What happened to the princes in the tower: Edward V and Richard Duke

So here is an alternative to traditional story of the princes in the tower.
- The princes were moved from the tower of London to James Tyrrell's care in late 1483. Their mother, the queen Elizabeth Woodville knew this. She came out of the sanctuary in March 1484, and asked her other son Thomas Grey to come back to England, so she knew or believed, at this time, Richard III didn't kill the princes. Both of the princes were alive after Bosworth in 1485.
- In 1486, Henry Tudor ordered James Tyrrell to kill the princes. He pardoned James twice, before and after the murders. Tudor also had a son and heir, Arthur, in 1486. Tyrrell, however, let both princes or at least the younger boy, Richard, escape. Tyrrell was kept abroad after this.
- In 1487 Elizabeth Woodville found out about the princes were missing possibly dead, suspected Henry Tudor. They had a falling out. She was stripped off her land and send to the convent.
- In 1490 – 1499 Perkin Warbeck / Richard Duke of York appeared. Most European courts accepts him as Richard, even Henry Tudor suspected he was the prince, not a pretender. Warbeck's confession was obtained under duress. Even William Stanley, whose betrayal of Richard III caused the Richard III's death, believed Perkin was Richard Duke of York. William Stanley was executed for it in 1495. Since William Stanley's brother Thomas Stanley was high constable of England since 1483, so he should have knowledge of what happened to the princes. If William Stanley didn't believe the princes were killed during Richard III reign, then it is likely they were not.
- 1501 James Tyrrell was arrested for treason for aiding Edmund de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk. He allegedly gave a confession for killing the princes at Richard III's order. The facts that 1) Tyrrell didn't know where the bodies were, and 2) his supposed co-conspirators were not punished by Tudor, make the story of the confession very suspicious. 1502 Tyrrell was beheaded. It was more likely for not carrying out the state murders ordered by Tudor in 1486, then for aiding Edmund in 1501. The story of the princes was killed by Richard III, shifted the blame to Richard instead of Tudor, and discredited Richard Duke of York at the same time.

There's the back-bone of a credible story here. I have begun to suspect
that Richard's greatest success actually was concealing the fate of his
nephews so thoroughly that only rumors have surfaced since. And that
concealment, as has been discussed so often, doesn't make sense unless it
was for their protection, rather than for his.

Some comments. How does this work with the Tyrell family tradition spelled
out in Audrey Williamson's *Princes in the Tower*. I think it could, but
haven't been very successful yet in coming up with definite dates & places
to which to tie that tradition. And I've lost track of whether Elizabeth's
son did do as his mother suggested.

Where were the princes when Tyrell is supposed to have been sent to do them
in at Henry's behest. Had they not been successfully spirited out of
England before the end of Richard's reign? Your scenario, I guess means
that they would have been in hiding in England after disappearing from the
Tower. And how does Lovell's & who else-s side trip after Bosworth to the
vicinity of Colchester fit in? Not to mention Henry VII's apparent early
focus on Colchester. (Sorry, my attempt to develop my peripheral brain -
the computer - to help keep track of all these strands is falling woefully
far behind, but these bits come from J A-H's talk about Colchester, & from
some discussion of Richard of Eastwell).

Your phrase that Tyrell was kept abroad after the murder(s) suggests that
it was Henry's idea. I guess that makes sense if he wanted to prevent
Tyrell's sharing the information about what he'd been asked to do or
actually did do. What is the actual date of Henry's action on Titulus
Regius, and how does that fit with the timing of his order, in your
scenario, to kill the boys. If he knew they were dead, you wouldn't think
he would care so much about Titulus Regius. Why Tyrell - what would have
Tyrell's his motivation? Did he agree so he could actually get them away
behind cover provided by Henry himself? Or?

I'm sure there are some other bits & pieces that would need to be fit into
a full-blown alternative hypothesis along your lines. There must be others
on this group who know what they are.

A J


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM, hli4 <hli4@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> So here is an alternative to traditional story of the princes in the
> tower.
> - The princes were moved from the tower of London to James Tyrrell's care
> in late 1483. Their mother, the queen Elizabeth Woodville knew this. She
> came out of the sanctuary in March 1484, and asked her other son Thomas
> Grey to come back to England, so she knew or believed, at this time,
> Richard III didn't kill the princes. Both of the princes were alive after
> Bosworth in 1485.
> - In 1486, Henry Tudor ordered James Tyrrell to kill the princes. He
> pardoned James twice, before and after the murders. Tudor also had a son
> and heir, Arthur, in 1486. Tyrrell, however, let both princes or at least
> the younger boy, Richard, escape. Tyrrell was kept abroad after this.
> - In 1487 Elizabeth Woodville found out about the princes were missing
> possibly dead, suspected Henry Tudor. They had a falling out. She was
> stripped off her land and send to the convent.
> - In 1490 ý 1499 Perkin Warbeck / Richard Duke of York appeared. Most
> European courts accepts him as Richard, even Henry Tudor suspected he was
> the prince, not a pretender. Warbeck's confession was obtained under
> duress. Even William Stanley, whose betrayal of Richard III caused the
> Richard III's death, believed Perkin was Richard Duke of York. William
> Stanley was executed for it in 1495. Since William Stanley's brother Thomas
> Stanley was high constable of England since 1483, so he should have
> knowledge of what happened to the princes. If William Stanley didn't
> believe the princes were killed during Richard III reign, then it is likely
> they were not.
> - 1501 James Tyrrell was arrested for treason for aiding Edmund de la
> Pole, Duke of Suffolk. He allegedly gave a confession for killing the
> princes at Richard III's order. The facts that 1) Tyrrell didn't know where
> the bodies were, and 2) his supposed co-conspirators were not punished by
> Tudor, make the story of the confession very suspicious. 1502 Tyrrell was
> beheaded. It was more likely for not carrying out the state murders ordered
> by Tudor in 1486, then for aiding Edmund in 1501. The story of the princes
> was killed by Richard III, shifted the blame to Richard instead of Tudor,
> and discredited Richard Duke of York at the same time.
>
>
>

Very interesting.....Im not too sure about the ex-princes still being in England in 1486 though....although of course anything is possible really. Eileen

--- In , "hli4" <hli4@...> wrote:
>
> So here is an alternative to traditional story of the princes in the tower.
> - The princes were moved from the tower of London to James Tyrrell's care in late 1483. Their mother, the queen Elizabeth Woodville knew this. She came out of the sanctuary in March 1484, and asked her other son Thomas Grey to come back to England, so she knew or believed, at this time, Richard III didn't kill the princes. Both of the princes were alive after Bosworth in 1485.
> - In 1486, Henry Tudor ordered James Tyrrell to kill the princes. He pardoned James twice, before and after the murders. Tudor also had a son and heir, Arthur, in 1486. Tyrrell, however, let both princes or at least the younger boy, Richard, escape. Tyrrell was kept abroad after this.
> - In 1487 Elizabeth Woodville found out about the princes were missing possibly dead, suspected Henry Tudor. They had a falling out. She was stripped off her land and send to the convent.
> - In 1490 – 1499 Perkin Warbeck / Richard Duke of York appeared. Most European courts accepts him as Richard, even Henry Tudor suspected he was the prince, not a pretender. Warbeck's confession was obtained under duress. Even William Stanley, whose betrayal of Richard III caused the Richard III's death, believed Perkin was Richard Duke of York. William Stanley was executed for it in 1495. Since William Stanley's brother Thomas Stanley was high constable of England since 1483, so he should have knowledge of what happened to the princes. If William Stanley didn't believe the princes were killed during Richard III reign, then it is likely they were not.
> - 1501 James Tyrrell was arrested for treason for aiding Edmund de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk. He allegedly gave a confession for killing the princes at Richard III's order. The facts that 1) Tyrrell didn't know where the bodies were, and 2) his supposed co-conspirators were not punished by Tudor, make the story of the confession very suspicious. 1502 Tyrrell was beheaded. It was more likely for not carrying out the state murders ordered by Tudor in 1486, then for aiding Edmund in 1501. The story of the princes was killed by Richard III, shifted the blame to Richard instead of Tudor, and discredited Richard Duke of York at the same time.
>

Wow, that is fascinating, and I hope other do have some answers. I assume they would have become "hunted princes" after the end of the Plantagenet Reign, and perhaps lived long and happy "new" lives, under assumed identities.


-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of A J Hibbard
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 12:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in thetower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York

There's the back-bone of a credible story here. I have begun to suspect that Richard's greatest success actually was concealing the fate of his nephews so thoroughly that only rumors have surfaced since. And that concealment, as has been discussed so often, doesn't make sense unless it was for their protection, rather than for his.

Some comments. How does this work with the Tyrell family tradition spelled out in Audrey Williamson's *Princes in the Tower*. I think it could, but haven't been very successful yet in coming up with definite dates & places to which to tie that tradition. And I've lost track of whether Elizabeth's son did do as his mother suggested.

Where were the princes when Tyrell is supposed to have been sent to do them in at Henry's behest. Had they not been successfully spirited out of England before the end of Richard's reign? Your scenario, I guess means that they would have been in hiding in England after disappearing from the Tower. And how does Lovell's & who else-s side trip after Bosworth to the vicinity of Colchester fit in? Not to mention Henry VII's apparent early focus on Colchester. (Sorry, my attempt to develop my peripheral brain - the computer - to help keep track of all these strands is falling woefully far behind, but these bits come from J A-H's talk about Colchester, & from some discussion of Richard of Eastwell).

Your phrase that Tyrell was kept abroad after the murder(s) suggests that it was Henry's idea. I guess that makes sense if he wanted to prevent Tyrell's sharing the information about what he'd been asked to do or actually did do. What is the actual date of Henry's action on Titulus Regius, and how does that fit with the timing of his order, in your scenario, to kill the boys. If he knew they were dead, you wouldn't think he would care so much about Titulus Regius. Why Tyrell - what would have Tyrell's his motivation? Did he agree so he could actually get them away behind cover provided by Henry himself? Or?

I'm sure there are some other bits & pieces that would need to be fit into a full-blown alternative hypothesis along your lines. There must be others on this group who know what they are.

A J


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM, hli4 <hli4@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> So here is an alternative to traditional story of the princes in the
> tower.
> - The princes were moved from the tower of London to James Tyrrell's
> care in late 1483. Their mother, the queen Elizabeth Woodville knew
> this. She came out of the sanctuary in March 1484, and asked her other
> son Thomas Grey to come back to England, so she knew or believed, at
> this time, Richard III didn't kill the princes. Both of the princes
> were alive after Bosworth in 1485.
> - In 1486, Henry Tudor ordered James Tyrrell to kill the princes. He
> pardoned James twice, before and after the murders. Tudor also had a
> son and heir, Arthur, in 1486. Tyrrell, however, let both princes or
> at least the younger boy, Richard, escape. Tyrrell was kept abroad after this.
> - In 1487 Elizabeth Woodville found out about the princes were missing
> possibly dead, suspected Henry Tudor. They had a falling out. She was
> stripped off her land and send to the convent.
> - In 1490 - 1499 Perkin Warbeck / Richard Duke of York appeared. Most
> European courts accepts him as Richard, even Henry Tudor suspected he
> was the prince, not a pretender. Warbeck's confession was obtained
> under duress. Even William Stanley, whose betrayal of Richard III
> caused the Richard III's death, believed Perkin was Richard Duke of
> York. William Stanley was executed for it in 1495. Since William
> Stanley's brother Thomas Stanley was high constable of England since
> 1483, so he should have knowledge of what happened to the princes. If
> William Stanley didn't believe the princes were killed during Richard
> III reign, then it is likely they were not.
> - 1501 James Tyrrell was arrested for treason for aiding Edmund de la
> Pole, Duke of Suffolk. He allegedly gave a confession for killing the
> princes at Richard III's order. The facts that 1) Tyrrell didn't know
> where the bodies were, and 2) his supposed co-conspirators were not
> punished by Tudor, make the story of the confession very suspicious.
> 1502 Tyrrell was beheaded. It was more likely for not carrying out the
> state murders ordered by Tudor in 1486, then for aiding Edmund in
> 1501. The story of the princes was killed by Richard III, shifted the
> blame to Richard instead of Tudor, and discredited Richard Duke of York at the same time.
>
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Audrey Williamson says that they visited Gipping with their mother with permission of the uncle. She also says there is no record of EW ever having been in Gipping while Edward IV was alive. That isn't to say that there isn't a record somewhere though as we know only too well we can't make a definite statement without evidence. However, so far evidence has not come to light.

Your thought that Richard's greatest success was concealing the fate of his nephews for their protection rather than for his, certainly fits with what we know about his character. If the attempt to "free" the Princes in July 1483 was not successful then Richard, and probably EW too, would have realised that they had to be removed from harms way.

I watched Philippa and Annette at the Conference and one of Philippa reasons for thinking that Richard had not murdered the Princes was that Edward of Warwick was still alive when Henry arrived in London and we know that H7 had him judicially murdered. Would Richard have allowed him to live if he had murdered the Princes. I think that the answer is no.

