Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Dramatic news

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Dramatic news


--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> In today's Daily Mail (p.6-7), Michael K Jones announces proof that
Edward IV was illegitimate, as his parents were 100 miles apart at
the time of his conception. This made Clarence the true Yorkist heir
when Richard of York and Edmund of March died.
>
> Furthermore, he has found one of Clarence's descendants, via
Margaret of Salisbury and her son Michael Pole, an Australian truck
driver named Michael Hastings (Earl of Loudon).
>
> If you live in the UK, get a Daily Mail NOW, otherwise log on to
dailymail.co.uk and order an e-edition.
>
> This has answered one of the questions (true Plantagenet heirs)
that has been in the back of my mind for years. Comments most welcome!
>
>

Got the article (sheepish purchase of Daily Mail...).

No new proof, or even evidence.

Only that Michael has traced York's proper living heir (descendant of
Margaret of Clarence), a large man in a vest driving a truck in
Auzzie.
So this is apparently a huge revelation, and earth-shattering - or at
least throne-shattering - news.
Except that the man in question is actually English born, and an
earl. So anyone could have identified him using a set of the
Complete Peerage or Burke's. And the fact that Lizzie's claim to the
throne is suspect is not exactly news to any of us either.
Nor is it surprising to learn that 'King Michael I' is not actually
interested in pressing his claim.
I'm sure Michael K. must be amused or amazed at the Daily Mail
treatment.
However, the good news is that his Edward IV theory gets a TV
documentary in the New Year (Channel 4, I think it said). Which is
great because, as you all know, I really think he's right. I don't
know if this is the same programme as I read about before - a Time
Team dig at his alternative Bosworth site. If not, then he's really
hit the big time.

Marie

PS. Yes, he is a great speaker and very easy to talk to, isn't he? I
was also lucky enough to get a bit of a chat with him at the
Manchester Group study day recently, but I'm a bit caffeine-
intolerant, and I was by then several cups into my first exposure to
the stuff in weeks - and gabbling. So I didn't find out too much new,
I'm afraid.

Thanks, at least someone else has read the article. I am intrigued by the implications of the illegitimacy hypothesis:
1) Clarence should not have been executed by an illegal monarch and could have lived to a great age. This Braybourne story seems to have provoked his end. Try telling a de facto medieval King that his parents were 100 miles apart at his conception!
2) So could his son and heir, Warwick, executed at twenty-four having been imprisoned for fourteen fertile years with no FEMALE company - his line might still be around, otherwise, relegating our Aussie Earl by a few hundred places.
3) A separate monarch for Scotland? Perhaps, but union could have been achieved in other ways. James IV did not know Margaret Tudor but her father was King of England. However, the houses of Stuart and Clarence both survive today.
4) No reformation in England without Henry VIII? I think it was inevitable but probably in a less dramatic way.
5) If Clarence had lived until 1493, there would have been no Regent for Warwick and our subject would not have been crowned. He may have lived much longer but our Society would have been unnecessary. A Tudor invasion may have been tried but we almost beat them off anyway.

I have heard Jones twice at the Norfolk Study day and he is coming to Colchester on March 2 (Tuesday evening).

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

>
> >
> Thanks, at least someone else has read the article. I am
intrigued by the implications of the illegitimacy hypothesis:
> 1) Clarence should not have been executed by an illegal monarch
and could have lived to a great age. This Braybourne story seems to
have provoked his end. Try telling a de facto medieval King that his
parents were 100 miles apart at his conception!
> 2) So could his son and heir, Warwick, executed at twenty-four
having been imprisoned for fourteen fertile years with no FEMALE
company - his line might still be around, otherwise, relegating our
Aussie Earl by a few hundred places.


That's exactly where I'm coming from on this. I said to Michael K
Jones, in fact, that it was thinking through the implications of the
bastardy that convinced me about it, as everybody's odd behaviour
suddenly made sense. He said, yes, to his mind it particularly made
sense of the whole Clarence business. Of course, if things hadn't
panned out as they did we would be looking at a completely different
line of sucession from the one we have today.
> 3) A separate monarch for Scotland? Perhaps, but union could have
been achieved in other ways. James IV did not know Margaret Tudor but
her father was King of England. However, the houses of Stuart and
Clarence both survive today.
> 4) No reformation in England without Henry VIII? I think it was
inevitable but probably in a less dramatic way.

