charges that he *should* have listed.
>
> And it's ridiculous to suppose that Edward would have considered having George drawn and quartered. That punishment was reserved for commoners. If he had, say, Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset (a triple traitor--Lancastrian turned Yorkist turned Lancastrian) beheaded, surely he would extend the same privilege to his own brother (or allow him to choose his own mode of execution as he appears to have done)?
>
> Rather than quoting the whole act, which you can find in the appendices to J A-H's "Eleanor: The Secret Queen," I'll just quote his summary from the same book:
>
> "Summary of the act of attainder against George, Duke of Clarence, 16 January 1478 24 First, the king recalls that in the past he has perforce defended himself against many treasons, although he has also shown mercy. Now, however, a new treason has lately come to light: a plot against himself and the queen, and against their eldest son and heir, and all their children; a plot which threatens the public weal. This new plot is particularly heinous because it has been perpetrated by the king's own brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The king recalls how he had nurtured and cared for Clarence as a brother should; had richly endowed him, and had forgiven his many past offences, to the extent of putting them quite out of mind. Despite this, Clarence's malice has grown. He has now plotted the `disherityng of the Kyng and his Issue', seeking to subvert the king's subjects from their true obedience. Specifically: •   Clarence has publicly questioned the lawful condemnation of his servant, Thomas Burdett •   He has accused the king of involvement with the Black Arts •   He has conspired to gain the crown for himself and his heirs •   He has claimed that the king is a bastard •   He has taken oaths of loyalty to himself `noon exception reserved'25 •   He has claimed that the king planned to destroy him •   Secretly and without the king's knowledge he has kept and shown people his agreement with Margaret of Anjou, naming him as Lancastrian heir to the throne in default of heirs of the body of Henry VI •   He has plotted with the abbot of Tewkesbury and others to send his son and heir to Flanders or Ireland, keeping a substitute child in his place •   He has prepared an armed insurrection and planned to seize the throne by force. For his part, the king would wish to forgive Clarence once again, but the Duke has shown himself incorrigible and has threatened the kingdom with violence. The king's solemn oath binds him to preserve himself, his royal issue, the church and the public weal. He therefore commands Parliament to convict and attaint Clarence of high treason. The Duke and his heirs are to forfeit the ducal rank, together with all their property.
>
> Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Location 2767). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
>
> Hicks clearly doesn't know what he's talking about here any more than he did when he said that by marrying his brother's wife's sister Richard was committing incest.
>
> What is a tardis, by the way, and can we use one to send Hicks somewhere far away, say to the planet Venus?
>
> Carol, wishing she could send all of you the lovely spring weather southern Arizona is having in exchange for some soon-to-be-April showers
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Probably as well not enough characters that you could exaggerate without upsetting someone, like poor Margaret of Anjou as we said last night. And there isn't much heroism in sending person after person to the scaffold. The BBC managed to make about 8 episodes out of it, but the trouble with most of Henry's reign is that there is no-one to love or pity; no fallen women, no heroic failures, just the odd cleric hiding in a corner (guess who) and a rather unattractive miser.

Carol responds:

No one to love or pity except poor little Edward of Warwick, and it's hard to make a drama about him since we know so little. However, you could make a pretty good drama about his enemy, the "diabolical" Margaret of York, bringing in John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, and Viscount Lovell and then skipping to the Warbeck conspiracy. But Henry himself, Morton, and MB--definitely no one to love (sorry, Claire) or pity (despite the childhood traumas that virtually everybody suffered). Of course, we could regard EoY as somewhat pitiable, especially if she cared in any way about her Uncle Richard and counted on his winning Bosworth, but, unfortunately, she just accepts her fate without coming across as either hero(ine) or victim. William Stanley, the double traitor, could be the "hero" of a drama, but not one I'd care to write or watch. Or Margaret Pole, if we knew enough about her, but all the drama is at the beginning and end of her life, with nothing in between except things happening to other people (including most of her Yorkist relatives being disposed of). I know. Edmund de la Pole? But, again, we know too little about him. A three-part drama, "The Pretenders," focusing in turn on Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck, and Edmund de la Pole? Meanwhile, Henry sits on his throne growing thinner and more tight fisted, raising taxes, keeping the remaining nobles on a tight leash, and executing lots of people.

Carol

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> Possibly because he was worried about what fate would befall him if the Woodvilles achieved absolutely power...inititially he knew EW but had earned her anger because he encouraged Edward in his philandering..Once he had warned Richard...someone wrote that he was "bursting with joy' he fully expected rewards for his efforts [snip]

Carol responds:

"Someone" is the Croyland chronicler (continuator), who wrote: "In the meanwhile, the lord Hastings, who seemed to wish in every way to serve the two dukes and to be desirous of earning their favour, was extremely elated at these changes [Richard as Protector, Edward V staying in the Tower, the arrest of Rivers et al., and the delayed coronation] . . . and was in the habit of saying that hitherto nothing whatever had been done except the transferring of the government of the kingdom from two of the queen's blood to two more powerful persons of the king's; and this, too, effected without any slaughter, or indeed causing as much blood to be shed as would be produced by the cut of a finger."

Of course, CC thinks that Hastings was an innocent victim, but his earlier comments make it clear that all of these changes were made with the consent of the whole council or had the council's approval after the fact, including the bloodless transfer of power from the Woodvilles to Richard (the rightful Protector).

Croyland gives no reason for Hastings' arrest except his support for the king (whom Richard at that point was still planning to crown), making it appear to be a preemptive strike by the Duke of Gloucester to remove opposition to his planned usurpation. (Like so many other historians, CC is supplying motivations from faulty hindsight and inadequate information about the real causes.)

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's one thing I honestly just can't work out. Was Buckingham, remembering his visits to Guildford and aunt etc even at this stage, being managed by Morton and MB to upset the apple cart? Take Rivers out, take Hastings out, frighten EW and the whole governance is weakened. I don't know, I certainly can't prove anything, but it is convenient how everything fell to bits. 

Carol responds:

Of course, Buckingham's motivations are a mystery, but it's possible that he really started out as a firm supporter of Richard, hoping for a new beginning under someone who would not hold him back as Edward did. I suspect that Morton worked on his ambition and jealousies behind the scenes just as he manipulated Hastings, essentially setting them at each other's throats. Hastings' part in the conspiracy (which I believe is real) and his execution would have seemed like a coup for Buckingham, as would Richard's coronation. But once he got home to Wales and was back under his "prisoner" Morton's influence, he could easily be manipulated.

I don't think he was intelligent enough or stable enough to have been plotting against Richard from the beginning, engineering Hastings' fall and the whole bit. I think he and Hastings were pawns who thought themselves kingmakers or king controllers in the chess game that Morton was playing, and both fell as the result of envy and ambition.

But suppose that Buckingham hadn't come along and Richard had fallen victim to the Woodville conspiracy, if not ambushed and killed along the way, then murdered (or arrested and executed later) as the June 9 (or was it June 10( letter indicates that they planned? Buckingham's information *may* initially have saved Richard's life.

Even if we could go back in time and observe it all, we might be as mistaken as the Croyland Chronicler seems to be. We need a way to get inside all their minds.