You mention the problem with dates and I think that I have read that no one knows where EW went after leaving sanctuary or what date she left. She was in the care of Sir John er begins with F but I can't remember his surname. Maybe someone on the forum will remember. We need more pieces of the jigsaw.



--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> There's the back-bone of a credible story here. I havfe begun to suspect
> that Richard's greatest success actually was concealing the fate of his
> nephews so thoroughly that only rumors have surfaced since. And that
> concealment, as has been discussed so often, doesn't make sense unless it
> was for their protection, rather than for his.
>
> Some comments. How does this work with the Tyrell family tradition spelled
> out in Audrey Williamson's *Princes in the Tower*. I think it could, but
> haven't been very successful yet in coming up with definite dates & places
> to which to tie that tradition. And I've lost track of whether Elizabeth's
> son did do as his mother suggested.
>
> Where were the princes when Tyrell is supposed to have been sent to do them
> in at Henry's behest. Had they not been successfully spirited out of
> England before the end of Richard's reign? Your scenario, I guess means
> that they would have been in hiding in England after disappearing from the
> Tower. And how does Lovell's & who else-s side trip after Bosworth to the
> vicinity of Colchester fit in? Not to mention Henry VII's apparent early
> focus on Colchester. (Sorry, my attempt to develop my peripheral brain -
> the computer - to help keep track of all these strands is falling woefully
> far behind, but these bits come from J A-H's talk about Colchester, & from
> some discussion of Richard of Eastwell).
>
> Your phrase that Tyrell was kept abroad after the murder(s) suggests that
> it was Henry's idea. I guess that makes sense if he wanted to prevent
> Tyrell's sharing the information about what he'd been asked to do or
> actually did do. What is the actual date of Henry's action on Titulus
> Regius, and how does that fit with the timing of his order, in your
> scenario, to kill the boys. If he knew they were dead, you wouldn't think
> he would care so much about Titulus Regius. Why Tyrell - what would have
> Tyrell's his motivation? Did he agree so he could actually get them away
> behind cover provided by Henry himself? Or?
>
> I'm sure there are some other bits & pieces that would need to be fit into
> a full-blown alternative hypothesis along your lines. There must be others
> on this group who know what they are.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM, hli4 <hli4@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > So here is an alternative to traditional story of the princes in the
> > tower.
> > - The princes were moved from the tower of London to James Tyrrell's care
> > in late 1483. Their mother, the queen Elizabeth Woodville knew this. She
> > came out of the sanctuary in March 1484, and asked her other son Thomas
> > Grey to come back to England, so she knew or believed, at this time,
> > Richard III didn't kill the princes. Both of the princes were alive after
> > Bosworth in 1485.
> > - In 1486, Henry Tudor ordered James Tyrrell to kill the princes. He
> > pardoned James twice, before and after the murders. Tudor also had a son
> > and heir, Arthur, in 1486. Tyrrell, however, let both princes or at least
> > the younger boy, Richard, escape. Tyrrell was kept abroad after this.
> > - In 1487 Elizabeth Woodville found out about the princes were missing
> > possibly dead, suspected Henry Tudor. They had a falling out. She was
> > stripped off her land and send to the convent.
> > - In 1490 – 1499 Perkin Warbeck / Richard Duke of York appeared. Most
> > European courts accepts him as Richard, even Henry Tudor suspected he was
> > the prince, not a pretender. Warbeck's confession was obtained under
> > duress. Even William Stanley, whose betrayal of Richard III caused the
> > Richard III's death, believed Perkin was Richard Duke of York. William
> > Stanley was executed for it in 1495. Since William Stanley's brother Thomas
> > Stanley was high constable of England since 1483, so he should have
> > knowledge of what happened to the princes. If William Stanley didn't
> > believe the princes were killed during Richard III reign, then it is likely
> > they were not.
> > - 1501 James Tyrrell was arrested for treason for aiding Edmund de la
> > Pole, Duke of Suffolk. He allegedly gave a confession for killing the
> > princes at Richard III's order. The facts that 1) Tyrrell didn't know where
> > the bodies were, and 2) his supposed co-conspirators were not punished by
> > Tudor, make the story of the confession very suspicious. 1502 Tyrrell was
> > beheaded. It was more likely for not carrying out the state murders ordered
> > by Tudor in 1486, then for aiding Edmund in 1501. The story of the princes
> > was killed by Richard III, shifted the blame to Richard instead of Tudor,
> > and discredited Richard Duke of York at the same time.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

From: hli4
To:
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 5:38 PM
Subject: What happened to the princes in the
tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York


> In 1486, Henry Tudor ordered James Tyrrell to kill the princes. He
> pardoned James twice, before and after the murders. Tudor also had a son
> and heir, Arthur, in 1486. Tyrrell, however, let both princes or at least
> the younger boy, Richard, escape. Tyrrell was kept abroad after this.

I've always thought that Henry's behaviour proved he either knew the boys to
be alive or didn't know what had happened to them - which is very good
evidence that Richard didn't kill them. I suppose it's *possible* he had
tried and failed to have them killeed himself - but then there's that quote
Carol found about him searching the Tower, trying to find out what had
happened to them. But then, she copuldn't remember where it came from, so
we don't know how reliable the source was.

> William Stanley was executed for it in 1495. Since William Stanley's
> brother Thomas Stanley was high constable of England since 1483, so he
> should have knowledge of what happened to the princes. If William Stanley
> didn't believe the princes were killed during Richard III reign, then it
> is likely they were not.

Ooh, that's an *excellent* point. Would William Stanley have supported
Warbeck if he *didn't* think Warbeck was genuine? If the answer is "no"
then it's pretty-well incontrovertible proof that Richard's senior officers
believed that at least one of the boys was alive, which is quite close to
being incontrovertible proof that Richard didn't kill them.

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

> I've always thought that Henry's behaviour proved he either knew the boys to
> be alive or didn't know what had happened to them - which is very good
> evidence that Richard didn't kill them. I suppose it's *possible* he had
> tried and failed to have them killeed himself - but then there's that quote
> Carol found about him searching the Tower, trying to find out what had
> happened to them. But then, she copuldn't remember where it came from, so
> we don't know how reliable the source was.
>

It is possible Henry Tudor didn't know, initially, what happened to the princes. Elizabeth Woodville, knowing the political realities, and her boys being not ready to challenge Tudor, was not likely to volunteer their whereabouts. Tudor may later found out the boys being alive and their connection with James Tyrrell. Even then Tudor may have hesitated to kill them. But after Elizabeth of York was pregnant, to protect his dynastic interests, he ordered them killed.

If the princes were alive in'86 where would they be living? At the Tyrell household?


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

On Apr 22, 2013, at 8:43 PM, "hli4" <hli4@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> >
>
> > I've always thought that Henry's behaviour proved he either knew the boys to
> > be alive or didn't know what had happened to them - which is very good
> > evidence that Richard didn't kill them. I suppose it's *possible* he had
> > tried and failed to have them killeed himself - but then there's that quote
> > Carol found about him searching the Tower, trying to find out what had
> > happened to them. But then, she copuldn't remember where it came from, so
> > we don't know how reliable the source was.
> >
>
> It is possible Henry Tudor didn't know, initially, what happened to the princes. Elizabeth Woodville, knowing the political realities, and her boys being not ready to challenge Tudor, was not likely to volunteer their whereabouts. Tudor may later found out the boys being alive and their connection with James Tyrrell. Even then Tudor may have hesitated to kill them. But after Elizabeth of York was pregnant, to protect his dynastic interests, he ordered them killed.
>
>

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> If the princes were alive in'86 where would they be living? At the Tyrell household?
>
>

We don't know the answer to that. But in previous posts to this topic, A J Hibbard mentioned Colchester and ricard1an mentioned Gipping. So there we have at least these two possibilities.

From: hli4
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the
tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York


> It is possible Henry Tudor didn't know, initially, what happened to the
> princes. Elizabeth Woodville, knowing the political realities, and her
> boys being not ready to challenge Tudor, was not likely to volunteer their
> whereabouts. Tudor may later found out the boys being alive and their
> connection with James Tyrrell. Even then Tudor may have hesitated to kill
> them. But after Elizabeth of York was pregnant, to protect his dynastic
> interests, he ordered them killed.

It's possible, but if so he didn't succed. If he knew them to be dead -
even if he killed them himself - there was nothing to prevent him from
announcing their deaths and blaming it either on Richard or on illness. The
same strictures apply to Henry killing them as to Richard killing them, i.e.
there would be enormous benefit in having them dead and widely known to be
dead, but not much benefit in having them dead and *not* widely known to be
dead.

[There's also the point that Henry seems to have been firmly under his
wife's thumb - would he have *dared* to kill her brothers?]

Also, if the story about the boys staying at Gipping Hall is true the
location itself rather suggests they were sent to the continent, since
Gipping is just inland from a string of ports which connect to The Hague in
Holland.

The only thing I can think of offhand against Richard having sent the boys
abroad is that he didn't send young Warwick - but if George really did try
to substitute another child for his son that suggests there was something
physically or mentally odd about the boy which made him an obviously
unsuitable heir, so Richard may have thought the poor boy was no threat to
anybody and therefore not in any danger, if his main motive was to ensure
the boys' safety. If his main motive was to remove a possible focus for
rebellion and let his sister deal with it instead, then again Warwick would
seem less of a threat than Edward's boys and so less in need of removal.

BUT once they knew the result of Bosworth, surely Tyrelll or whoever (whomever??) they were living with would have got them out pretty damn sharpish?
 
Liz

From: hli4 <hli4@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 3:11
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York

 


--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> If the princes were alive in'86 where would they be living? At the Tyrell household?
>
>

We don't know the answer to that. But in previous posts to this topic, A J Hibbard mentioned Colchester and ricard1an mentioned Gipping. So there we have at least these two possibilities.

Claire
 
 
E may not have been as wishy washy as tradition suggests but I've never read anything to suggest Henry was under her thumb - more than they were both ruled  by MB

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 2:23
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York

S
NIP>
[There's also the point that Henry seems to have been firmly under his
wife's thumb - would he have *dared* to kill her brothers?]


Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the
tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York

> E may not have been as wishy washy as tradition suggests but I've never
> read anything to suggest Henry was under her thumb - more than they were
> both ruled by MB

It came up about a month ago - somebody quoted a contemporary account which
said Henry would sometimes (often?) cry off from some activity because his
wife had ordered him not to do it - or at least he said she had, although
it's possible it was just a convenient excuse. And he did apparently
service her gambling debts, despite being famously tight-fisted. If it's
true that she fancied Richard (and even if the marriage referred to in the
Buck letter is the foreign marriage R was arranging for her she does
describe R in the most overheated tones, and she wrote his motto into the
books he gave her, which suggests a thundering crush) I reckon he had a
lucky escape.

Either Gipping Hall or Burgundy. Remember that Tyrrell and Brompton were both absent from Bosworth.
----- Original Message -----
From: hli4
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:11 AM
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York





--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> If the princes were alive in'86 where would they be living? At the Tyrell household?
>
>

We don't know the answer to that. But in previous posts to this topic, A J Hibbard mentioned Colchester and ricard1an mentioned Gipping. So there we have at least these two possibilities.

It was me Claire, but more on 'matters domestic', like H promised a portrait to an ambassador and EOY said he couldn't have it because she wanted it. He had to write and apologise. And he did indeed service her gambling debts. My guess is that issues of governance he wouldn't discuss with her, though he well might with MB. The princes I would have thought were well out of bounds.
Am sorry if I misled you though.  


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 10:03
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York

 

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the
tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York

> E may not have been as wishy washy as tradition suggests but I've never
> read anything to suggest Henry was under her thumb - more than they were
> both ruled by MB

It came up about a month ago - somebody quoted a contemporary account which
said Henry would sometimes (often?) cry off from some activity because his
wife had ordered him not to do it - or at least he said she had, although
it's possible it was just a convenient excuse. And he did apparently
service her gambling debts, despite being famously tight-fisted. If it's
true that she fancied Richard (and even if the marriage referred to in the
Buck letter is the foreign marriage R was arranging for her she does
describe R in the most overheated tones, and she wrote his motto into the
books he gave her, which suggests a thundering crush) I reckon he had a
lucky escape.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> BUT once they knew the result of Bosworth, surely Tyrelll or whoever (whomever??) they were living with would have got them out pretty damn sharpish?
>  
> Liz
>

Yes, to get them out quickly would be the best thing to do with 20/20 hindsight. But the loss at Bosworth was very unexpected. Tyrrell, or Brompton, and Elizabeth Woodville, may took a while to organize, decide, come up with a credible cover story, and safe strategy before moving the boys. Elizabeth Woodville may even took some time to test out the waters about restoring Edward V or Richard Duke of York to the throne, but found out it was not possible.