I'm not sure the Reformation was inevitable. After all, some
countries went Protestant, others didn't. There were certainly
religious puritan forces at work, and other political ones which were
aggrandising the state at the expense of old feudal personal ties,
and were averse to control from outside England (ie Rome), but that
was coming from a privileged, trendy, section of southern society. In
a sense the struggle between Richard and his enemies was the first
stage in that struggle, with Richard representing the old ways, and
Tudor's boys the new Machiavellians (that is one nail the oft-decried
Kendall hit square on the head, and the subject's been looked into
more analytically since by Jonathan Hughes). So who knows what the
long-term social and religious consequences would have been of
Richard's having survived the day.

Marie


> >
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: Dramatic news




> I'm not sure the Reformation was inevitable. After all, some
> countries went Protestant, others didn't. There were certainly
> religious puritan forces at work, and other political ones which were
> aggrandising the state at the expense of old feudal personal ties,
> and were averse to control from outside England (ie Rome), but that
> was coming from a privileged, trendy, section of southern society. In
> a sense the struggle between Richard and his enemies was the first
> stage in that struggle, with Richard representing the old ways, and
> Tudor's boys the new Machiavellians (that is one nail the oft-decried
> Kendall hit square on the head, and the subject's been looked into
> more analytically since by Jonathan Hughes). So who knows what the
> long-term social and religious consequences would have been of
> Richard's having survived the day.
>
> Marie

As a clergyman with an undergraduate degree in history and an abiding
interest in church history, I am very sure that the Reformation would have
happened in England anyway. Yes, some countries became Protestant and some
didn't. But the division was along pretty predictable lines. The countries
that remained predominantly Catholic were relatively poor countries in
southern Europe. Relatively prosperous Northern European nations heavily
involved in international trade uniformly became Protestant. Economic and
political independence from Rome was very attractive to nations like
England.

Sociologist Ernst Weber argued that his "Protestant work ethic" achieved the
relative prosperity of northern as opposed to southern Europe. I take it as
pretty self-evident that it worked the other way: the prosperous mercantile
states of northern Europe became Protestant out of self- interest. I suspect
that the major difference, in the scenario we're discussing, is that England
would have become Lutheran rather than the rather idiosyncratic thing that
the Church of England became. I suspect the pattern would have resembled
that of the Scandinavian states.

Bob Waters

--- In , "Robert Waters"
<uisgeachan@m...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@r...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 6:51 AM
> Subject: Re: Dramatic news
>
>
>
>
> > I'm not sure the Reformation was inevitable. After all, some
> > countries went Protestant, others didn't. There were certainly
> > religious puritan forces at work, and other political ones which
were
> > aggrandising the state at the expense of old feudal personal ties,
> > and were averse to control from outside England (ie Rome), but
that
> > was coming from a privileged, trendy, section of southern
society. In
> > a sense the struggle between Richard and his enemies was the first
> > stage in that struggle, with Richard representing the old ways,
and
> > Tudor's boys the new Machiavellians (that is one nail the oft-
decried
> > Kendall hit square on the head, and the subject's been looked into
> > more analytically since by Jonathan Hughes). So who knows what the
> > long-term social and religious consequences would have been of
> > Richard's having survived the day.
> >
> > Marie
>
> As a clergyman with an undergraduate degree in history and an
abiding
> interest in church history, I am very sure that the Reformation
would have
> happened in England anyway. Yes, some countries became Protestant
and some
> didn't. But the division was along pretty predictable lines. The
countries
> that remained predominantly Catholic were relatively poor countries
in
> southern Europe. Relatively prosperous Northern European nations
heavily
> involved in international trade uniformly became Protestant.
Economic and
> political independence from Rome was very attractive to nations like
> England.
>
> Sociologist Ernst Weber argued that his "Protestant work ethic"
achieved the
> relative prosperity of northern as opposed to southern Europe. I
take it as
> pretty self-evident that it worked the other way: the prosperous
mercantile
> states of northern Europe became Protestant out of self- interest.
I suspect
> that the major difference, in the scenario we're discussing, is
that England
> would have become Lutheran rather than the rather idiosyncratic
thing that
> the Church of England became. I suspect the pattern would have
resembled
> that of the Scandinavian states.
>
> Bob Waters

As a clergyman with an undergraduate degree in history and an abiding
interest in church history, I am very sure that the Reformation would
have
happened in England anyway. Yes, some countries became Protestant and
some
didn't. But the division was along pretty predictable lines. The
countries
that remained predominantly Catholic were relatively poor countries in
southern Europe. Relatively prosperous Northern European nations heavily
involved in international trade uniformly became Protestant. Economic
and
political independence from Rome was very attractive to nations like
England.