By the way, a lot of letters *from* Richard have been saved. Are there any *to* him (other than the short one from Louis XI), or were they all destroyed along with the minutes of the council meetings and the codicil to Edward's will?

Carol

What a good idea. You know if Shakespeare hadn't made such a villain of Richard he could have written this other history play Henry VII, where Henry is haunted by the guy he never met, except across a battlefield, who keeps telling him how hard the job was, how he Henry had been set up by his own mother Margaret, and how the pair of them might have worked together to make a better England. The odd shade of Hamlet methinks.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013, 17:16
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Probably as well not enough characters that you could exaggerate without upsetting someone, like poor Margaret of Anjou as we said last night. And there isn't much heroism in sending person after person to the scaffold. The BBC managed to make about 8 episodes out of it, but the trouble with most of Henry's reign is that there is no-one to love or pity; no fallen women, no heroic failures, just the odd cleric hiding in a corner (guess who) and a rather unattractive miser.

Carol responds:

No one to love or pity except poor little Edward of Warwick, and it's hard to make a drama about him since we know so little. However, you could make a pretty good drama about his enemy, the "diabolical" Margaret of York, bringing in John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, and Viscount Lovell and then skipping to the Warbeck conspiracy. But Henry himself, Morton, and MB--definitely no one to love (sorry, Claire) or pity (despite the childhood traumas that virtually everybody suffered). Of course, we could regard EoY as somewhat pitiable, especially if she cared in any way about her Uncle Richard and counted on his winning Bosworth, but, unfortunately, she just accepts her fate without coming across as either hero(ine) or victim. William Stanley, the double traitor, could be the "hero" of a drama, but not one I'd care to write or watch. Or Margaret Pole, if we knew enough about her, but all the drama is at the beginning and end of her life, with nothing in
between except things happening to other people (including most of her Yorkist relatives being disposed of). I know. Edmund de la Pole? But, again, we know too little about him. A three-part drama, "The Pretenders," focusing in turn on Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck, and Edmund de la Pole? Meanwhile, Henry sits on his throne growing thinner and more tight fisted, raising taxes, keeping the remaining nobles on a tight leash, and executing lots of people.

Carol

That's a good analysis Doug, As you say, queens were not necessarily powerful but could still had access to their sons (Catherine of Valois). When the forum calms down a bit (which it seems to be doing) perhaps it's also worth a look at Rivers. So often we group him in with EW's party because he was her brother but I would have thought him everything that Richard would have admired - religious, cultured, chivalric and he made Richard the executor of his will which says a lot. I don't think we will ever know what was going on under the surface, but whoever (if anyone) manipulated both him and Hastings they were extremly subtle. And, dare I say it, the person who knew most about all this was Catesby. 
 


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 5:03
Subject: Re: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"It's one thing I honestly just can't work out. Was Buckingham, remembering
his visits to Guildford and aunt etc even at this stage, being managed by
Morton and MB to upset the apple cart? Take Rivers out, take Hastings out,
frighten EW and the whole governance is weakened. I don't know, I certainly
can't prove anything, but it is convenient how everything fell to bits."

Doug here:
I look at it as the "falling to bits" occurring in two stages:

First the Woodvilles tried to grab control of Edward (V) and the government.
Their failure caused the first crack in the unity of the Yorkists; ie,
Woodvilles (and *their* supporters) and the remaining Yorkists. However, all
that occurred as a result of that failure was to banish the Queen's family
from the government - something the rest of the Yorkists didn't object to at
all apparently. And even if the Queen's family was barred from the
government, it was *her* son, and their relative, who was king. There might
eventually be some squabbling over being kept out of power after Edward was
crowned, but *at that point* there was no division over *who* was the king.
Only who was to *guide* him and/or act in his stead for three or four years.
Cracks among the Yorkists, yes; divisions, no.
That changes with Stillington's revelation of Edward's marriage to Dame
Eleanor and is where I believe Morton started taking advantage of events.
Suddenly there were *two* possible kings - Edward or Richard and that's when
Hastings was, I believe, "got at."
Richard had demonstrated that he thought Buckingham a better choice to
promote into positions of power. Strike one against Richard. Because, if
Hastings wasn't a major player any longer, there went Hastings' power and
and a major source of his money. That was strike two against Richard. Strike
three was Richard letting it be known that he felt some of Edward's
"debauchery" could be laid at Hastings' feet. The order might be changed,
but those three are what I believe mattered to Hastings.
(You have to imagine the next sentence being whispered "privily" into
Hastings' ear):
"And all that could be avoided *if* Richard died and Edward (V) remained
king..."
Remember, Rivers, Grey and (argggh! I've forgotten his name!) weren't
executed until *after* Hastings. I have no idea how much Rivers and the rest
knew about the details of the plot against Richard, but their subsequent
trials tells me that at the very least they knew there *was* a plot; their
deaths resulted because they supported it, either actively or by not
informing Richard about its' existence.
And, of course, once Edward's sons were barred from the throne, there was
exactly one adult between Buckingham and his occupation of that throne. *We*
know Buckingham had an undeservedly high opinion of his own worth, so I
doubt it would be difficult for Morton to discover it! If Richard could be
King, why not Buckingham? Especially if Buckingham got to the throne be
means of attempting to "rescue" Edward IV's sons?
So, start a revolt to replace Richard with Edward (V), something untoward
happens when the boys are "rescued", their deaths are laid at Richard's feet
and everyone rallies around good ol' Harry Buckingham and begs him to be
king!
Pity about MOrton double-crossing Buckingham and spreading that rumor about
the boys *already* being dead before the rebellion takes off...
Now, the fun part - finding enough evidence to change this from what I think
*possibly* occurred to what *probably* did happen.
Doug
(sorry about the length)

There's a novel based on the premise that Shakespeare wrote a "secret" play about Henry VII.  Not got round to reading it yet, but I seem to recall it got decent crits - and from mainstream literary reviewers.  The author's name escapes me, but it's called something like 'The Last Testament of Mr William Shakespeare'.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

SPOILERS HEREIN:

It's called The Final Act of Mr Shakespeare by Robert Winder. I've got it and read it, and rather enjoyed it even though it's not brilliant. I don't recall really what it says about Richard, but it explores some of the shaky relationship between Henry VII and his second son. It includes the "full" (though not very long) text of a play Winder fictionalises Shakespeare as writing - "Henry VII", the missing link between all the history plays. Although the play he writes (under duress) is censored before it reaches the public stage, Winder recreates it in his story and gives the reader the invented text at the end of the book.

Col

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> There's a novel based on the premise that Shakespeare wrote a "secret" play about Henry VII.  Not got round to reading it yet, but I seem to recall it got decent crits - and from mainstream literary reviewers.  The author's name escapes me, but it's called something like 'The Last Testament of Mr William Shakespeare'.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
>
>
>

Carol earlier:
> > Northumberland is a mystery. We don't even know whether he betrayed Richard by deliberately sitting out the battle or just couldn't get to him on time.