We know Richard / Perkin didn't surface in Burgundy until 1490. He may have gotten there earlier, but few people knew it. It was easier for Tudor to find out about them and had them killed in England, but it was also possible for these events to occur outside England. stephenmlark already mentioned Burgundy as a possibility in his post.

whitehounduk, if Tudor had the boys killed in 1486, it would be hard to display the fresh corpses and blame Richard III for the murders. He would come under suspicion of murdering them, even if they died of natural causes. It was easier for him to continue to pretend to believe the French rumors that they were killed by Richard III in 1483.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the
tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York


> It was me Claire, but more on 'matters domestic', like H promised a
> portrait to an ambassador and EOY said he couldn't have it because she
> wanted it. He had to write and apologise. And he did indeed service her
> gambling debts. My guess is that issues of governance he wouldn't discuss
> with her, though he well might with MB. The princes I would have thought
> were well out of bounds.
Am sorry if I misled you though.

's OK. And it still suggests that he was quite scared of her. [Of course,
he might have *liked* being scared of her....]

I wish we knew what EoY thought about the execution of her cousin Warwick.
It could have been anything from "No, no, spare my poor innocent cousin, you
brute" to "Show some backbone, finish what Daddy started and get rid of
him." I don't suppose we have any evidence as to what any of the royal
family - other than Edward, Richard, Cis and George himself - thought about
the execution of Clarence, do we?

Not that I know of, but someone else out there may. EOY always comes across to me as a rather petulant child, so Henry humoured her (and apparently also came to love her) but I've no doubt he kept her in her place where politics were concerned. 



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 13:32
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the
tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York

> It was me Claire, but more on 'matters domestic', like H promised a
> portrait to an ambassador and EOY said he couldn't have it because she
> wanted it. He had to write and apologise. And he did indeed service her
> gambling debts. My guess is that issues of governance he wouldn't discuss
> with her, though he well might with MB. The princes I would have thought
> were well out of bounds.
Am sorry if I misled you though.

's OK. And it still suggests that he was quite scared of her. [Of course,
he might have *liked* being scared of her....]

I wish we knew what EoY thought about the execution of her cousin Warwick.
It could have been anything from "No, no, spare my poor innocent cousin, you
brute" to "Show some backbone, finish what Daddy started and get rid of
him." I don't suppose we have any evidence as to what any of the royal
family - other than Edward, Richard, Cis and George himself - thought about
the execution of Clarence, do we?

This is a scenario that could possibly be correct.....Eileen

--- In , "hli4" <hli4@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
>
> > I've always thought that Henry's behaviour proved he either knew the boys to
> > be alive or didn't know what had happened to them - which is very good
> > evidence that Richard didn't kill them. I suppose it's *possible* he had
> > tried and failed to have them killeed himself - but then there's that quote
> > Carol found about him searching the Tower, trying to find out what had
> > happened to them. But then, she copuldn't remember where it came from, so
> > we don't know how reliable the source was.
> >
>
> It is possible Henry Tudor didn't know, initially, what happened to the princes. Elizabeth Woodville, knowing the political realities, and her boys being not ready to challenge Tudor, was not likely to volunteer their whereabouts. Tudor may later found out the boys being alive and their connection with James Tyrrell. Even then Tudor may have hesitated to kill them. But after Elizabeth of York was pregnant, to protect his dynastic interests, he ordered them killed.
>

Of course this is possible...I believe it is a very likely scenario that they were sent abroad. I have always thought prior to Bosworth..but who is to say...they could have been there at the time of Bosworth and spirited out of England after Richard's defeat. Anyone with the brains of Donald Duck would have known that if Weasle did trace them their futures would have looked pretty dim and not to bother buying any green bananas, even with their sister on the throne. I mean just what could he have possible done with them if he had found them? If it had been made common knowledge that these boys were in fact still alive there would have civil war at the very least. Either they or Tudor would have had to die and Weasle, with his mother/Morton putting in their penny worth, would have made damn sure it was not going to be him. It was imperative to Tudor that the boys were dead. Imho though, he didnt get them as Richard had ensured they were safely out of England...and their mother knew this full well. Eileen


--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> If the princes were alive in'86 where would they be living? At the Tyrell household?
>
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Apr 22, 2013, at 8:43 PM, "hli4" <hli4@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > I've always thought that Henry's behaviour proved he either knew the boys to
> > > be alive or didn't know what had happened to them - which is very good
> > > evidence that Richard didn't kill them. I suppose it's *possible* he had
> > > tried and failed to have them killeed himself - but then there's that quote
> > > Carol found about him searching the Tower, trying to find out what had
> > > happened to them. But then, she copuldn't remember where it came from, so
> > > we don't know how reliable the source was.
> > >
> >
> > It is possible Henry Tudor didn't know, initially, what happened to the princes. Elizabeth Woodville, knowing the political realities, and her boys being not ready to challenge Tudor, was not likely to volunteer their whereabouts. Tudor may later found out the boys being alive and their connection with James Tyrrell. Even then Tudor may have hesitated to kill them. But after Elizabeth of York was pregnant, to protect his dynastic interests, he ordered them killed.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Both EoY and MB put their foots down with regard to the little princess Margaret being sent to Scotland too early on her marriage to the Scottish king. I expect MB had bad memories about being a child bride...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It was me Claire, but more on 'matters domestic', like H promised a portrait to an ambassador and EOY said he couldn't have it because she wanted it. He had to write and apologise. And he did indeed service her gambling debts. My guess is that issues of governance he wouldn't discuss with her, though he well might with MB. The princes I would have thought were well out of bounds.
> Am sorry if I misled you though.  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 April 2013, 10:03
> Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York
>
>  
>
> From: liz williams
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 9:37 AM
> Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the
> tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York
>
> > E may not have been as wishy washy as tradition suggests but I've never
> > read anything to suggest Henry was under her thumb - more than they were
> > both ruled by MB
>
> It came up about a month ago - somebody quoted a contemporary account which
> said Henry would sometimes (often?) cry off from some activity because his
> wife had ordered him not to do it - or at least he said she had, although
> it's possible it was just a convenient excuse. And he did apparently
> service her gambling debts, despite being famously tight-fisted. If it's
> true that she fancied Richard (and even if the marriage referred to in the
> Buck letter is the foreign marriage R was arranging for her she does
> describe R in the most overheated tones, and she wrote his motto into the
> books he gave her, which suggests a thundering crush) I reckon he had a
> lucky escape.
>
>
>
>
>
>

hli4 wrote:

"We don't know the answer to that. But in previous posts to this topic, A J
Hibbard mentioned Colchester and ricard1an mentioned Gipping. So there we
have at least these two possibilities."

Doug here:
Colchester is just a few mile inland from Harwich which, if I remember
correctly, was then (15th century) a major connection with Flanders. Both
places aren't far from Gipping, so any searching of Colchester and environs
hints at Tudor having, from somewhere/one, *some* information that EIV's
sons had, at least at one period, been living in the area.
As for why "Perkin" didn't show up until 1490, could it have been because,
until then, those planning a Yorkist return, just didn't know *where* Edward
(V) was and were waiting for him to contact someone or make his way to
Burgundy? When he didn't, and *only* after four-five years had passed, did
Margaret and the remaining Yorkists began actively supporting his brother.
It's only my personal view, but I tend to support "Richard of Eastwell" as
being Edward (V), at least until something shows up to make it a certainty
(or as close to a certainty as possible, what with the passage of time) that
he *wasn't*. I do realize that in the except about "Ricahrd of Eastwell" in
Williamson's book, "Richard" is always referred to, by himself and others,
to be *Richard's* son, but I wonder if that could be either a
misunderstanding of a conversation between Richard and Edward. It's not
unusual for someone to refer to a boy as "my son", whether related or not.
The other possibility is that, even by the time "Richard" related his story,
he deliberately referred to himself as Richard's son because being the
illegitimate son of Richard III was still much, much safer than being the
legitimate son of Edward IV
I do think Richard, after first giving her a chance to see they were alive
and well, separated his nephews shortly after EW came out of sanctuary. He
may very well have allowed Richard to remain at Gipping, knowing that the
boy could quickly be removed to safetey if necessary. Edward, on the other
hand, was kept in England where Richard could keep a closer eye on him;
after all, Edward (V), even if never crowned, *had* been presumed *and*
proclaimed to have been King.
All speculation, of course, but I do *think* it covers everything.
Doug

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> [There's also the point that Henry seems to have been firmly under his
> wife's thumb - would he have *dared* to kill her brothers?]

T replies-
What evidence is there for that idea? I've seen reference that she sometimes "forbade" him to do something, but what and how solid is the evidence for that?
If anyone dominated I thought it appeared it was Margie Beaufort.
Henry delayed marrying E of York and she played no important role at court, I doubt if it was in his interest to off her brothers she would cause him to hesitate. It's not like he'd ask her permission!

True. And Henry doesn't seem to have had much of a problem with killing off other Yorkists who weren't his wife's brothers, not to mention stripping his wife's mother of everything she owned and heaving her behind a nunnery grid.

But yes, killing the nephews might have been a step too far, and his behavior seems to indicate that he didn't think them dead -- at least, not in the fifteen-odd years after 1485. Otherwise he wouldn't have been so freaked out by the appearance of the various "pretenders" as to actually be driven, in 1494, to admit that Richard III was indeed the sometime honest-to-goodness king of England when he had Richard's burial place spiffed up and a nice epitaph crafted -- which as JAH points out, is something that was done as a counter to the pretenders: He had to undermine their claims, and the most effective way to do that was to suddenly make a little nice towards the memory of the man whose throne he'd taken. Either Richard or the (not-so?) pretenders were legitimate possessors or heirs to the throne, but not both; acknowledging the one was a way to disparage the other.

Of course, once the pretenders (if pretenders they all were) were dealt with, Henry felt safe in going back to trashing Richard's memory.

(By the way -- and I apologize if this has already been discussed to death -- JAH says that it was only with the "confession" of James Tyrell -- conveniently made public only after Tyrell was dead -- that the Richard-offed-his-nephews rumor first was noised about. But what about the little trickle between the Fens (Croyland, in Morton's stomping grounds) and the Estates-General of Paris in 1483 and January of 1484? Or does that not count since those are the only two pre-Bosworh examples of the rumor, especially as Richard wouldn't be signing safe-conduct passes for French ambassadors if the French regency was still broadcasting the story to all and sundry?)








-----Original Message-----
From: tbuck55 <tandjules@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tue, Apr 23, 2013 9:32 pm
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York




--- In , "Claire M Jordan"
<whitehound@...> wrote:
> [There's also the point that Henry seems to have been firmly under his
> wife's thumb - would he have *dared* to kill her brothers?]

T replies-
What evidence is there for that idea? I've seen reference that she sometimes
"forbade" him to do something, but what and how solid is the evidence for that?
If anyone dominated I thought it appeared it was Margie Beaufort.
Henry delayed marrying E of York and she played no important role at court, I
doubt if it was in his interest to off her brothers she would cause him to
hesitate. It's not like he'd ask her permission!




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

Yahoo! Groups Links




.

From: tbuck55
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the
tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York


> What evidence is there for that idea? I've seen reference that she
> sometimes "forbade" him to do something, but what and how solid is the
> evidence for that?

Hilary has the original quote - she mentioned Henry promising a portrait as
a gift to some ambassador and then writing to him to apologise because his
wife had told him he wasn't to give it away because *she* wanted it. And he
had to service her gambling debts, despite being famously tight-fisted,
which suggests that in one sense or another she had him wrapped around her
little finger. Also, psychologically, I don't think he was really all that
cut out to be king, he probably found it a strain, and people who have very
stressful and responsible jobs often like to be dominated in their private
lives because it gives them a breathing space in which they don't have to
keep on making decisions.

Also, Henry VIII must have got it from somewhere, and although Henry VII was
a dodgy character who effectively stole a whole country, he didn't show any
signs of being a narcissistic braggart or an incipient serial killer. Plus
iirc Henry VIII was very close to his mother - so it may have been she who
gave him that massive sense of entitlement.

I wonder if Henry VII's delay in crowning Elizabeth is a further indication
that he either didn't know what had happened to her brothers, or was pretty
sure they were alive? He might have felt that crowning her would confirm
her as legitimate in the eyes of the public and/or remind people of the
coronation her brother didn't have, and so stir up feeling on behalf of a
restoration of Edward V, wherever and whoever he might be.

An interesting idea that Richard might have wanted to keep Edward V under
closer observation (that is, in England) during his reign. But if we are
to believe Richard of Eastwell's story, he wasn't left very well provided
for after Bosworth (money yes, but no help, & no very clear instructions as
to where & how he might stay safe). Would Richard really have left him
with so little? Wouldn't he almost have had to make contacts with his
mother & her circle?