Bob Waters
--------------------------------------------
Hi, Bob and all -- not too sure what you mean by "relatively poor
countries", since, at this time, Spain, for one, was a major power.

According to one biographer of Isabel the Catholic, the inevitable
Townsend Miller, the promotion of Cisneros and his work, alongside
Isabel, to reform the church in Castile was a major factor in
strengthening Catholicism in Spain.

Maria
Elena@...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Maria" <elena@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 9:06 AM
Subject: RE: Re: Dramatic news


> As a clergyman with an undergraduate degree in history and an abiding
> interest in church history, I am very sure that the Reformation would
> have
> happened in England anyway. Yes, some countries became Protestant and
> some
> didn't. But the division was along pretty predictable lines. The
> countries
> that remained predominantly Catholic were relatively poor countries in
> southern Europe. Relatively prosperous Northern European nations heavily
> involved in international trade uniformly became Protestant. Economic
> and
> political independence from Rome was very attractive to nations like
> England.
>
> Bob Waters
> --------------------------------------------
> Hi, Bob and all -- not too sure what you mean by "relatively poor
> countries", since, at this time, Spain, for one, was a major power.
>
> According to one biographer of Isabel the Catholic, the inevitable
> Townsend Miller, the promotion of Cisneros and his work, alongside
> Isabel, to reform the church in Castile was a major factor in
> strengthening Catholicism in Spain.
>
> Maria
> Elena@...
>

Doubtless. The Inquisition helped, too ;) .But unlike England, Holland, the
Hanseatic cities, and the Scandinavian countries, Spain wasn't a nation
whose economy rested on a prosperous class of seafaring merchants, and its
wealth was pretty much limited to the upper class. As a whole, Spain has
always been a poor country. By "wealthy countries," I mean countries where
the prosperity trickled down at least a little further- countries with
thriving economies in the modern sense based in large measure on
international trade conducted by a large and successful merchant class.

Bob

Actually the whole topic raises a number of issues -
firstly Edward IV was a usurper in the first place
(although you can argue that he was merely restoring
the rightful heirs of Lionel of Clarence deprived by
the deposition of Richard II from their claim - though
that begs the question of how long a dynasty or a
branch of a dynasty should rule to remove the taint of
the original usurpation)therefore his alleged bastardy
is irrelevant given that whilst he certainly made a
dynastic claim in 1460 he technically was king because
he was the stronger and won and held his throne in
battle. Assuming he was Cecily Neville's bastard then
he still had a modicum of Plantagenet blood and his
wife Elizabeth Wydeville was also of Plantagenet
stock.

As to revelations about Aussie truck drivers well its
hardly surprising and whilst he may be the senior
descendant of Margaret of Salisbury he's not the only
one - her daughter Ursula must have hundred of
descendants by her husband Lord Stafford and Hastings
himself will have numerous relations descended from
Margaret in his own branch of the family - and they
are no more pure Plantagenets than I am.
The Hastings were known to have a claim in the 16th
Century through Margaret Countess of Salisbury and
were considered a possibility along with Catherine
Grey and Lord Strange if Elizabeth had died during her
bad attack of smallpox.

Incidentally he ain't any rival to Elizabeth II (no
matter what channel 4 are bound to play with) at best
he has a claim to the non-existant thrones of England
and France just as Franz of Bavaria has a claim (being
the senior heir general of James VI and I) to the
non-existant thrones of England, Ireland, France and
Scotland.

The present Queen's claim to the Throne of Great
Britain rests on the Will of Parliament as expressed
in the Act of Settlement - it is only dynastic in that
the act requires the monarch to be the chief
protestant heir general of Sophia of Hannover. You
could also argue that James VI and I had plenty of
lineal claims to the throne of England in 1603 other
than his descent from Elizabeth of York. Elizabeth II
also has numerous legitimate descents from the
Plantagenets.