Claire responded:

> That's something I've been meaning to ask. What are the sources for the course of the battle? De Valera says that "Lord Tamorlant", which *has* to be a slurring of "Northumberland", switched sides and moved in to attack Richard and that it was that which prompted Richard to charge. [snip]

Carol responds:

De Valera is clearly confusing Northumberland with Sir William. The main source for the battle is, oddly, Vergil. Mancini had left England by that time and his chronicle covers only 1483. The Croyland Chronicler says only, "In the part where the earl of Northumberland was posted, with a large and well-provided body of troops, there was no opposition made, as not a blow was given or received during the battle."

http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/?page_id=526 (From the American branch's new website--check out the main page at http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/--It features the lovely stained window with Richard and Anne.)

This statement by the CC is the standard view of events and the source for all the confusion about why Northumberland sat out the battle, but since the CC wasn't present and is so confused that he has Henry charging Richard, he may not be trustworthy on this point, either. Rous AFAIK only mentions Richard's courage (while still calling him a bad man) despite physical weakness, by which he may have meant small size.

Vergil, however, got his information first hand from Henry. Admittedly, his account is very pro-Tudor (as is Croyland's), but at least his source, however obviously biased in his own favor, was present at the battle. However, he is more reliable regarding Henry's movements before the battle than for the battle itself. He mentions Northumberland before the battle as Richard's friend: "He {Richard] commandyd Henry erle of Northumberland, and other noble men that wer his frinds, who he hoped wold prefer his safety before all that ever they had, to make furthwyth muster of soldiers, and with ther forces furnysshyd to repare spedely to him." He says nothing of Northumberland's action (or inaction) during the battle, but has him along with the Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey (whose father was killed during the battle and who very definitely fought for Richard) happily throwing down their weapons and surrendering to Henry after the battle:

"As for the number of captyves yt was very great; for whan king Richerd was killyd, all men furthwith threw away weapon, and frely submyttyd them selfes to Henryes obeyssance, wherof the most part wold have doone the same at the beginning, yf for king Rycherds scurryers, scowring to and fro, they myght so have doone. Emongest them the chiefe wer Henry erle of Northumberland, and Thomas erle of Surrey. This man was commyttyd to ward, wher he remaynyd long; he as frind in hart was receavyd into favor."

http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/?page_id=248

The implication is that no one continued to fight after Richard died and that many of them would happily have joined him before the battle, which we can only take as propaganda given the large number of Richard's knights who died along with him.

I know that there are other accounts of the battle, but I don't have access to them. Maybe David knows more about it. Marie definitely does, so you may want to ask her when she returns.

With regard to an earlier topic, Vergil says that Northumberland was married to a sister of "Gwalter" Herbert and that Henry Tudor sought in marriage "Gwalther's" other sister, who was supposedly with him, "but the ways were so beset [by Richard's supporters] that none of them could coome unto him." Walter Herbert was the brother of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, who was Richard's son-in-law, so no wonder the "ways were beset." Whether Walter Herbert was Yorkist like his father and brother, I don't know. He was married to the Duke of Buckingham's sister, which theoretically could have turned him against Richard. Wikipedia (forgive the source; it's the best I can do at the moment) lists one unmarried sister, Cecilie, but gives no indication of her birth or death dates. I didn't check the marriage dates for the other sisters, one of whom is named Margaret and could have been confused with Maud.

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > > And I think it's time to give the benefit of the doubt to fellow list members as well.
>
> Pansy responded:
>
> > But might this not go both ways?
>
> Carol again:
>
> Absolutely, Pansy. I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your post.
>
> Carol
>

Thanks, Carol - and I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was fishing for an apology. That was just my chin-wobbling attempt at 'whyyyyy can't we all just get alooooong' ;)

And everyone seems to be getting along just fine right now, so yippee for that!

It must be a Ricardian trait Eileen because I am always doing that at night. Why did so and so do this that and the other? It is surprising what pops into your head and stops you sleeping for hours!! Particularly when I'm reading a JAH or Annette's "Maligned King".