A J


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
destama@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> hli4 wrote:
>
> "We don't know the answer to that. But in previous posts to this topic, A
> J
> Hibbard mentioned Colchester and ricard1an mentioned Gipping. So there we
> have at least these two possibilities."
>
> Doug here:
> Colchester is just a few mile inland from Harwich which, if I remember
> correctly, was then (15th century) a major connection with Flanders. Both
> places aren't far from Gipping, so any searching of Colchester and
> environs
> hints at Tudor having, from somewhere/one, *some* information that EIV's
> sons had, at least at one period, been living in the area.
> As for why "Perkin" didn't show up until 1490, could it have been because,
> until then, those planning a Yorkist return, just didn't know *where*
> Edward
> (V) was and were waiting for him to contact someone or make his way to
> Burgundy? When he didn't, and *only* after four-five years had passed, did
> Margaret and the remaining Yorkists began actively supporting his brother.
> It's only my personal view, but I tend to support "Richard of Eastwell" as
> being Edward (V), at least until something shows up to make it a certainty
> (or as close to a certainty as possible, what with the passage of time)
> that
> he *wasn't*. I do realize that in the except about "Ricahrd of Eastwell"
> in
> Williamson's book, "Richard" is always referred to, by himself and others,
> to be *Richard's* son, but I wonder if that could be either a
> misunderstanding of a conversation between Richard and Edward. It's not
> unusual for someone to refer to a boy as "my son", whether related or not.
> The other possibility is that, even by the time "Richard" related his
> story,
> he deliberately referred to himself as Richard's son because being the
> illegitimate son of Richard III was still much, much safer than being the
> legitimate son of Edward IV
> I do think Richard, after first giving her a chance to see they were alive
> and well, separated his nephews shortly after EW came out of sanctuary. He
> may very well have allowed Richard to remain at Gipping, knowing that the
> boy could quickly be removed to safetey if necessary. Edward, on the other
> hand, was kept in England where Richard could keep a closer eye on him;
> after all, Edward (V), even if never crowned, *had* been presumed *and*
> proclaimed to have been King.
> All speculation, of course, but I do *think* it covers everything.
> Doug
>
>
>

A J Hibbard wrote:


"An interesting idea that Richard might have wanted to keep Edward V under
closer observation (that is, in England) during his reign. But if we are to
believe Richard of Eastwell's story, he wasn't left very well provided for
after Bosworth (money yes, but no help, & no very clear instructions as to
where & how he might stay safe). Would Richard really have left him with so
little? Wouldn't he almost have had to make contacts with his mother & her
circle?"

Doug here:
Much would depend on how much danger Richard felt his nephews were in,
wouldn't it? A claim to the throne could be made, or strengthened, by
marriage to one of the girls, but, as we've noted here, if the girls were
considered legitimate and able to pass on a claim to the throne, then the
boys were legitimate too and a mortal threat to whoever was also claiming
the throne.
So, Richard of Shrewsbury was either kept at Gipping or sent on to Burgundy
and Edward was sent to a manor held by someone very loyal to Richard.
Brampton and Tyrell (obviously) were those in the know about Richard of
Shrewbury and Gipping, so who could have been the one or two who knew where
Edward (V) was? As noone who knew where Edward was ever seems to have
appeared after Bosworth, could that person/s have been there with Richard
and not survived?
Which is why "Richard of Eastwell" hurried to London; he hoped to find
someone he knew who would help him, but that "someone" had died either died
at Bosworth or, for reason/s unforeseen by his uncle, wasn't there. But in
any case, he never headed to Gipping/Harwich because he *knew* that would be
one of the first places Tudor would head for?
Whoever he might have expected help from in London wasn't there, for
whatever reason/s and Edward, by luck?, managed to find a Yorkist supporter
*not* important enough or wealthy enough to help him get to Burgundy but
able to help him hide. Which is what he did.
I might add, that much of these speculations are based on the presumption
that Edward and his brother weren't supposed to survive the *rescue* that
was the supposed basis for "Buckingham's Rebellion". In my opinion, it was
*that* which, upon his discovery of it, that caused Richard's well-known
outburst against Buckingham as "that most unfaithful creature".
Doug

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the
tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York


> I might add, that much of these speculations are based on the presumption
that Edward and his brother weren't supposed to survive the *rescue* that
was the supposed basis for "Buckingham's Rebellion". In my opinion, it was
*that* which, upon his discovery of it, that caused Richard's well-known
outburst against Buckingham as "that most unfaithful creature".

Yes. I wonder myself whether the More version of the boys' supposed murder
is a garbled version of genuine gossip which he picked up. It would make
perfect sense if *Buckingham* tried to get access to the boys, Brackenbury
distrusted him and sent a message to Richard on his progress, asking if this
was OK, and Richard then sent Tyrrell to London to remove the boys to a
place of greater safety.

"hli4" wrote:
>
> So here is an alternative to traditional story of the princes in the tower.
> - The princes were moved from the tower of London to James Tyrrell's care in late 1483. Their mother, the queen Elizabeth Woodville knew this. She came out of the sanctuary in March 1484, and asked her other son Thomas Grey to come back to England, so she knew or believed, at this time, Richard III didn't kill the princes. Both of the princes were alive after Bosworth in 1485.
> - In 1486, Henry Tudor ordered James Tyrrell to kill the princes. He pardoned James twice, before and after the murders. Tudor also had a son and heir, Arthur, in 1486. Tyrrell, however, let both princes or at least the younger boy, Richard, escape. Tyrrell was kept abroad after this.
> - In 1487 Elizabeth Woodville found out about the princes were missing possibly dead, suspected Henry Tudor. They had a falling out. She was stripped off her land and send to the convent.
> - In 1490 – 1499 Perkin Warbeck / Richard Duke of York appeared. Most European courts accepts him as Richard, even Henry Tudor suspected he was the prince, not a pretender. Warbeck's confession was obtained under duress. Even William Stanley, whose betrayal of Richard III caused the Richard III's death, believed Perkin was Richard Duke of York. William Stanley was executed for it in 1495. Since William Stanley's brother Thomas Stanley was high constable of England since 1483, so he should have knowledge of what happened to the princes. If William Stanley didn't believe the princes were killed during Richard III reign, then it is likely they were not.
> - 1501 James Tyrrell was arrested for treason for aiding Edmund de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk. He allegedly gave a confession for killing the princes at Richard III's order. The facts that 1) Tyrrell didn't know where the bodies were, and 2) his supposed co-conspirators were not punished by Tudor, make the story of the confession very suspicious. 1502 Tyrrell was beheaded. It was more likely for not carrying out the state murders ordered by Tudor in 1486, then for aiding Edmund in 1501. The story of the princes was killed by Richard III, shifted the blame to Richard instead of Tudor, and discredited Richard Duke of York at the same time.
>
Carol responds:

The problem with this scenario is that Tyrrell never confessed to any such crime. The people named in More's imaginative scenario were as far as is known staunch Yorkists (supporters of Richard, not Henry) and were not the same as the servant and son arrested with him (the son having been too young to have participated in the murder or murders in either 1485 or 1487). The second general pardon can be otherwise explained and is probably not important. Also, at the time of Warbeck's rebellion, Henry provided an epitaph for Richard's tomb that treated him as a legitimate king, neither usurper nor murderer. The rumors about Tyrrell were apparently leaked later, about two years after Warbeck's confession and after Tyrrell's own execution for aiding another Yorkist pretender (which he would hardly have done if he were loyal to Henry and had killed the "princes" for him). Also, this explanation ignores the roles of Margaret of York and Edward Brampton, both loyal to Richard, and the secret correspondence between Richard and Margaret in the year or so before Bosworth. there's also the very large reward by Richard to Tyrell for some unspecified service before 1484, probably spiriting the boys out of the country.

So I would agree with your scenario up to Bosworth except that I think the boys were already in Burgundy with Margaret (or in the keeping of one her agents, probably Brampton) at the time of Bosworth. What happened to the older boy is unclear (died of illness, drowned in the crossing, killed at Stoke?), but it seems clear that the younger one survived.

Interestingly, neither John of Lincoln nor Viscount Lovell supported his cause. Their candidate (and Margaret's at the time) was the Earl of Warwick--an indication that they considered the illegitimacy declared in Titulus Regius, even though it had been reversed, a more serious bar to the throne than young Warwick's attainder for his father's treason. (I'm assuming, of course, that all of Richard's nephews were alive.)

There are other complications, but I won't mention them here. I'm just saying that I don't think Sir James Tyrell murdered any of Edward's sons for either Richard (to whom he was genuinely loyal) or Henry (with whom he came to terms while remaining Yorkist at heart).

All just my own opinion, of course, but you may be interested in previous threads on this topic if you haven't read them.

Carol

Claire wrote:
> [snip] The only thing I can think of offhand against Richard having sent the boys abroad is that he didn't send young Warwick - but if George really did try to substitute another child for his son that suggests there was something physically or mentally odd about the boy which made him an obviously unsuitable heir, so Richard may have thought the poor boy was no threat to anybody and therefore not in any danger, if his main motive was to ensure the boys' safety. If his main motive was to remove a possible focus for rebellion and let his sister deal with it instead, then again Warwick would seem less of a threat than Edward's boys and so less in need of removal.

Carol responds:

The young earl of Warwick was definitely less of a focus for rebellion. No one seems to have thought of him (except Henry, taking precautionary measures after Bosworth) until the Simnel affair, and that was planned by Yorkists who had been loyal to Richard. I don't think we need to assume anything wrong with little Warwick (aside from age--Titulus Regius made it clear that the Three Estates/ Parliament didn't want a child as king). He was in the custody, at first, of his Aunt Anne (Richard's queen), who would certainly treat him well, and later, after the failed attempt to "rescue" the "princes," under the protection of his older cousin, the Earl of Lincoln in the North where Warwick's heir would have been treated with respect and consideration. Once the rumors had been planted regarding the supposed deaths of the "princes," the focus of the rebellion turned to Henry Tudor, with the Yorkists pacified by promises that Tudor would marry "Princess" Elizabeth, so little Warwick was even less a focus of rebellion. As long as Richard lived, he was in no danger. When Henry took over, it was, of course, another matter altogether.

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > >

> > [snip] It is possible Henry Tudor didn't know, initially, what happened to the princes. Elizabeth Woodville, knowing the political realities, and her boys being not ready to challenge Tudor, was not likely to volunteer their whereabouts. Tudor may later found out the boys being alive and their connection with James Tyrrell. Even then Tudor may have hesitated to kill them. But after Elizabeth of York was pregnant, to protect his dynastic interests, he ordered them killed.

Eileen replied:

> This is a scenario that could possibly be correct.....Eileen

Carol responds:

Except that the first general pardon was June 16, 1486, and the second July 16, 1486, indicating (according to Clements Markham and those who believe his theory) that the boys were killed somewhere between those two dates. But Prince Arthur wasn't born until September 1486, at which time Henry couldn't know whether EoY's pregnancy would go full term or whether the child would be a boy.

I've already given other reasons why I doubt that Sir James Tyrell, after protecting the boys from the Tudor for Richard, would turn around and kill them for him two years after he had taken them to Gipping and then aided in getting them to Burgundy (the theory that fits with his reward and Richard's correspondence with Margaret).

I agree that Henry's behavior indicates that he didn't know what became of the boys--even after the execution of Perkin Warbeck and poor Warwick. But since other heads of state thought that Perkin was the real Richard Duke of York, it was safe for Henry to turn his attention to the de la Poles (who, it would seem, thought the same thing)--whether or not one or more "princes" was alive and hiding incognito.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the
tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York


"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > >

> > [snip] It is possible Henry Tudor didn't know, initially, what happened
> > to the princes.

Wasn't me, honest! It was hli4.

> Except that the first general pardon was June 16, 1486, and the second
> July 16, 1486,

This sounds to me more like one pardon, and a clerical error in writing it
up, since both months beging "Ju". Somebody probably misread somebody
else's rough notes.

> I've already given other reasons why I doubt that Sir James Tyrell, after
> protecting the boys from the Tudor for Richard, would turn around and kill
> them for him two years

As I understand it she(?) wasn't saying he did - she was saying Henry
ordered him to but he didn't do it. I think.

> I agree that Henry's behavior indicates that he didn't know what became of
> the boys

Now *that* was me :)

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the
tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York


> I don't think we need to assume anything wrong with little Warwick

If there wasn't something wrong with him, though, why would George have
tried to swap him for another child (or at least have been believed to have
tried to do so) - and why would doing so have been considered a treasonable
act against Edward, unless swapping him for another child would improve
George's chances as a candidate by making it appear that he had a more
viable heir than he had had before?

Great news about your eye btw.

> Carol responds:
>
> The problem with this scenario is that Tyrrell never confessed to any such crime.

I don't know if Tyrrell confessed either. I stated "He allegedly gave a confession" in my original post for the topic.