Assuming that Richard of York had acknowledged Edmund
of Rutland as his heir and disowned Edward then too
many ponderables come into play - Lancaster would have
probably held on - for with York and Rutland dead
would the new Duke of York - George still a youngster
-have been with Warwick's help strong enough to win
and take the throne in 60 (I actually think its
doubtful it was Edward's decisive victory in the field
that really gave him the upper hand along with his
control of London) and had he failed would the boy
have survived - whilst he might not have been killed
he certainly would have been tethered some what and
kept on a tight leash - no marriage with Isabel
Neville certainly. In fact the likeliest outcome is a
stronger control on the realm by Margaret of Anjou and
her supporters and in time the successful accession of
Edward IV - perhaps further murmourings of his
illegitimacy and fresh outbreaks of conflict on behalf
of George Duke of York and his brother Richard of
York.




--- Stephen LARK <smlark@...>
wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 9:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Dramatic
> news
>
>
> --- In ,
> "Stephen LARK"
> <smlark@i...> wrote:
> > In today's Daily Mail (p.6-7), Michael K Jones
> announces proof that
> Edward IV was illegitimate, as his parents were
> 100 miles apart at
> the time of his conception. This made Clarence the
> true Yorkist heir
> when Richard of York and Edmund of March died.
> >
> > Furthermore, he has found one of Clarence's
> descendants, via
> Margaret of Salisbury and her son Michael Pole, an
> Australian truck
> driver named Michael Hastings (Earl of Loudon).
> >
> > If you live in the UK, get a Daily Mail NOW,
> otherwise log on to
> dailymail.co.uk and order an e-edition.
> >
> > This has answered one of the questions (true
> Plantagenet heirs)
> that has been in the back of my mind for years.
> Comments most welcome!
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
> Got the article (sheepish purchase of Daily
> Mail...).
>
> No new proof, or even evidence.
>
> Only that Michael has traced York's proper living
> heir (descendant of
> Margaret of Clarence), a large man in a vest
> driving a truck in
> Auzzie.
> So this is apparently a huge revelation, and
> earth-shattering - or at
> least throne-shattering - news.
> Except that the man in question is actually
> English born, and an
> earl. So anyone could have identified him using a
> set of the
> Complete Peerage or Burke's. And the fact that
> Lizzie's claim to the
> throne is suspect is not exactly news to any of us
> either.
> Nor is it surprising to learn that 'King Michael
> I' is not actually
> interested in pressing his claim.
> I'm sure Michael K. must be amused or amazed at
> the Daily Mail
> treatment.
> However, the good news is that his Edward IV
> theory gets a TV
> documentary in the New Year (Channel 4, I think it
> said). Which is
> great because, as you all know, I really think
> he's right. I don't
> know if this is the same programme as I read about
> before - a Time
> Team dig at his alternative Bosworth site. If not,
> then he's really
> hit the big time.
>
> Marie
>
> PS. Yes, he is a great speaker and very easy to
> talk to, isn't he? I
> was also lucky enough to get a bit of a chat with
> him at the
> Manchester Group study day recently, but I'm a bit
> caffeine-
> intolerant, and I was by then several cups into my
> first exposure to
> the stuff in weeks - and gabbling. So I didn't
> find out too much new,
> I'm afraid.
>
> Thanks, at least someone else has read the
> article. I am intrigued by the implications of the
> illegitimacy hypothesis:
> 1) Clarence should not have been executed by an
> illegal monarch and could have lived to a great age.
> This Braybourne story seems to have provoked his
> end. Try telling a de facto medieval King that his
> parents were 100 miles apart at his conception!
> 2) So could his son and heir, Warwick, executed at
> twenty-four having been imprisoned for fourteen
> fertile years with no FEMALE company - his line
> might still be around, otherwise, relegating our
> Aussie Earl by a few hundred places.
> 3) A separate monarch for Scotland? Perhaps, but
> union could have been achieved in other ways. James
> IV did not know Margaret Tudor but her father was
> King of England. However, the houses of Stuart and
> Clarence both survive today.
> 4) No reformation in England without Henry VIII? I
> think it was inevitable but probably in a less
> dramatic way.
> 5) If Clarence had lived until 1493, there
> would have been no Regent for Warwick and our
> subject would not have been crowned. He may have
> lived much longer but our Society would have been
> unnecessary. A Tudor invasion may have been tried
> but we almost beat them off anyway.
>
> I have heard Jones twice at the Norfolk Study day
> and he is coming to Colchester on March 2 (Tuesday
> evening).
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
> email to:
>
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


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