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)
>
> I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> Eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > >
> > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I speculate that if MB really did think of H7 as the Lancastrian heir after 1471 then it would not be easy for her to achieve her goal. Edward was a very successful battle commander and she couldn't hope to defeat him in battle. Once Edward was dead she could possibly see a way forward. However, there were other people who would stand in her way. Richard, Hastings,The Woodvilles and Buckingham. The other people ofcourse were the children, E5, Richard D of York, Edward of Middleham and Edward Warwick. They were not able to fight back against her but could have been used by Yorkists who might have access to fighting men. Like you I have always thought that it was extremely odd that within two and a half years all these people are dead and MB is welcoming her son as King. There are bits of evidence that she was plotting out there but again, like everything to do with 1483 to 1485, most of the pieces of the jigsaw are missing. We must keep digging.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's one thing I honestly just can't work out. Was Buckingham, remembering his visits to Guildford and aunt etc even at this stage, being managed by Morton and MB to upset the apple cart? Take Rivers out, take Hastings out, frighten EW and the whole governance is weakened. I don't know, I certainly can't prove anything, but it is convenient how everything fell to bits. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 20:43
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>  
>
> Possibly because he was worried about what fate would befall him if the Woodvilles achieved absolutely power...inititially he knew EW but had earned her anger because he encouraged Edward in his philandering..Once he had warned Richard...someone wrote that he was "bursting with joy' he fully expected rewards for his efforts...( I do not blame him there..quite a human thing really) but wait! It was others, particularly Bucks who were raised to dizzy heights very quicky.. Green with envy Hastings thereupon done a turnaround and plotted the fall of Richard and Bucks...perchance Morton was involved somewhere, as per usual. Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > But we do have to ask what made Hastings go over to the dark side. Through all Edward's Parliaments he is the only one descibed by the king as 'faithful' and that must have been attractive to Richard. Could he have been got at, I don't know. I just wish he'd been at Bosworth with Richard.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 19:06
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Hallo Pamela...Looks as if you are thinking along the same lines as me re George's execution...although I have never had any trouble with Richard's execution of Hastings who was involved in an assassination plot on Richard's life. We went into this subject at great length before you begun posting although you may have read the messages if you didnt you could go back. It eventually became quite tedious but the general consensus was, I think I can safely say, that Richard as Protector was legally within the law to execute Hastings and had just cause. If I recall I think I started off that topic when I said I could not really understand the angst associated with Hasting's execution.
> >
> > There was a really interesting article in the Bulletin "Why Hastings Lost His Head" which very much strengthened my thoughts on this. Once again...oh what a tangled web we weave....etc., etc.,
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I do the same, Eileen. I'm reading the Jones book on Bosworth at the moment and as I almost always read before going to bed, I find that suppositions and speculations whirl in my head when the lights go out. It's hard to turn them off and get to sleep...not so good when one has to be up for work early the next morning.
> > >
> > > As to Clarence's execution, I've always felt that there had to have been something that finally pushed Edward over the edge in 1478--something much more than the death of Ankarette Twnyho. A final, deadly straw, as it were. George had certainly done worse in the past, so why the ultimate punishment now? It's so very tempting to believe that the "something" was his knowledge of and/or threats about Edward's prior marriage. And there's always been speculation that it was the Woodvilles who pushed hard for Clarence's execution. What better reason than explosive revelations like the Talbot marriage that could destroy EW and her family? Unfortunately, there's no proof of any of it, but it sure is a persuasive argument. For me, the whole matter of George's execution is as hard to reconcile as Richard's sudden execution of Hastings.
> > >
> > > Pamela Garrett
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)
> > > >
> > > > I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot
> > marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes I agree and also why did he deal so leniently with Stanley when he had a history of coming up against him e.g. the Harringtons and the spat on the road from Wales ( I can't remember the details. Either Rivers and Hastings did things so awful that he had no choice, or in the case of Hastings, Stanley told Richard that Hastings was plotting with EW and produced evidence to prove it. It appears that Stanley was arrested and then suddenly he is free and given control of his wife and her estates and then they are both taking part in the Coronation. It just doesn't make sense.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes twas I. Richardson makes it all seem so obvious. But even when you put his theories aside, to spilt Richard from Hastings and Rivers was clever indeed. You see, again just my observations from being around a long time, if you've shared some sort of crisis, however long ago it was, it binds you together forever. And Rivers, Richard and Hastings had in 1470. Though they were very different people and life had moved. on there would always be a common bond there. It would have taken an awful lot to make Richard forget that. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 21:38
> Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
>
>
>  
>
> Yes I believe he was...If I recall correct Hilary you told me you had a copy of The Deceivers by Geoffrey Richardson?..which I promptly purchased....I believe Geoffrey was very much barking up the right tree with his theory.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > It's one thing I honestly just can't work out. Was Buckingham, remembering his visits to Guildford and aunt etc even at this stage, being managed by Morton and MB to upset the apple cart? Take Rivers out, take Hastings out, frighten EW and the whole governance is weakened. I don't know, I certainly can't prove anything, but it is convenient how everything fell to bits. 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 20:43
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Possibly because he was worried about what fate would befall him if the Woodvilles achieved absolutely power...inititially he knew EW but had earned her anger because he encouraged Edward in his philandering..Once he had warned Richard...someone wrote that he was "bursting with joy' he fully expected rewards for his efforts...( I do not blame him there..quite a human thing really) but wait! It was others, particularly Bucks who were raised to dizzy heights very quicky.. Green with envy Hastings thereupon done a turnaround and plotted the fall of Richard and Bucks...perchance Morton was involved somewhere, as per usual. Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > But we do have to ask what made Hastings go over to the dark side. Through all Edward's Parliaments he is the only one descibed by the king as 'faithful' and that must have been attractive to Richard. Could he have been got at, I don't know. I just wish he'd been at Bosworth with Richard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 19:06
> > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Hallo Pamela...Looks as if you are thinking along the same lines as me re George's execution...although I have never had any trouble with Richard's execution of Hastings who was involved in an assassination plot on Richard's life. We went into this subject at great length before you begun posting although you may have read the messages if you didnt you could go back. It eventually became quite tedious but the general consensus was, I think I can safely say, that Richard as Protector was legally within the law to execute Hastings and had just cause. If I recall I think I started off that topic when I said I could not really understand the angst associated with Hasting's execution.
> > >
> > > There was a really interesting article in the Bulletin "Why Hastings Lost His Head" which very much strengthened my thoughts on this. Once again...oh what a tangled web we weave....etc., etc.,
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I do the same, Eileen. I'm reading the Jones book on Bosworth at the moment and as I almost always read before going to bed, I find that suppositions and speculations whirl in my head when the lights go out. It's hard to turn them off and get to sleep...not so good when one has to be up for work early the next morning.
> > > >
> > > > As to Clarence's execution, I've always felt that there had to have been something that finally pushed Edward over the edge in 1478--something much more than the death of Ankarette Twnyho. A final, deadly straw, as it were. George had certainly done worse in the past, so why the ultimate punishment now? It's so very tempting to believe that the "something" was his knowledge of and/or threats about Edward's prior marriage. And there's always been speculation that it was the Woodvilles who pushed hard for Clarence's execution. What better reason than explosive revelations like the Talbot marriage that could destroy EW and her family? Unfortunately, there's no proof of any of it, but it sure is a persuasive argument. For me, the whole matter of George's execution is as hard to reconcile as Richard's sudden execution of Hastings.
> > > >
> > > > Pamela Garrett
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)
> > > > >
> > > > > I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot
> > > marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I long one day for one of those denouements like in Poirot or Columbo where the villains and their motives are unmasked and we all go 'Ah yes of course, why didn't we see that?'



________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 3 April 2013, 20:33
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 

It must be a Ricardian trait Eileen because I am always doing that at night. Why did so and so do this that and the other? It is surprising what pops into your head and stops you sleeping for hours!! Particularly when I'm reading a JAH or Annette's "Maligned King".

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)
>
> I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot
marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> Eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > >
> > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Exactly and this is why I think the sudden and painful death of EoM is suspicious...Lol..I bet some of you are thinking oh there she goes again, always banging on about that one. But honestly I really do believe that that little nest of vipers were capable of anything...Eileen

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I speculate that if MB really did think of H7 as the Lancastrian heir after 1471 then it would not be easy for her to achieve her goal. Edward was a very successful battle commander and she couldn't hope to defeat him in battle. Once Edward was dead she could possibly see a way forward. However, there were other people who would stand in her way. Richard, Hastings,The Woodvilles and Buckingham. The other people ofcourse were the children, E5, Richard D of York, Edward of Middleham and Edward Warwick. They were not able to fight back against her but could have been used by Yorkists who might have access to fighting men. Like you I have always thought that it was extremely odd that within two and a half years all these people are dead and MB is welcoming her son as King. There are bits of evidence that she was plotting out there but again, like everything to do with 1483 to 1485, most of the pieces of the jigsaw are missing. We must keep digging.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > It's one thing I honestly just can't work out. Was Buckingham, remembering his visits to Guildford and aunt etc even at this stage, being managed by Morton and MB to upset the apple cart? Take Rivers out, take Hastings out, frighten EW and the whole governance is weakened. I don't know, I certainly can't prove anything, but it is convenient how everything fell to bits. 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 20:43
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Possibly because he was worried about what fate would befall him if the Woodvilles achieved absolutely power...inititially he knew EW but had earned her anger because he encouraged Edward in his philandering..Once he had warned Richard...someone wrote that he was "bursting with joy' he fully expected rewards for his efforts...( I do not blame him there..quite a human thing really) but wait! It was others, particularly Bucks who were raised to dizzy heights very quicky.. Green with envy Hastings thereupon done a turnaround and plotted the fall of Richard and Bucks...perchance Morton was involved somewhere, as per usual. Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > But we do have to ask what made Hastings go over to the dark side. Through all Edward's Parliaments he is the only one descibed by the king as 'faithful' and that must have been attractive to Richard. Could he have been got at, I don't know. I just wish he'd been at Bosworth with Richard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 19:06
> > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Hallo Pamela...Looks as if you are thinking along the same lines as me re George's execution...although I have never had any trouble with Richard's execution of Hastings who was involved in an assassination plot on Richard's life. We went into this subject at great length before you begun posting although you may have read the messages if you didnt you could go back. It eventually became quite tedious but the general consensus was, I think I can safely say, that Richard as Protector was legally within the law to execute Hastings and had just cause. If I recall I think I started off that topic when I said I could not really understand the angst associated with Hasting's execution.
> > >
> > > There was a really interesting article in the Bulletin "Why Hastings Lost His Head" which very much strengthened my thoughts on this. Once again...oh what a tangled web we weave....etc., etc.,
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I do the same, Eileen. I'm reading the Jones book on Bosworth at the moment and as I almost always read before going to bed, I find that suppositions and speculations whirl in my head when the lights go out. It's hard to turn them off and get to sleep...not so good when one has to be up for work early the next morning.
> > > >
> > > > As to Clarence's execution, I've always felt that there had to have been something that finally pushed Edward over the edge in 1478--something much more than the death of Ankarette Twnyho. A final, deadly straw, as it were. George had certainly done worse in the past, so why the ultimate punishment now? It's so very tempting to believe that the "something" was his knowledge of and/or threats about Edward's prior marriage. And there's always been speculation that it was the Woodvilles who pushed hard for Clarence's execution. What better reason than explosive revelations like the Talbot marriage that could destroy EW and her family? Unfortunately, there's no proof of any of it, but it sure is a persuasive argument. For me, the whole matter of George's execution is as hard to reconcile as Richard's sudden execution of Hastings.
> > > >
> > > > Pamela Garrett
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)
> > > > >
> > > > > I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the Talbot
> > > marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Keep banging on Eileen. I'm sure they say the same about me and the 'hunchback' thing. But until someone disproves it (and I mean properly) then I think we have a right to bang on. After all, part of the brief of the forum is investigation. And we know far too little about EoM, which seems rather convenient, some might say, particularly as he was the son of the king when he died. I can't recall another heir's death where we have such scant detail.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 11:52
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?