Please forgive me for being stupid but here are a few of questions I have been pondering upon:
1. When exactly did the rumor about the princes execution started? Where did it originate and can we identify the source? Did R know that such allegations were being heaped on him? Did he take any steps towards denying those charges?
2. Why did people in general started to believe it ?
3. Why did the Yorkists start to support HT rather than stick with Richard?
4. Why did Richard's support diminish? He was known to be a good administrator and a valiant soldier. Was feted in London after the Scottish campaign. We would think he would have mass support. But it "seems" , if we are believe the chroniclers, that the support for him slipped away.......
Thanks in advance for not laughing at me:)

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

On Apr 24, 2013, at 2:30 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 7:04 PM
> Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the
> tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York
>
> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > > >
>
> > > [snip] It is possible Henry Tudor didn't know, initially, what happened
> > > to the princes.
>
> Wasn't me, honest! It was hli4.
>
> > Except that the first general pardon was June 16, 1486, and the second
> > July 16, 1486,
>
> This sounds to me more like one pardon, and a clerical error in writing it
> up, since both months beging "Ju". Somebody probably misread somebody
> else's rough notes.
>
> > I've already given other reasons why I doubt that Sir James Tyrell, after
> > protecting the boys from the Tudor for Richard, would turn around and kill
> > them for him two years
>
> As I understand it she(?) wasn't saying he did - she was saying Henry
> ordered him to but he didn't do it. I think.
>
> > I agree that Henry's behavior indicates that he didn't know what became of
> > the boys
>
> Now *that* was me :)
>
>

-
>
> > > [snip] It is possible Henry Tudor didn't know, initially, what happened
> > > to the princes.
>
> Wasn't me, honest! It was hli4.

Yes, it was me, hli4

> > I've already given other reasons why I doubt that Sir James Tyrell, after
> > protecting the boys from the Tudor for Richard, would turn around and kill
> > them for him two years
>
> As I understand it she(?) wasn't saying he did - she was saying Henry
> ordered him to but he didn't do it. I think.

Yes, I said Henry Tudor ordered James Tyrrell to murder the princes, but he didn't do it. I speculate, Henry was on to James after Richard / Perkin turned up, and executed James with some other charge in 1502. Thanks, Claire for helping me to make this clearer.

khafara@... wrote:
.
>
> [snip] (By the way -- and I apologize if this has already been discussed to death -- JAH says that it was only with the "confession" of James Tyrell -- conveniently made public only after Tyrell was dead -- that the Richard-offed-his-nephews rumor first was noised about. [snip]

Carol responds:

Oh, dear. Someone needs to tell J A-H that there was no confession, public or otherwise, as Susan Leas conclusively demonstrated in her article "As the King Gave Out" (in our Files). There may well have been a deliberately circulated *rumor* (we all know that Tudor used that tactic). But the confession was More's invention, with Francis Bacon compounding the problem by supposing that More's fable was based on the information that "the king gave out" in the supposedly published confession. Bacon seems to have realized that More's story was considerably more detailed than most confessions and that some of its details (such as the supposed murderer Dighton being left at large to spread the tale) were somewhat more than improbable, but nevertheless, he treated the confession and Henry's publication of it as real events, with subsequent biographers accepting his version of events unquestioningly.

Sigh. No wonder it's so hard to find the truth about Richard if we can't even find the truth about Henry and Tyrell--at least not in biographies and other widely distributed works.

Carol

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the
tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York


> 4. Why did Richard's support diminish? He was known to be a good
> administrator and a valiant soldier. Was feted in London after the
> Scottish campaign. We would think he would have mass support. But it
> "seems" , if we are believe the chroniclers, that the support for him
> slipped away.......

*Did* it diminish? One of the contemporary or near-contemporary sources - I
forget who - said of Richard's army something to the effect that never
before had so many people been massed together in support of a single man.

I've always underwstood that Richard lost the battle because of geography -
Henry advanced through Wales, his territory of greatest support, gathering
forces to him as he went, whereas Richard had to send north for the bulk of
his army and they didn't get there in time.

From: hli4
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the
tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York


> Carol responds:
>
> > The problem with this scenario is that Tyrrell never confessed to any
> > such crime.

> I don't know if Tyrrell confessed either. I stated "He allegedly gave a
> confession" in my original post for the topic.

He *might* have done - it depends what his motivation was. If he wanted to
put one of the boys on the throne then no, he wouldn't "confess". But if he
was convinced they were bastards and shouldn't rule, or knew that they
didn't *want* to rule - and assuming that at least one was still alive - and
his motivation was just to preserve their lives, what better way to protect
them than to muddy the waters by claiming they were already dead?

Carol earlier:
> >
> > The problem with this scenario is that Tyrrell never confessed to any such crime.

Hli4 responded:
> I don't know if Tyrrell confessed either. I stated "He allegedly gave a confession" in my original post for the topic.

Carol again:

I thought that you were saying that J A-H made the remark about the alleged confession. The problem is that there really was no such confession despite it's being stated as a fact or probability by so many authors. I was just surprised (and dismayed) to find J A-H among them. Someone who sees him at a conference should call his attention to the Susan Leas article.

Thanks to everyone who expressed good wishes regarding my eye. I still can't believe that my eyesight (though still not 20/20) is so much better only two days after the operation. When I can stop using eye drops nine times a day it will probably be better still.

Carol

Carol, that is wonderful. I have heard similar stories from two other friends. Those of us 60 and over will all probably have cataracts. Unfortunately, they have to grow pretty badly before an eye surgeon will remove them. This must have been terrible for you, as an artist. I had no idea, but am so happy you are better.

On Apr 24, 2013, at 4:53 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Carol earlier:
> >
> > The problem with this scenario is that Tyrrell never confessed to any such crime.

Hli4 responded:
> I don't know if Tyrrell confessed either. I stated "He allegedly gave a confession" in my original post for the topic.

Carol again:

I thought that you were saying that J A-H made the remark about the alleged confession. The problem is that there really was no such confession despite it's being stated as a fact or probability by so many authors. I was just surprised (and dismayed) to find J A-H among them. Someone who sees him at a conference should call his attention to the Susan Leas article.

Thanks to everyone who expressed good wishes regarding my eye. I still can't believe that my eyesight (though still not 20/20) is so much better only two days after the operation. When I can stop using eye drops nine times a day it will probably be better still.

Carol

I can only say ditto to both - glad to hear of the good result & having
other friends who have been back "to work" on their passions quite soon
afterwards.

A J


On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 4:52 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Carol earlier:
>
> > >
> > > The problem with this scenario is that Tyrrell never confessed to any
> such crime.
>
> Hli4 responded:
> > I don't know if Tyrrell confessed either. I stated "He allegedly gave a
> confession" in my original post for the topic.
>
> Carol again:
>
> I thought that you were saying that J A-H made the remark about the
> alleged confession. The problem is that there really was no such confession
> despite it's being stated as a fact or probability by so many authors. I
> was just surprised (and dismayed) to find J A-H among them. Someone who
> sees him at a conference should call his attention to the Susan Leas
> article.
>
> Thanks to everyone who expressed good wishes regarding my eye. I still
> can't believe that my eyesight (though still not 20/20) is so much better
> only two days after the operation. When I can stop using eye drops nine
> times a day it will probably be better still.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
>[snip] here are a few of questions I have been pondering upon:
> 1. When exactly did the rumor about the princes execution started? Where did it originate and can we identify the source? Did R know that such allegations were being heaped on him? Did he take any steps towards denying those charges?
> 2. Why did people in general started to believe it ?
> 3. Why did the Yorkists start to support HT rather than stick with Richard?
> 4. Why did Richard's support diminish? He was known to be a good administrator and a valiant soldier. Was feted in London after the Scottish campaign. We would think he would have mass support. But it "seems" , if we are believe the chroniclers, that the support for him slipped away.......
> Thanks in advance for not laughing at me:)

Carol responds:

Hi, Ishita. We'd never laugh at you, but I do highly recommend that you grit your teeth and read the portion of the Croyland chronicle that deals with Richard. That way, you'll at least know what a reasonably but not perfectly informed enemy said about him while he was still alive (and you can try to find the facts under the bias and distortions). You can find a modern English version here. Unless you're interested in Edward IV or Henry Tudor, you would only need to read Parts VII and VII and the first part of Part IX (to Bosworth and a little after), bearing in mind that his account of the "angelic" Tudor charging Richard is belied by every other account of Bosworth.

To try to answer your questions one at a time:

1) The rumor that Edward's sons had been murdered did not start until November, 1483, shortly before Buckingham's Rebellion. Here's what the Croyland chronicler (continuator) says: "At last, it was determined by the people in the vicinity of the city of London, throughout the counties of Kent, Essex, Sussex, Hampshire, Dorsetshire, Devonshire, Somersetshire, Wiltshire, and Berkshire, as well as some others of the southern counties of the kingdom, to avenge their grievances before-stated; upon which, public proclamation was made, that Henry, duke of Buckingham, who at this time was living at Brecknock in Wales, had repented of his former conduct, and would be the chief mover in this attempt, while a rumour was spread that the sons of king Edwrd before-named had died a violent death, but it was uncertain how."

Though we can't specifically identify the source, the timing and context of the rumor suggest that it was (deliberately) spread by the Tudor faction to change the focus of the dissident Yorkists from reinstating Edward V to supporting Henry Tudor (who is mentioned in the next sentence). A similar rumor arose in France after the Tudor supporters arrived there. It does not appear that the rumor was widespread or that anyone heard it at that time other than the rebels in Kent and other southern counties, though they no doubt spread it after the rebellion failed. Richard took no steps to deny that charge, either because he didn't know of it or because he wanted the whereabouts of the boys to remain mysterious even if doing so hurt his reputation.

2) I don't know why people in general started to believe it, but I can guess. Richard had died in battle, which many people would have viewed as the judgment of God against the "usurper," and certainly the rumor that the boys were dead would spread after Henry became king. Richard's supporters could do nothing except write moving tributes to him in the York public records, organize abortive rebellions, or flee to Burgundy. Henry, meanwhile, had Titulus Regius repealed and burned unread, so that Richard's claim to the throne was no longer available for those with the desire to do so to read. Henry also at this time routinely referred to Richard as "the usurper" and even attainted him as a traitor to his true king (Henry!), referring in a very general list of "crimes" against "king" and country to "the shedding of infants' blood" (he didn't dare state directly that Richard had killed Edward V and his brother because he didn't know their fate). Once people saw that Henry, despite his shaky claim, was likely to keep his throne and ruthlessly punish his enemies (and also once he had pacified the non-Ricardian Yorkists by marrying EoY), the stories about Richard began to spread. Rous started the idea that Richard was a monster born and the legend took off from there.

3) Not all the Yorkists started to support Henry Tudor rather than Richard. The Woodville supporters and some others who had prospered under Edward IV wanted to reinstate Edward V. The rumor that the boys were dead deflected them from that aim, but it took Henry's promise to marry Elizabeth of York (whom this group regarded as legitimate) to deflect them to Henry's side. Richard attainted and then pardoned about a hundred men (someone else can supply the exact figure) after he had executed Buckingham, St. Leger, and a few others, but he didn't capture Sir Edward Woodville, Morton, Bray, and other really important traitors, who had returned to the Continent. Meanwhile, the Yorkist malcontents, who needless to say didn't get their jobs back, continued to support Tudor. Many other people, especially in the North and the Midlands, continued to support Richard. If I'm not mistaken, the merchants and clergy (with the exception of some diehard Lancastrians) also supported him. When we talk about dissident Yorkists, we're talking about a few hundred men. Henry's other supporters were either diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, hired mercenaries from France, or the followers of a Welsh traitor who had been bribed by Henry to break his promise to Richard.

4) Richard's support didn't diminish--unless you count the disloyalty of Sir William Stanley and the uncertain allegiance of Lord Stanley (who had a foot in both camps and whose chief motive was self-interest) or Northumberland (who may have just lost his wife and may simply have been in the wrong place to support Richard's unexpected charge). The troops from plague-ravaged York didn't even have time to arrive. But Richard still had a very large army, and if Northumberland had come in on his side (as his Northern followers may well have expected him to do), he would certainly have won the battle. (Northumberland's murder shows how they felt about his nonparticipation.)

Although the Croyland chronicler (who wasn't there!) claims that Richard's soldiers and officers (including the already dead Norfolk) either fled the field or threw down their arms and willingly surrendered after Richard's death, the body count tells a different story. Almost all the notable dead (including those mentioned by the chronicler) were on Richard's side. And if some common soldiers did flee, it was only because the cause was lost. The king they had expected to triumph was dead.

The chronicler's summary is worth quoting since it combines a splendid tribute to Richard with a horrendous libel against the men who died fighting for him:

"For while fighting, and not in the act of flight, the said king Richard was pierced with numerous deadly wounds, and fell in the field like a brave and most valiant prince; upon which, the duke of Norfolk (2), before-mentioned, Sir Richard Ratclyffe, Sir Robert Brackenbury, keeper of the Tower of London, John Kendall, secretary, Sir Robert Percy, controller of the king's household, and Walter Devereux, lord Ferrers, as well as many others, chiefly from the north, in whom king Richard put the greatest condifence, took flight without engaging; and there was left no part of the opposing army of sufficient importance or ability for the glorious conqueror Henry the Seventh to engage, and so add to his experience in battle."

As Kendall says, the chronicler is at his least trustworthy here.

Hope this is helpful.