 

Exactly and this is why I think the sudden and painful death of EoM is suspicious...Lol..I bet some of you are thinking oh there she goes again, always banging on about that one. But honestly I really do believe that that little nest of vipers were capable of anything...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I speculate that if MB really did think of H7 as the Lancastrian heir after 1471 then it would not be easy for her to achieve her goal. Edward was a very successful battle commander and she couldn't hope to defeat him in battle. Once Edward was dead she could possibly see a way forward. However, there were other people who would stand in her way. Richard, Hastings,The Woodvilles and Buckingham. The other people ofcourse were the children, E5, Richard D of York, Edward of Middleham and Edward Warwick. They were not able to fight back against her but could have been used by Yorkists who might have access to fighting men. Like you I have always thought that it was extremely odd that within two and a half years all these people are dead and MB is welcoming her son as King. There are bits of evidence that she was plotting out there but again, like everything to do with 1483 to 1485, most of the pieces of the jigsaw are missing. We must keep digging.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > It's one thing I honestly just can't work out. Was Buckingham, remembering his visits to Guildford and aunt etc even at this stage, being managed by Morton and MB to upset the apple cart? Take Rivers out, take Hastings out, frighten EW and the whole governance is weakened. I don't know, I certainly can't prove anything, but it is convenient how everything fell to bits. 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 20:43
> > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Possibly because he was worried about what fate would befall him if the Woodvilles achieved absolutely power...inititially he knew EW but had earned her anger because he encouraged Edward in his philandering..Once he had warned Richard...someone wrote that he was "bursting with joy' he fully expected rewards for his efforts...( I do not blame him there..quite a human thing really) but wait! It was others, particularly Bucks who were raised to dizzy heights very quicky.. Green with envy Hastings thereupon done a turnaround and plotted the fall of Richard and Bucks...perchance Morton was involved somewhere, as per usual. Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Butàwe do have to ask what made Hastings go over to the dark side. Through all Edward's Parliaments he is the only one descibed by the king as 'faithful' and that must have been attractive to Richard. Could he have been got at, I don't know. I just wish he'd been at Bosworth with Richard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013, 19:06
> > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > >
> > >
> > > à
> > >
> > > Hallo Pamela...Looks as if you are thinking along the same lines as me re George's execution...although I have never had any trouble with Richard's execution of Hastings who was involved in an assassination plot on Richard's life. We went into this subject at great length before you begun posting although you may have read the messages if you didnt you could go back. It eventually became quite tedious but the general consensus was, I think I can safely say, that Richard as Protector was legally within the law to execute Hastings and had just cause. If I recall I think I started off that topic when I said I could not really understand the angst associated with Hasting's execution.
> > >
> > > There was a really interesting article in the Bulletin "Why Hastings Lost His Head" which very much strengthened my thoughts on this. Once again...oh what a tangled web we weave....etc., etc.,
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I do the same, Eileen. I'm reading the Jones book on Bosworth at the moment and as I almost always read before going to bed, I find that suppositions and speculations whirl in my head when the lights go out. It's hard to turn them off and get to sleep...not so good when one has to be up for work early the next morning.
> > > >
> > > > As to Clarence's execution, I've always felt that there had to have been something that finally pushed Edward over the edge in 1478--something much more than the death of Ankarette Twnyho. A final, deadly straw, as it were. George had certainly done worse in the past, so why the ultimate punishment now? It's so very tempting to believe that the "something" was his knowledge of and/or threats about Edward's prior marriage. And there's always been speculation that it was the Woodvilles who pushed hard for Clarence's execution. What better reason than explosive revelations like the Talbot marriage that could destroy EW and her family? Unfortunately, there's no proof of any of it, but it sure is a persuasive argument. For me, the whole matter of George's execution is as hard to reconcile as Richard's sudden execution of Hastings.
> > > >
> > > > Pamela Garrett
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Put me in a tardis and I will be there shortly.....:0)
> > > > >
> > > > > I find lately that when I read just before bed when I turn the light out my brain...smallish I admit...goes into overdraft...any book Ricardian and Im searching for clues, reasons, as well as trying to work out who was whose uncle/cousin or connected by marriage, why did they do this do that? Last night for example I tossed and turned..after reading Hicks...trying to reconcile why Edward would have George executed over the death of Ankarette Twnyho..who I know of course must have been innocent...but still...surely as a brother he could have found a different punishment. Yes I know it was treason but George had done far worse. According to Hicks Cicely argued for George not to suffer the hang/drawing and quartering as a traitor he could have been subjected to. I just thought...it was all such lunacy. The sheer greed for lands and power from people who had so much to start off with...I have concluded that George knew too much about the
Talbot
> > > marriage but then again Hicks is hardly going to bring that into the equation is he?
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wish I could teleport you to Texas, right now it is beautiful! Warmish but not baking, and Spring is Sprung, and as my father used to say, "the grass is riz"! I am starting "The Road to Bosworth" this weekend. I took a break, as I was on factual overload. The "Who Is Who...." book is wonderful for me. I am thumbing through it like mad to keep everyone straight, in my two cell brain!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:38 AM
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol...sorry...I didnt not mean the Road to Bosworth which I have read..well chunks of...I meant to say the Jones book...Bosworth...Ive had to put it away for now as Im must get the other two finished....But I know I will enjoy if when I do...Eileen freezing...fed up...will Spring never sprung?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [snip] The road to Bosworth lies untouched at the moment and I also have another winging its way to me..the Chaucer one. [snip]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The Road to Bosworth" is difficult reading with all the fifteenth-century English and those gleaming pages that reflect the light and hurt my eyes. But it's an important book because it presents some crucial documents in chronological order. I wish it distinguished more clearly between the primary sources and the chronicles, but it does in some cases present contrasting points of view, including one snippet where the execution of Hastings is presented as an almost routine execution of a traitor, a view greatly overshadowed by the chroniclers and Stallworth's semihysterical letter to Stonor.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I haven't finished it yet (I'm reading several books simultaneously), but I recommend reading a few pages or documents each day and then reading something else. Very valuable source book, though, and it's good to know what's there. Check page 121 for that highly detailed and photographlike drawing of the coronation crowns.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Exactly and this is why I think the sudden and painful death of EoM is suspicious...Lol..I bet some of you are thinking oh there she goes again, always banging on about that one. But honestly I really do believe that that little nest of vipers were capable of anything...Eileen
>

Can I just say this thread has been an extremely interesting read? It reads like a very dark Gothic novel - and yet plausible!

What's funny is that if this entire version of the events happened to be true, it would be like Shakespeare's Richard III... but with MB as Richard III. ;)

Did Stanley give Richard the information that Hastings was plotting with EW? Because now I'm absolutely appalled at the possibility that Thomas Stanley and his wife may have consciously manipulated Richard multiple times.

I've thought for months that the woman was poisonous, and also thought my instincts were overreacting, but now I'm wondering if my instincts might not have a point.

If MB and EW were in communication before EW made her peace with Richard and came out of sanctuary, and EW told MB Hastings was coming over to "their" side, then it would have been simplicity itself for her to suggest to her husband Thomas, "If you tell Richard that Hastings has betrayed him as Protector, then since that's as good as committing treason against the King himself, Richard will likely get rid of Hastings so we won't have to. One more obstacle gone."

I can see Richard needing to execute the three he took prisoner at Stony Stratford because the first thing little Eddie would have done after taking the throne was release them. The second thing little Eddie would have done was destroyed his uncle for picking on his maternal uncle and bestest advisors ever. I'm thinking he had a valid reason for arresting them, and a valid reason for executing them -- if only to preserve his own life a little longer in an impossibly dangerous situation. So I can't see MB's fingerprints here -- only the Woodvilles terrified necessity to get E5 crowned and thereby preserve their little empire by shutting out Uncle Richard.

So then Stanley's set free (for all we know MB appeared personally before him and cried copious tears until Richard agreed to free her darling husband). Off he and MB go to help plot the Buckingham Rebellion.

Obviously MB's in on this -- it's her son gliding in that ship along the coast of England, isn't it? "What can I do, Your Grace? You know wimmen. She wants her darling baby to come home. Leave her to me, I'll beat it out of her, just see if I don't." So once again Stanley and MB escape the wrath of royalty.

If only he'd imprisoned MB and denied her paper, ink, and all visitors (especially Reginald Bray). If only he'd broken up the Stanleys' lands a la H7 and diluted their power. If only he'd not let Oxford escape to France.

The thing that I've always wondered about is how well Stanley knew Richard -- his temperament, his personality, how he reacted in any situation. I wonder if Richard wasn't somehow set up by that arrangement at Bosworth -- as in, "William and I are going to stand over here and do nothing. At a certain time, we want you to head in our direction rather than send us a message. Hold yer banner high, and we'll see if we can't get ol' chivalric Richard to ride down on your head. If we can, heigh-ho, it'll be simplicity itself for my brother to sweep in behind and destroy his little knights."

I know, it's far-fetched. Until I wonder if, before Lord Thomas Stanley left Nottingham Castle a few days before the Tydder landed, Richard didn't stomp about and wish, multiple times, that he could engage MB's son in a little hand-to-hand or battleaxe-to-skull personal challenge a la the chivalric code. "I'd like to ride down on him and...."

Naw. None of that is possible, is it? The Stanleys just trimmed, and when Richard rode past with a close, tight group of himself and the Stanleys personal enemies, it's just coincidence that Richard made it so very, very easy for MB to get what she wanted, the Stanley brothers to get what they wanted, and the Tydder to get what he wanted.

Just coincidence. No plotting behind the scenes to that extent. I mean, it'd be impossible. Traps don't get set like that. English Kings don't die because years-long enemies who've served with them from Scotland to France have learned to predict their actions. I mean...it's all coincidence.

The Stanleys and Margaret Beaufort just got lucky. Everything came together so perfectly, but it was really just an historical lottery.

But still, at night when I'm trying to go to sleep, I wonder....

~Weds


--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I agree and also why did he deal so leniently with Stanley when he had a history of coming up against him e.g. the Harringtons and the spat on the road from Wales ( I can't remember the details. Either Rivers and Hastings did things so awful that he had no choice, or in the case of Hastings, Stanley told Richard that Hastings was plotting with EW and produced evidence to prove it. It appears that Stanley was arrested and then suddenly he is free and given control of his wife and her estates and then they are both taking part in the Coronation. It just doesn't make sense.

Spot on. And women have arguably always been the better plotters which is why they are so good at writing detective novels.



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 20:47
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Exactly and this is why I think the sudden and painful death of EoM is suspicious...Lol..I bet some of you are thinking oh there she goes again, always banging on about that one. But honestly I really do believe that that little nest of vipers were capable of anything...Eileen
>

Can I just say this thread has been an extremely interesting read? It reads like a very dark Gothic novel - and yet plausible!

What's funny is that if this entire version of the events happened to be true, it would be like Shakespeare's Richard III... but with MB as Richard III. ;)

I've been reading Audrey Williamson over Easter. One of the interesting points she makes (among a lot of others) is that the arrest of Rivers and Vaughan was very low key, so low key that the soldiers accompanying them were happy to carry on with Richard. It was more as though they were being taken north to keep them out of the way for a while; certainly not an arrest for treason. Was Richard got at again about them when he got to London and persuaded that they had betrayed him.?There's no real evidence of previous antipathy to Rivers. He might be the Queen's brother, but his reputation to this day has come down as a  pious, cultured, chivalric man of the renaissance, someone Richard would have admired.   



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 5 April 2013, 4:49
Subject: Re: What happened to Richard's stuff after Bosworth - that which was looted?

 

Did Stanley give Richard the information that Hastings was plotting with EW? Because now I'm absolutely appalled at the possibility that Thomas Stanley and his wife may have consciously manipulated Richard multiple times.

I've thought for months that the woman was poisonous, and also thought my instincts were overreacting, but now I'm wondering if my instincts might not have a point.

If MB and EW were in communication before EW made her peace with Richard and came out of sanctuary, and EW told MB Hastings was coming over to "their" side, then it would have been simplicity itself for her to suggest to her husband Thomas, "If you tell Richard that Hastings has betrayed him as Protector, then since that's as good as committing treason against the King himself, Richard will likely get rid of Hastings so we won't have to. One more obstacle gone."

I can see Richard needing to execute the three he took prisoner at Stony Stratford because the first thing little Eddie would have done after taking the throne was release them. The second thing little Eddie would have done was destroyed his uncle for picking on his maternal uncle and bestest advisors ever. I'm thinking he had a valid reason for arresting them, and a valid reason for executing them -- if only to preserve his own life a little longer in an impossibly dangerous situation. So I can't see MB's fingerprints here -- only the Woodvilles terrified necessity to get E5 crowned and thereby preserve their little empire by shutting out Uncle Richard.