Carol

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 6:30 PM
> Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the
> tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York
>
>
> > I don't think we need to assume anything wrong with little Warwick
>
> If there wasn't something wrong with him, though, why would George have
> tried to swap him for another child (or at least have been believed to have
> tried to do so) - and why would doing so have been considered a treasonable
> act against Edward, unless swapping him for another child would improve
> George's chances as a candidate by making it appear that he had a more
> viable heir than he had had before?
>
> Great news about your eye btw.
>


Hi all,

Only briefly back I'm afraid. Clarence almost certainly didn't try to swap his son because there was "something wrong with him". Had there been anything amiss with his intelligence the crown could - and should - have taken his lands into permanent administration. Instead, documents concerning those lands - up to the time when HVII regranted them to his grandmother then persuaded her to donate them to himself - clearly state that they are in the king's hands merely by virtue of Warwick's minority.
The reasons the imprisoned* Clarence might have tried to smuggle him abroad are very simple:
1) Clarence had, remember, had people executed for poisoning his wife and one of his children, and had accused the King of poisoning so it is pretty clear who he thought had been behind the deaths of Isabel and baby Richard. Edward was in the process of taking control of Clarence's property and his remaining children,so Clarence may hjave been trying to save Warwick from the same fate that he believed had befallen his wife and younger son.
2) Little Warwick could, in the short term, have been used as a figurehead for raising troops against Edward in the country to which he was to have been sent (either France or the Low Countries, according to the Act of Attainder). In the much longer term he could, once grown to adulthood, have raised an army in person to challenge Edward for his throne.
In a nutshell, the doomed Clarence was attempting to save his dynasty.
* The Act of Attainder clearly states that this was something Clarence had only recently attempted.
Best, Marie

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Carol, that is wonderful. I have heard similar stories from two other friends. Those of us 60 and over will all probably have cataracts. Unfortunately, they have to grow pretty badly before an eye surgeon will remove them. This must have been terrible for you, as an artist. I had no idea, but am so happy you are better.

Carol responds:

Actually, my cataract wasn't all that fully developed, but since it interfered with my driving, the doctor thought I'd better have it removed now. My color vision wasn't affected yet (nothing looked faded), but I had problems with blurring, double or triple vision, and glare. I think you have me mixed up with the other Carol--she's the artist; I'm a freelance copyeditor.

Carol

marie walsh wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Only briefly back I'm afraid. Clarence almost certainly didn't try to swap his son because there was "something wrong with him". Had there been anything amiss with his intelligence the crown could - and should - have taken his lands into permanent administration. [snip]
> In a nutshell, the doomed Clarence was attempting to save his dynasty.
> * The Act of Attainder clearly states that this was something Clarence had only recently attempted.

Carol responds:

Hi, Marie. Glad you're back, if only briefly, especially since you're the perfect person to answer this question. How are the "feigned boys" coming?

Carol

Carol, Than you so much!!
It helps tremendously!
And yup, I will grit my teeth and get down and dirty with Croyland ! Again, thanks.

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

On Apr 24, 2013, at 6:52 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
>
> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> >[snip] here are a few of questions I have been pondering upon:
> > 1. When exactly did the rumor about the princes execution started? Where did it originate and can we identify the source? Did R know that such allegations were being heaped on him? Did he take any steps towards denying those charges?
> > 2. Why did people in general started to believe it ?
> > 3. Why did the Yorkists start to support HT rather than stick with Richard?
> > 4. Why did Richard's support diminish? He was known to be a good administrator and a valiant soldier. Was feted in London after the Scottish campaign. We would think he would have mass support. But it "seems" , if we are believe the chroniclers, that the support for him slipped away.......
> > Thanks in advance for not laughing at me:)
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Ishita. We'd never laugh at you, but I do highly recommend that you grit your teeth and read the portion of the Croyland chronicle that deals with Richard. That way, you'll at least know what a reasonably but not perfectly informed enemy said about him while he was still alive (and you can try to find the facts under the bias and distortions). You can find a modern English version here. Unless you're interested in Edward IV or Henry Tudor, you would only need to read Parts VII and VII and the first part of Part IX (to Bosworth and a little after), bearing in mind that his account of the "angelic" Tudor charging Richard is belied by every other account of Bosworth.
>
> To try to answer your questions one at a time:
>
> 1) The rumor that Edward's sons had been murdered did not start until November, 1483, shortly before Buckingham's Rebellion. Here's what the Croyland chronicler (continuator) says: "At last, it was determined by the people in the vicinity of the city of London, throughout the counties of Kent, Essex, Sussex, Hampshire, Dorsetshire, Devonshire, Somersetshire, Wiltshire, and Berkshire, as well as some others of the southern counties of the kingdom, to avenge their grievances before-stated; upon which, public proclamation was made, that Henry, duke of Buckingham, who at this time was living at Brecknock in Wales, had repented of his former conduct, and would be the chief mover in this attempt, while a rumour was spread that the sons of king Edwrd before-named had died a violent death, but it was uncertain how."
>
> Though we can't specifically identify the source, the timing and context of the rumor suggest that it was (deliberately) spread by the Tudor faction to change the focus of the dissident Yorkists from reinstating Edward V to supporting Henry Tudor (who is mentioned in the next sentence). A similar rumor arose in France after the Tudor supporters arrived there. It does not appear that the rumor was widespread or that anyone heard it at that time other than the rebels in Kent and other southern counties, though they no doubt spread it after the rebellion failed. Richard took no steps to deny that charge, either because he didn't know of it or because he wanted the whereabouts of the boys to remain mysterious even if doing so hurt his reputation.
>
> 2) I don't know why people in general started to believe it, but I can guess. Richard had died in battle, which many people would have viewed as the judgment of God against the "usurper," and certainly the rumor that the boys were dead would spread after Henry became king. Richard's supporters could do nothing except write moving tributes to him in the York public records, organize abortive rebellions, or flee to Burgundy. Henry, meanwhile, had Titulus Regius repealed and burned unread, so that Richard's claim to the throne was no longer available for those with the desire to do so to read. Henry also at this time routinely referred to Richard as "the usurper" and even attainted him as a traitor to his true king (Henry!), referring in a very general list of "crimes" against "king" and country to "the shedding of infants' blood" (he didn't dare state directly that Richard had killed Edward V and his brother because he didn't know their fate). Once people saw that Henry, despite his shaky claim, was likely to keep his throne and ruthlessly punish his enemies (and also once he had pacified the non-Ricardian Yorkists by marrying EoY), the stories about Richard began to spread. Rous started the idea that Richard was a monster born and the legend took off from there.
>
> 3) Not all the Yorkists started to support Henry Tudor rather than Richard. The Woodville supporters and some others who had prospered under Edward IV wanted to reinstate Edward V. The rumor that the boys were dead deflected them from that aim, but it took Henry's promise to marry Elizabeth of York (whom this group regarded as legitimate) to deflect them to Henry's side. Richard attainted and then pardoned about a hundred men (someone else can supply the exact figure) after he had executed Buckingham, St. Leger, and a few others, but he didn't capture Sir Edward Woodville, Morton, Bray, and other really important traitors, who had returned to the Continent. Meanwhile, the Yorkist malcontents, who needless to say didn't get their jobs back, continued to support Tudor. Many other people, especially in the North and the Midlands, continued to support Richard. If I'm not mistaken, the merchants and clergy (with the exception of some diehard Lancastrians) also supported him. When we talk about dissident Yorkists, we're talking about a few hundred men. Henry's other supporters were either diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, hired mercenaries from France, or the followers of a Welsh traitor who had been bribed by Henry to break his promise to Richard.
>
> 4) Richard's support didn't diminish--unless you count the disloyalty of Sir William Stanley and the uncertain allegiance of Lord Stanley (who had a foot in both camps and whose chief motive was self-interest) or Northumberland (who may have just lost his wife and may simply have been in the wrong place to support Richard's unexpected charge). The troops from plague-ravaged York didn't even have time to arrive. But Richard still had a very large army, and if Northumberland had come in on his side (as his Northern followers may well have expected him to do), he would certainly have won the battle. (Northumberland's murder shows how they felt about his nonparticipation.)
>
> Although the Croyland chronicler (who wasn't there!) claims that Richard's soldiers and officers (including the already dead Norfolk) either fled the field or threw down their arms and willingly surrendered after Richard's death, the body count tells a different story. Almost all the notable dead (including those mentioned by the chronicler) were on Richard's side. And if some common soldiers did flee, it was only because the cause was lost. The king they had expected to triumph was dead.
>
> The chronicler's summary is worth quoting since it combines a splendid tribute to Richard with a horrendous libel against the men who died fighting for him:
>
> "For while fighting, and not in the act of flight, the said king Richard was pierced with numerous deadly wounds, and fell in the field like a brave and most valiant prince; upon which, the duke of Norfolk (2), before-mentioned, Sir Richard Ratclyffe, Sir Robert Brackenbury, keeper of the Tower of London, John Kendall, secretary, Sir Robert Percy, controller of the king's household, and Walter Devereux, lord Ferrers, as well as many others, chiefly from the north, in whom king Richard put the greatest condifence, took flight without engaging; and there was left no part of the opposing army of sufficient importance or ability for the glorious conqueror Henry the Seventh to engage, and so add to his experience in battle."
>
> As Kendall says, the chronicler is at his least trustworthy here.
>
> Hope this is helpful.
>
> Carol
>
>

Oops, yes, I did mix up the two of you.

On Apr 24, 2013, at 7:18 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:




Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Carol, that is wonderful. I have heard similar stories from two other friends. Those of us 60 and over will all probably have cataracts. Unfortunately, they have to grow pretty badly before an eye surgeon will remove them. This must have been terrible for you, as an artist. I had no idea, but am so happy you are better.

Carol responds:

Actually, my cataract wasn't all that fully developed, but since it interfered with my driving, the doctor thought I'd better have it removed now. My color vision wasn't affected yet (nothing looked faded), but I had problems with blurring, double or triple vision, and glare. I think you have me mixed up with the other Carol--she's the artist; I'm a freelance copyeditor.

Carol

I may be showing my ignorance again here, but on the NPG portrait there is a
short crease/scar on Richard's forehead, between the eyebrows. It passes
from bottom left to top right as one looks at the portrait. Is it a scar? A
natural crease? A blemish on the painting itself? Does anyone know? I cannot
see it on the 'earliest surviving' portrait, in which Richard wears gold.
There is a crease of some sort, but not as definite and slanting as the one
on the NPG likeness. The missing segment of the small finger of his right
hand, the one he holds the ring to, seems to be confirmed by his skeleton.
That at least I can see for myself! But the forehead scar/whatever puzzles
me.

Sandra

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:39 AM
Subject: Richard's National Portrait Gallery
likeness


> I may be showing my ignorance again here, but on the NPG portrait there is
> a
short crease/scar on Richard's forehead, between the eyebrows. It passes
from bottom left to top right as one looks at the portrait. Is it a scar? A
natural crease? A blemish on the painting itself? Does anyone know?

The National Portrait Gallery website lets you magnify small sections of the
portrait to a very high magnification, and some years ago I laboriously
worked my way over it magnifying it as far as it would go and then stitching
the individuqal magnified sections back together using PrintScreen and
ImageFolio. So I can say with confidence it's not a blemish in the painting
as it stands - although of course the NPG portrait is believed to be a copy
from a lost original, so it's possible there ws a blemish on the *original*
and the copyist has misinterpeted it and painted it in as a wrinkle.

If you look closely, you'll see there's a curved wrinkle next to that
slanting groove, defining the shape of his right browm but there isn't one
on his left. It's possible, just about, that this is true to life. Some
people are more mobile on one side of their face than the other and it's
possible he was in the habit of raising his right eyebrow sardonically,
enough to generate a wrinkle, but not the left one.

Or he got fed up with sitting still and wandered off to do something else
before the artist had finished drawing in all the lines around his eyes....

> The missing segment of the small finger of his right hand, the one he
> holds the ring to, seems to be confirmed by his skeleton.

Yes. Not only is his right little finger in his skeleton the only finger
which is missing more than just the nail phalanx, but the phalanx which
remains has a slightly wasted - and waisted - look, suggesting that it
hadn't had to do much work for a long time. This is consistent with his
having lost half his finger in battle somewhere, as opposed to it having
gone missing in the grave.

The version of the standard portrait which is in the Royal Collection shows
a nail on that unusually short finger, suggesting deformity rather than
injury - but it too is a copy from a lost original, plus it's been forkled
about with after the event, so the copyist may just have misunderstood what
they were looking at. The NPG one definitely looks like a nailless stump -
especially as his left little finger is shown as quite long.

Hi Carol, I'm also very happy to hear about your successful cataract
treatment, and hope you can get to the other eye soon. My mother had
cataract surgery, too, in conjunction with other eye problems and it turned
out very well.

I can actually swing this into the fifteenth century, and will take a small
detour through the nineteenth century:

Mr. Bronte (another man unfairly shafted in the public view) also suffered
from cataracts. Charlotte took him to Manchester in, it must have been,
1844. The removal of the cataracts was painful, prolonged and done without
anesthetic. Charlotte said she was amazed at how her father took it.
Afterward, he had to stay in a quiet, dark room for many days, eyes
bandaged. Charlotte, suffering from toothache, and sitting in the room
with him, and with nothing else to do, started scribbling. The scribbling
was the start of _Jane Eyre_.