So then Stanley's set free (for all we know MB appeared personally before him and cried copious tears until Richard agreed to free her darling husband). Off he and MB go to help plot the Buckingham Rebellion.

Obviously MB's in on this -- it's her son gliding in that ship along the coast of England, isn't it? "What can I do, Your Grace? You know wimmen. She wants her darling baby to come home. Leave her to me, I'll beat it out of her, just see if I don't." So once again Stanley and MB escape the wrath of royalty.

If only he'd imprisoned MB and denied her paper, ink, and all visitors (especially Reginald Bray). If only he'd broken up the Stanleys' lands a la H7 and diluted their power. If only he'd not let Oxford escape to France.

The thing that I've always wondered about is how well Stanley knew Richard -- his temperament, his personality, how he reacted in any situation. I wonder if Richard wasn't somehow set up by that arrangement at Bosworth -- as in, "William and I are going to stand over here and do nothing. At a certain time, we want you to head in our direction rather than send us a message. Hold yer banner high, and we'll see if we can't get ol' chivalric Richard to ride down on your head. If we can, heigh-ho, it'll be simplicity itself for my brother to sweep in behind and destroy his little knights."

I know, it's far-fetched. Until I wonder if, before Lord Thomas Stanley left Nottingham Castle a few days before the Tydder landed, Richard didn't stomp about and wish, multiple times, that he could engage MB's son in a little hand-to-hand or battleaxe-to-skull personal challenge a la the chivalric code. "I'd like to ride down on him and...."

Naw. None of that is possible, is it? The Stanleys just trimmed, and when Richard rode past with a close, tight group of himself and the Stanleys personal enemies, it's just coincidence that Richard made it so very, very easy for MB to get what she wanted, the Stanley brothers to get what they wanted, and the Tydder to get what he wanted.

Just coincidence. No plotting behind the scenes to that extent. I mean, it'd be impossible. Traps don't get set like that. English Kings don't die because years-long enemies who've served with them from Scotland to France have learned to predict their actions. I mean...it's all coincidence.

The Stanleys and Margaret Beaufort just got lucky. Everything came together so perfectly, but it was really just an historical lottery.

But still, at night when I'm trying to go to sleep, I wonder....

~Weds

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I agree and also why did he deal so leniently with Stanley when he had a history of coming up against him e.g. the Harringtons and the spat on the road from Wales ( I can't remember the details. Either Rivers and Hastings did things so awful that he had no choice, or in the case of Hastings, Stanley told Richard that Hastings was plotting with EW and produced evidence to prove it. It appears that Stanley was arrested and then suddenly he is free and given control of his wife and her estates and then they are both taking part in the Coronation. It just doesn't make sense.

wednesday_mc wrote:

"Did Stanley give Richard the information that Hastings was plotting with
EW? Because now I'm absolutely appalled at the possibility that Thomas
Stanley and his wife may have consciously manipulated Richard multiple
times.
I've thought for months that the woman was poisonous, and also thought my
instincts were overreacting, but now I'm wondering if my instincts might not
have a point.
If MB and EW were in communication before EW made her peace with Richard
and came out of sanctuary, and EW told MB Hastings was coming over to
"their" side, then it would have been simplicity itself for her to suggest
to her husband Thomas, "If you tell Richard that Hastings has betrayed him
as Protector, then since that's as good as committing treason against the
King himself, Richard will likely get rid of Hastings so we won't have to.
One more obstacle gone."
I can see Richard needing to execute the three he took prisoner at Stony
Stratford because the first thing little Eddie would have done after taking
the throne was release them. The second thing little Eddie would have done
was destroyed his uncle for picking on his maternal uncle and bestest
advisors ever. I'm thinking he had a valid reason for arresting them, and a
valid reason for executing them -- if only to preserve his own life a
little longer in an impossibly dangerous situation. So I can't see MB's
fingerprints here -- only the Woodvilles terrified necessity to get E5
crowned and thereby preserve their little empire by shutting out Uncle
Richard.
So then Stanley's set free (for all we know MB appeared personally before
him and cried copious tears until Richard agreed to free her darling
husband). Off he and MB go to help plot the Buckingham Rebellion.
Obviously MB's in on this -- it's her son gliding in that ship along the
coast of England, isn't it? "What can I do, Your Grace? You know wimmen. She
wants her darling baby to come home. Leave her to me, I'll beat it out of
her, just see if I don't." So once again Stanley and MB escape the wrath of
royalty.
If only he'd imprisoned MB and denied her paper, ink, and all visitors
(especially Reginald Bray). If only he'd broken up the Stanleys' lands a la
H7 and diluted their power. If only he'd not let Oxford escape to France.
The thing that I've always wondered about is how well Stanley knew
Richard -- his temperament, his personality, how he reacted in any
situation. I wonder if Richard wasn't somehow set up by that arrangement at
Bosworth -- as in, "William and I are going to stand over here and do
nothing. At a certain time, we want you to head in our direction rather than
send us a message. Hold yer banner high, and we'll see if we can't get ol'
chivalric Richard to ride down on your head. If we can, heigh-ho, it'll be
simplicity itself for my brother to sweep in behind and destroy his little
knights."
I know, it's far-fetched. Until I wonder if, before Lord Thomas Stanley left
Nottingham Castle a few days before the Tydder landed, Richard didn't stomp
about and wish, multiple times, that he could engage MB's son in a little
hand-to-hand or battleaxe-to-skull personal challenge a la the chivalric
code. "I'd like to ride down on him and...."
Naw. None of that is possible, is it? The Stanleys just trimmed, and when
Richard rode past with a close, tight group of himself and the Stanleys
personal enemies, it's just coincidence that Richard made it so very, very
easy for MB to get what she wanted, the Stanley brothers to get what they
wanted, and the Tydder to get what he wanted.
Just coincidence. No plotting behind the scenes to that extent. I mean, it'd
be impossible. Traps don't get set like that. English Kings don't die
because years-long enemies who've served with them from Scotland to France
have learned to predict their actions. I mean...it's all coincidence.
The Stanleys and Margaret Beaufort just got lucky. Everything came together
so perfectly, but it was really just an historical lottery.
But still, at night when I'm trying to go to sleep, I wonder...."

Doug here:
I wouldn't downplay the possibility of coincidence *really* being a major
factor in the events of 1483-85. Especially if there are people about
willing to take advantage of every possible thing!
Remember, there were (most likely) quite a few groups trying to attain
different goals. There's the Woodvilles tring to retain first power, then
the monarchy itself. There's Morton out for the power that, in my
estimation, he believes he knows only too well how to wield. There's MB
trying, at a minimu, to get her son back from France. There's Richard, first
trying to carry out his assigned duties as Protector, then tossed into the
arena as King. There's Hastings trying to retani the power he held under EIV
and Buckingham trying to *get* the power denied him under EIV.
And all around *them* are lesser figures with *their* aims/wants/desires!
A though *did* cross my mind while reading your post: What if MB's plotting
to get her son the throne only really took off *after* she had approached EW
(or been approached by EW, I can't recall who made the first move)? IOW,
*until* that point, MB was trying to get Henry back to England - period.
*After* that, whole new vistas opened up...
Anyway, a very interesting and thought-provoking (obviously!) post.
Doug

"I believe in miracles. It's part of my job," said the villainous bishop in an old 80's movie called 'Ladyhawke'. I can see Morton saying it as well. I also think Jung would have had a field day with all the coincidences and synchronicities inherent in this story. But then, Jung thought there might not be any such thing as coincidence, that everything is connected.

Any road, the people involved all had distinct motives, and they're all strong (archetypal?) characters to move around an historical or fictional chessboard. A fiction writer could make a solid plot with MB and the others manipulating Richard to the very end, and if anyone here wants this plot, please take it. I certainly don't, because it would require spending a year or more in Margaret Beaufort's nasty head (never mind the other nasty heads), and I'd rather eat glass than do that.

~Weds

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
.
.
.
> Doug here:
> I wouldn't downplay the possibility of coincidence *really* being a major
> factor in the events of 1483-85. Especially if there are people about
> willing to take advantage of every possible thing!
> Remember, there were (most likely) quite a few groups trying to attain
> different goals. There's the Woodvilles tring to retain first power, then
> the monarchy itself. There's Morton out for the power that, in my
> estimation, he believes he knows only too well how to wield. There's MB
> trying, at a minimu, to get her son back from France. There's Richard, first
> trying to carry out his assigned duties as Protector, then tossed into the
> arena as King. There's Hastings trying to retani the power he held under EIV
> and Buckingham trying to *get* the power denied him under EIV.
> And all around *them* are lesser figures with *their* aims/wants/desires!
> A though *did* cross my mind while reading your post: What if MB's plotting
> to get her son the throne only really took off *after* she had approached EW
> (or been approached by EW, I can't recall who made the first move)? IOW,
> *until* that point, MB was trying to get Henry back to England - period.
> *After* that, whole new vistas opened up...
> Anyway, a very interesting and thought-provoking (obviously!) post.
> Doug
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've been reading Audrey Williamson over Easter. One of the interesting points she makes (among a lot of others) is that the arrest of Rivers and Vaughan was very low key, so low key that the soldiers accompanying them were happy to carry on with Richard. It was more as though they were being taken north to keep them out of the way for a while; certainly not an arrest for treason. Was Richard got at again about them when he got to London and persuaded that they had betrayed him.?There's no real evidence of previous antipathy to Rivers. He might be the Queen's brother, but his reputation to this day has come down as a  pious, cultured, chivalric man of the renaissance, someone Richard would have admired.   

Carol responds:

Wasn't Rivers involved in the scandal about Thomas Cook's arras, or was that his father? And he may also have helped to pressure Edward into executing George of Clarence, for which Richard seems to have held the Woodvilles personally responsible (see his letter to the Earl of Desmond).

At any rate, he certainly prevented Edward V from meeting Richard at Northampton as planned, and he must have been involved in the plot to rush the coronation and push Richard's protectorship aside. And I don't think that Dorset could have taken the treasures from the Tower without his uncle's authorization since Rivers was at that point Constable of the Tower. For all we know, it was his idea to send Edward Woodville to sea with a share of the treasure, ostensibly to fight French pirates. That he accepted his death sentence with such resignation (and asked Richard to prove his will) suggests that he knew himself to be guilty as charged and accepted the penalty for failure to carry out his treason.

At any rate, since Richard, traditionalists to the contrary, never executed anyone without cause, there must be more to it--especially since he also arrested Thomas Vaughn. At first, it might simply have been a matter of separating Edward from the Woodvilles and their most loyal followers, but a preemptive arrest and a charge of treason are altogether different things.

I wonder if it's possible to find the court proceedings for their trial (and that of Richard Grey) under Northumberland.

Carol

Wednesday wrote:
>
> "I believe in miracles. It's part of my job," said the villainous bishop in an old 80's movie called 'Ladyhawke'. I can see Morton saying it as well. I also think Jung would have had a field day with all the coincidences and synchronicities inherent in this story. But then, Jung thought there might not be any such thing as coincidence, that everything is connected.
>
> Any road, the people involved all had distinct motives, and they're all strong (archetypal?) characters to move around an historical or fictional chessboard. A fiction writer could make a solid plot with MB and the others manipulating Richard to the very end, and if anyone here wants this plot, please take it. I certainly don't, because it would require spending a year or more in Margaret Beaufort's nasty head (never mind the other nasty heads), and I'd rather eat glass than do that.

Carol responds:

Not to mention that such a plot would necessarily downplay Richard's own considerable intelligence. I'd almost rather have him a scheming villain than a gullible tool or pawn.

And coincidence certainly did play a role--England and France losing their kings in the same year and both faced with the built-in problems of minority rule, to name just one. (Of course, they dealt with the problem in completely different ways, but that's beside the point.)

Carol

I am not sure about River's father being involved in Thomas Cook's arras affair but Jacquetta certainly was. In his book "The Death of Edward IV" Collins said that Rivers was Deputy Constable of the Tower and that Lord Dudley, who was old and infirm, was Constable. Apparently it was Edward's policy to give a position to someone who was not really capable of doing the job and to give the deputy position to someone who would be capable but not be in a postion to do it e.g. Rivers was in Ludlow. In March 1483 Rivers wrote to his agent in London asking him for a copy of a letter allowing Rivers to raise troops in Wales and giving his authority as Deputy Constable to Dorset, who would be capable and in position to take over the Tower and hold it. Collins cites this as evidence that Rivers was planning something before Edward fell ill.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I've been reading Audrey Williamson over Easter. One of the interesting points she makes (among a lot of others) is that the arrest of Rivers and Vaughan was very low key, so low key that the soldiers accompanying them were happy to carry on with Richard. It was more as though they were being taken north to keep them out of the way for a while; certainly not an arrest for treason. Was Richard got at again about them when he got to London and persuaded that they had betrayed him.?There's no real evidence of previous antipathy to Rivers. He might be the Queen's brother, but his reputation to this day has come down as a  pious, cultured, chivalric man of the renaissance, someone Richard would have admired.   
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Wasn't Rivers involved in the scandal about Thomas Cook's arras, or was that his father? And he may also have helped to pressure Edward into executing George of Clarence, for which Richard seems to have held the Woodvilles personally responsible (see his letter to the Earl of Desmond).
>
> At any rate, he certainly prevented Edward V from meeting Richard at Northampton as planned, and he must have been involved in the plot to rush the coronation and push Richard's protectorship aside. And I don't think that Dorset could have taken the treasures from the Tower without his uncle's authorization since Rivers was at that point Constable of the Tower. For all we know, it was his idea to send Edward Woodville to sea with a share of the treasure, ostensibly to fight French pirates. That he accepted his death sentence with such resignation (and asked Richard to prove his will) suggests that he knew himself to be guilty as charged and accepted the penalty for failure to carry out his treason.
>
> At any rate, since Richard, traditionalists to the contrary, never executed anyone without cause, there must be more to it--especially since he also arrested Thomas Vaughn. At first, it might simply have been a matter of separating Edward from the Woodvilles and their most loyal followers, but a preemptive arrest and a charge of treason are altogether different things.
>
> I wonder if it's possible to find the court proceedings for their trial (and that of Richard Grey) under Northumberland.
>
> Carol
>