Moving back through time, we come upon Juan II of Aragon, father of
Fernando, also completely blind from cataracts come the year 1469. At this
point, he needed his eyesight desperately because Isabel the Catholic had,
under threat of arrest by half-brother Enrique, jumped ship to Valladolid
and was anxiously waiting for Fernando to come quick and marry her. It was
a politically complicated deal, which included the necessity of a forged
Papal Dispensation, and so Juan, then in his late sixties or early
seventies, subjected himself to a cataract operation, again without
anesthetic. The surgeon was a Jewish gentleman. Juan felt better
afterward, directed the forged dispensation, and sent Fernando on the
dangerous journey. (The journey was so dangerous that Fernando crossed the
border, with three or four companions, disguised as a mule-driver. The
gate-keeper at Valladolid thought he was selling something and threw a rock
at him).

Maria
ejbronte@...


On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 8:18 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Carol, that is wonderful. I have heard similar stories from two other
> friends. Those of us 60 and over will all probably have cataracts.
> Unfortunately, they have to grow pretty badly before an eye surgeon will
> remove them. This must have been terrible for you, as an artist. I had no
> idea, but am so happy you are better.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Actually, my cataract wasn't all that fully developed, but since it
> interfered with my driving, the doctor thought I'd better have it removed
> now. My color vision wasn't affected yet (nothing looked faded), but I had
> problems with blurring, double or triple vision, and glare. I think you
> have me mixed up with the other Carol--she's the artist; I'm a freelance
> copyeditor.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

Thank you, Claire. It's all so fascinating. Who would have thought even last year that we would now be able to know so much more about Richard? It's almost as if we'll suddenly wake up and found we had a collective dream! When I first became interested in Richard, back in about 1969, there was much more guesswork than now. But he still grabbed' me. And suddenly we have his actual skeleton to tell us so much. It brings us so unbelievably close to him. I regret having deserted the 12th-15th centuries for decades of writing over sixty Regency-set novels for UK and US publishers, but I'm back now and loving every minute of it. I don't know exactly what it is about Richard III that fires people up so much, but he certainly does. He fires hearts or raises hackles. Writing about him again has brought me home to the earlier period that is my first love. I am not a historian, just an enthusiastic writer, hence my many dumb questions. I think the forum is splendid, as are its members, and I'm proud to be part of it.
Sandra
From: Claire M Jordan
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:12 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's National Portrait Gallery likeness

From: SandraMachin
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:39 AM
Subject: Richard's National Portrait Gallery
likeness

> I may be showing my ignorance again here, but on the NPG portrait there is
> a
short crease/scar on Richard's forehead, between the eyebrows. It passes
from bottom left to top right as one looks at the portrait. Is it a scar? A
natural crease? A blemish on the painting itself? Does anyone know?

The National Portrait Gallery website lets you magnify small sections of the
portrait to a very high magnification, and some years ago I laboriously
worked my way over it magnifying it as far as it would go and then stitching
the individuqal magnified sections back together using PrintScreen and
ImageFolio. So I can say with confidence it's not a blemish in the painting
as it stands - although of course the NPG portrait is believed to be a copy
from a lost original, so it's possible there ws a blemish on the *original*
and the copyist has misinterpeted it and painted it in as a wrinkle.

If you look closely, you'll see there's a curved wrinkle next to that
slanting groove, defining the shape of his right browm but there isn't one
on his left. It's possible, just about, that this is true to life. Some
people are more mobile on one side of their face than the other and it's
possible he was in the habit of raising his right eyebrow sardonically,
enough to generate a wrinkle, but not the left one.

Or he got fed up with sitting still and wandered off to do something else
before the artist had finished drawing in all the lines around his eyes....

> The missing segment of the small finger of his right hand, the one he
> holds the ring to, seems to be confirmed by his skeleton.

Yes. Not only is his right little finger in his skeleton the only finger
which is missing more than just the nail phalanx, but the phalanx which
remains has a slightly wasted - and waisted - look, suggesting that it
hadn't had to do much work for a long time. This is consistent with his
having lost half his finger in battle somewhere, as opposed to it having
gone missing in the grave.

The version of the standard portrait which is in the Royal Collection shows
a nail on that unusually short finger, suggesting deformity rather than
injury - but it too is a copy from a lost original, plus it's been forkled
about with after the event, so the copyist may just have misunderstood what
they were looking at. The NPG one definitely looks like a nailless stump -
especially as his left little finger is shown as quite long.

I've wondered too about why so many people still care. In fact, back in
February, a friend of mine who knew nothing about Richard & is very
interested in figuring out the wheels-within-wheels in today's world
actually asked me "who cares." Her next question was can I see anything
similar to Richard's story playing out today. As I've read more about
Richard's accomplishments, he comes across to me very much as what my
husband calls an "even" man. His regulations and laws demonstrate an
interest in treating people equitably. It also strikes me (maybe wrong
about this & would welcome correction) that his supporters didn't number
very many of the "grandees" among them, other than the Duke of Norfolk &
Viscount Lovell - I tend to think of men like the York City council, and
Sir James Tyrell & Sir Edward Brampton for his inner circle. So one way of
looking at Richard's story (& which makes some of us feel passionately
about him) is the conflict between the have's and those who represent the
have-not's. Seems as if that's a story without a beginning or an end,
human nature being what it is.

A J


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:11 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Thank you, Claire. Itýs all so fascinating. Who would have thought even
> last year that we would now be able to know so much more about Richard?
> Itýs almost as if weýll suddenly wake up and found we had a collective
> dream! When I first became interested in Richard, back in about 1969, there
> was much more guesswork than now. But he still ýgrabbedý me. And suddenly
> we have his actual skeleton to tell us so much. It brings us so
> unbelievably close to him. I regret having deserted the 12th-15th centuries
> for decades of writing over sixty Regency-set novels for UK and US
> publishers, but Iým back now and loving every minute of it. I donýt know
> exactly what it is about Richard III that fires people up so much, but he
> certainly does. He fires hearts or raises hackles. Writing about him again
> has brought me home to the earlier period that is my first love. I am not a
> historian, just an enthusiastic writer, hence my many dumb questions. I
> think the forum is splendid, as are its members, and Iým proud to be part
> of it.
> Sandra
> From: Claire M Jordan
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:12 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's National Portrait
> Gallery likeness
>
> From: SandraMachin
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:39 AM
> Subject: Richard's National Portrait Gallery
> likeness
>
> > I may be showing my ignorance again here, but on the NPG portrait there
> is
> > a
> short crease/scar on Richard's forehead, between the eyebrows. It passes
> from bottom left to top right as one looks at the portrait. Is it a scar? A
> natural crease? A blemish on the painting itself? Does anyone know?
>
> The National Portrait Gallery website lets you magnify small sections of
> the
> portrait to a very high magnification, and some years ago I laboriously
> worked my way over it magnifying it as far as it would go and then
> stitching
> the individuqal magnified sections back together using PrintScreen and
> ImageFolio. So I can say with confidence it's not a blemish in the
> painting
> as it stands - although of course the NPG portrait is believed to be a
> copy
> from a lost original, so it's possible there ws a blemish on the
> *original*
> and the copyist has misinterpeted it and painted it in as a wrinkle.
>
> If you look closely, you'll see there's a curved wrinkle next to that
> slanting groove, defining the shape of his right browm but there isn't one
> on his left. It's possible, just about, that this is true to life. Some
> people are more mobile on one side of their face than the other and it's
> possible he was in the habit of raising his right eyebrow sardonically,
> enough to generate a wrinkle, but not the left one.
>
> Or he got fed up with sitting still and wandered off to do something else
> before the artist had finished drawing in all the lines around his eyes....
>
> > The missing segment of the small finger of his right hand, the one he
> > holds the ring to, seems to be confirmed by his skeleton.
>
> Yes. Not only is his right little finger in his skeleton the only finger
> which is missing more than just the nail phalanx, but the phalanx which
> remains has a slightly wasted - and waisted - look, suggesting that it
> hadn't had to do much work for a long time. This is consistent with his
> having lost half his finger in battle somewhere, as opposed to it having
> gone missing in the grave.
>
> The version of the standard portrait which is in the Royal Collection
> shows
> a nail on that unusually short finger, suggesting deformity rather than
> injury - but it too is a copy from a lost original, plus it's been forkled
> about with after the event, so the copyist may just have misunderstood
> what
> they were looking at. The NPG one definitely looks like a nailless stump -
> especially as his left little finger is shown as quite long.
>
>
>
>
>

It is strange, isn't it? We don't rush to defend Richard II or Edward II, whose reputation some might also claim to have been vilified. And what about poor old John?
 
I've just spent the last what, three weeks, digging around the Somerset gentry on the trail of Stillington and what have I found? Lawyers, merchants, wool 'manufacturers' and exporters who we'd recognise today and who probably never got on a horse except to go to a business meeting in Bristol. They did well under Edward, they'd do well under H7, and as long as they kept their heads down making money and subsidising the Church no-one would ever bother them. We'd recognise them today if we bumped into them. 
And then just up the road you get this guy who charges down the hillside to defend his birthright, like some latterday King Arthur, gets killed and gets 'forgotten' or certainly erased.
It's sad, bizarre and very, very unjust, but life is often like that. And he certainly lacked what today we'd call spin doctors.
It's rather nice to think that some 500 year's on we're still attracted to the justice for the common man that he above all championed. Perhaps that's what he had, that the others who suffered a similar fate didn't?  


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 14:28
Subject: Re: Richard's National Portrait Gallery likeness


I've wondered too about why so many people still care.  In fact, back in
February, a friend of mine who knew nothing about Richard & is very
interested in figuring out the wheels-within-wheels in today's world
actually asked me "who cares."  Her next question was can I see anything
similar to Richard's story playing out today.  As I've read more about
Richard's accomplishments, he comes across to me very much as what my
husband calls an "even" man.  His regulations and laws demonstrate an
interest in treating people equitably.  It also strikes me (maybe wrong
about this & would welcome correction) that his supporters didn't number
very many of the "grandees" among them, other than the Duke of Norfolk &
Viscount Lovell - I tend to think of men like the York City council, and
Sir James Tyrell & Sir Edward Brampton for his inner circle. So one way of
looking at Richard's story (& which makes some of us feel passionately
about him) is the conflict between the have's and those who represent the
have-not's.  Seems as if that's a story without a beginning or an end,
human nature being what it is.

A J


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:11 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Thank you, Claire. It's all so fascinating. Who would have thought even
> last year that we would now be able to know so much more about Richard?
> It's almost as if we'll suddenly wake up and found we had a collective
> dream! When I first became interested in Richard, back in about 1969, there
> was much more guesswork than now. But he still grabbed' me. And suddenly
> we have his actual skeleton to tell us so much. It brings us so
> unbelievably close to him. I regret having deserted the 12th-15th centuries
> for decades of writing over sixty Regency-set novels for UK and US
> publishers, but I'm back now and loving every minute of it. I don't know
> exactly what it is about Richard III that fires people up so much, but he
> certainly does. He fires hearts or raises hackles. Writing about him again
> has brought me home to the earlier period that is my first love. I am not a
> historian, just an enthusiastic writer, hence my many dumb questions. I
> think the forum is splendid, as are its members, and I'm proud to be part
> of it.
> Sandra
> From: Claire M Jordan
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:12 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's National Portrait
> Gallery likeness
>
> From: SandraMachin
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:39 AM
> Subject: Richard's National Portrait Gallery
> likeness
>
> > I may be showing my ignorance again here, but on the NPG portrait there
> is
> > a
> short crease/scar on Richard's forehead, between the eyebrows. It passes
> from bottom left to top right as one looks at the portrait. Is it a scar? A
> natural crease? A blemish on the painting itself? Does anyone know?
>
> The National Portrait Gallery website lets you magnify small sections of
> the
> portrait to a very high magnification, and some years ago I laboriously
> worked my way over it magnifying it as far as it would go and then
> stitching
> the individuqal magnified sections back together using PrintScreen and
> ImageFolio. So I can say with confidence it's not a blemish in the
> painting
> as it stands - although of course the NPG portrait is believed to be a
> copy
> from a lost original, so it's possible there ws a blemish on the
> *original*
> and the copyist has misinterpeted it and painted it in as a wrinkle.
>
> If you look closely, you'll see there's a curved wrinkle next to that
> slanting groove, defining the shape of his right browm but there isn't one
> on his left. It's possible, just about, that this is true to life. Some
> people are more mobile on one side of their face than the other and it's
> possible he was in the habit of raising his right eyebrow sardonically,
> enough to generate a wrinkle, but not the left one.
>
> Or he got fed up with sitting still and wandered off to do something else
> before the artist had finished drawing in all the lines around his eyes....
>
> > The missing segment of the small finger of his right hand, the one he
> > holds the ring to, seems to be confirmed by his skeleton.
>
> Yes. Not only is his right little finger in his skeleton the only finger
> which is missing more than just the nail phalanx, but the phalanx which
> remains has a slightly wasted - and waisted - look, suggesting that it
> hadn't had to do much work for a long time. This is consistent with his
> having lost half his finger in battle somewhere, as opposed to it having
> gone missing in the grave.
>
> The version of the standard portrait which is in the Royal Collection
> shows
> a nail on that unusually short finger, suggesting deformity rather than
> injury - but it too is a copy from a lost original, plus it's been forkled
> about with after the event, so the copyist may just have misunderstood
> what
> they were looking at. The NPG one definitely looks like a nailless stump -
> especially as his left little finger is shown as quite long.
>
>
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

To me, Richard was an honourable and honest man who was forced into
situations he did not relish. He did not want the crown, but duty---and
circumstance---left him no choice. He was beset by tragedy and betrayal, and
died young, fighting for what he knew was right. OK, he had faults, not
least that he was a lousy judge of character. He was human, after all, but
those truly close to him were loyal friends, prepared to lay their lives
down for him. There is so very much to admire and appreciate about him that
his failings do not matter, except in as much as they led to his early
death. Oh, and that by going when he did, he lumbered us with the Tudors. If
only he had not made that last charge! But Richard was all valour. No feet
of clay there. Who can resist him? I know I cannot.

Sandra

-----Original Message-----
From: A J Hibbard
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's National Portrait Gallery
likeness

I've wondered too about why so many people still care. In fact, back in
February, a friend of mine who knew nothing about Richard & is very
interested in figuring out the wheels-within-wheels in today's world
actually asked me "who cares." Her next question was can I see anything
similar to Richard's story playing out today. As I've read more about
Richard's accomplishments, he comes across to me very much as what my
husband calls an "even" man. His regulations and laws demonstrate an
interest in treating people equitably. It also strikes me (maybe wrong
about this & would welcome correction) that his supporters didn't number
very many of the "grandees" among them, other than the Duke of Norfolk &
Viscount Lovell - I tend to think of men like the York City council, and
Sir James Tyrell & Sir Edward Brampton for his inner circle. So one way of
looking at Richard's story (& which makes some of us feel passionately
about him) is the conflict between the have's and those who represent the
have-not's. Seems as if that's a story without a beginning or an end,
human nature being what it is.

A J


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:11 AM, SandraMachin
<sandramachin@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Thank you, Claire. It's all so fascinating. Who would have thought even
> last year that we would now be able to know so much more about Richard?
> It's almost as if we'll suddenly wake up and found we had a collective
> dream! When I first became interested in Richard, back in about 1969,
> there
> was much more guesswork than now. But he still grabbed' me. And suddenly
> we have his actual skeleton to tell us so much. It brings us so
> unbelievably close to him. I regret having deserted the 12th-15th
> centuries
> for decades of writing over sixty Regency-set novels for UK and US
> publishers, but I'm back now and loving every minute of it. I don't know
> exactly what it is about Richard III that fires people up so much, but he
> certainly does. He fires hearts or raises hackles. Writing about him again
> has brought me home to the earlier period that is my first love. I am not
> a
> historian, just an enthusiastic writer, hence my many dumb questions. I
> think the forum is splendid, as are its members, and I'm proud to be part
> of it.
> Sandra
> From: Claire M Jordan
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:12 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's National Portrait
> Gallery likeness
>
> From: SandraMachin
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:39 AM
> Subject: Richard's National Portrait Gallery
> likeness
>
> > I may be showing my ignorance again here, but on the NPG portrait there
> is
> > a
> short crease/scar on Richard's forehead, between the eyebrows. It passes
> from bottom left to top right as one looks at the portrait. Is it a scar?
> A
> natural crease? A blemish on the painting itself? Does anyone know?
>
> The National Portrait Gallery website lets you magnify small sections of
> the
> portrait to a very high magnification, and some years ago I laboriously
> worked my way over it magnifying it as far as it would go and then
> stitching
> the individuqal magnified sections back together using PrintScreen and
> ImageFolio. So I can say with confidence it's not a blemish in the
> painting
> as it stands - although of course the NPG portrait is believed to be a
> copy
> from a lost original, so it's possible there ws a blemish on the
> *original*
> and the copyist has misinterpeted it and painted it in as a wrinkle.
>
> If you look closely, you'll see there's a curved wrinkle next to that
> slanting groove, defining the shape of his right browm but there isn't one
> on his left. It's possible, just about, that this is true to life. Some
> people are more mobile on one side of their face than the other and it's
> possible he was in the habit of raising his right eyebrow sardonically,
> enough to generate a wrinkle, but not the left one.
>
> Or he got fed up with sitting still and wandered off to do something else
> before the artist had finished drawing in all the lines around his
> eyes....
>
> > The missing segment of the small finger of his right hand, the one he
> > holds the ring to, seems to be confirmed by his skeleton.
>
> Yes. Not only is his right little finger in his skeleton the only finger
> which is missing more than just the nail phalanx, but the phalanx which
> remains has a slightly wasted - and waisted - look, suggesting that it
> hadn't had to do much work for a long time. This is consistent with his
> having lost half his finger in battle somewhere, as opposed to it having
> gone missing in the grave.
>
> The version of the standard portrait which is in the Royal Collection
> shows
> a nail on that unusually short finger, suggesting deformity rather than
> injury - but it too is a copy from a lost original, plus it's been forkled
> about with after the event, so the copyist may just have misunderstood
> what
> they were looking at. The NPG one definitely looks like a nailless stump -
> especially as his left little finger is shown as quite long.
>
>
>
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Claire M Jordan wrote:


"If there wasn't something wrong with him, though, why would George have
tried to swap him for another child (or at least have been believed to have
tried to do so) - and why would doing so have been considered a treasonable
act against Edward, unless swapping him for another child would improve
George's chances as a candidate by making it appear that he had a more
viable heir than he had had before?"

Doug here:
George tried to "swap" someone else for his son because he (George) thought
his son was in danger. George's actions after the death of his wife support
the thesis that George, rightly or not, felt he and his family were in
danger. His wife and the child she had given birth to were dead. We know
George believed they had been murdered, the next logical step would be for
him to place his remaining child someplace safe; ie, someplace outside
England.
If George thought there were persons in his household *not* loyal to him, he
would need someone to take his son's place until after Edward was safely out
of the country, hence the "swap". Otherwise, and possibly before Edward had
even gotten to the coast, his son would be reported as missing, a search
begun and the ports watched.
I do agree with your "...that he (George) had a more viable heir..." phrase,
but only in the sense that I rather think that by that time George had
heard/discovered something, or all, about his brother's marriage to Dame
Eleanor. Which would have meant that Edward of Warwick, after himself, was
EIV's real heir.
Even if one assumes that George didn't know about Edward's marriage to
Eleanor, Edward of Warwick was, presuming the country wouldn't have accepted
a reigning queen, fourth in line to throne after his cousins Edward and
Richard and his father. His uncle Edward would definitely want know
Warwick's whereabouts (another word I've always wanted to use!).
And if the news about Edward's first, and legally only, marriage came out,
Edward of Warwick was second in line to the throne - right after his
father...
Doug

Carol wrote:


"Actually, my cataract wasn't all that fully developed, but since it
interfered with my driving, the doctor thought I'd better have it removed
now. My color vision wasn't affected yet (nothing looked faded), but I had
problems with blurring, double or triple vision, and glare. I think you have
me mixed up with the other Carol--she's the artist; I'm a freelance
copyeditor."

Glad to hear (see?) you're better!
Doug

No explanation EXCEPT&..Richard was the last King of the Yorks, and he was not around to speak, and those who could, either were too busy trying to save their own behinds, as well as fortunes and positions.

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:51 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's National Portrait Gallery likeness



It is strange, isn't it? We don't rush to defend Richard II or Edward II, whose reputation some might also claim to have been vilified. And what about poor old John?

I've just spent the last what, three weeks, digging around the Somerset gentry on the trail of Stillington and what have I found? Lawyers, merchants, wool 'manufacturers' and exporters who we'd recognise today and who probably never got on a horse except to go to a business meeting in Bristol. They did well under Edward, they'd do well under H7, and as long as they kept their heads down making money and subsidising the Church no-one would ever bother them. We'd recognise them today if we bumped into them.
And then just up the road you get this guy who charges down the hillside to defend his birthright, like some latterday King Arthur, gets killed and gets 'forgotten' or certainly erased.
It's sad, bizarre and very, very unjust, but life is often like that. And he certainly lacked what today we'd call spin doctors.
It's rather nice to think that some 500 year's on we're still attracted to the justice for the common man that he above all championed. Perhaps that's what he had, that the others who suffered a similar fate didn't?


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...<mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 14:28
Subject: Re: Richard's National Portrait Gallery likeness


I've wondered too about why so many people still care. In fact, back in
February, a friend of mine who knew nothing about Richard & is very
interested in figuring out the wheels-within-wheels in today's world
actually asked me "who cares." Her next question was can I see anything
similar to Richard's story playing out today. As I've read more about
Richard's accomplishments, he comes across to me very much as what my
husband calls an "even" man. His regulations and laws demonstrate an
interest in treating people equitably. It also strikes me (maybe wrong
about this & would welcome correction) that his supporters didn't number
very many of the "grandees" among them, other than the Duke of Norfolk &
Viscount Lovell - I tend to think of men like the York City council, and
Sir James Tyrell & Sir Edward Brampton for his inner circle. So one way of
looking at Richard's story (& which makes some of us feel passionately
about him) is the conflict between the have's and those who represent the
have-not's. Seems as if that's a story without a beginning or an end,
human nature being what it is.

A J

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:11 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Thank you, Claire. It's all so fascinating. Who would have thought even
> last year that we would now be able to know so much more about Richard?
> It's almost as if we'll suddenly wake up and found we had a collective
> dream! When I first became interested in Richard, back in about 1969, there
> was much more guesswork than now. But he still grabbed' me. And suddenly
> we have his actual skeleton to tell us so much. It brings us so
> unbelievably close to him. I regret having deserted the 12th-15th centuries
> for decades of writing over sixty Regency-set novels for UK and US
> publishers, but I'm back now and loving every minute of it. I don't know
> exactly what it is about Richard III that fires people up so much, but he
> certainly does. He fires hearts or raises hackles. Writing about him again
> has brought me home to the earlier period that is my first love. I am not a
> historian, just an enthusiastic writer, hence my many dumb questions. I
> think the forum is splendid, as are its members, and I'm proud to be part
> of it.
> Sandra
> From: Claire M Jordan
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:12 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard's National Portrait
> Gallery likeness
>
> From: SandraMachin
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:39 AM
> Subject: Richard's National Portrait Gallery
> likeness
>
> > I may be showing my ignorance again here, but on the NPG portrait there
> is
> > a
> short crease/scar on Richard's forehead, between the eyebrows. It passes
> from bottom left to top right as one looks at the portrait. Is it a scar? A
> natural crease? A blemish on the painting itself? Does anyone know?
>
> The National Portrait Gallery website lets you magnify small sections of
> the
> portrait to a very high magnification, and some years ago I laboriously
> worked my way over it magnifying it as far as it would go and then
> stitching
> the individuqal magnified sections back together using PrintScreen and
> ImageFolio. So I can say with confidence it's not a blemish in the
> painting
> as it stands - although of course the NPG portrait is believed to be a
> copy
> from a lost original, so it's possible there ws a blemish on the
> *original*
> and the copyist has misinterpeted it and painted it in as a wrinkle.
>
> If you look closely, you'll see there's a curved wrinkle next to that
> slanting groove, defining the shape of his right browm but there isn't one
> on his left. It's possible, just about, that this is true to life. Some
> people are more mobile on one side of their face than the other and it's
> possible he was in the habit of raising his right eyebrow sardonically,
> enough to generate a wrinkle, but not the left one.
>
> Or he got fed up with sitting still and wandered off to do something else
> before the artist had finished drawing in all the lines around his eyes....
>
> > The missing segment of the small finger of his right hand, the one he
> > holds the ring to, seems to be confirmed by his skeleton.
>
> Yes. Not only is his right little finger in his skeleton the only finger
> which is missing more than just the nail phalanx, but the phalanx which
> remains has a slightly wasted - and waisted - look, suggesting that it
> hadn't had to do much work for a long time. This is consistent with his
> having lost half his finger in battle somewhere, as opposed to it having
> gone missing in the grave.
>
> The version of the standard portrait which is in the Royal Collection
> shows
> a nail on that unusually short finger, suggesting deformity rather than
> injury - but it too is a copy from a lost original, plus it's been forkled
> about with after the event, so the copyist may just have misunderstood
> what
> they were looking at. The NPG one definitely looks like a nailless stump -
> especially as his left little finger is shown as quite long.
>
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I think that, from all the things we know about him, Richard was a man way before his time. Maybe that is why he was so vilified, the Tudor dinosaurs couldn't understand him!!

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> I've wondered too about why so many people still care. In fact, back in
> February, a friend of mine who knew nothing about Richard & is very
> interested in figuring out the wheels-within-wheels in today's world
> actually asked me "who cares." Her next question was can I see anything
> similar to Richard's story playing out today. As I've read more about
> Richard's accomplishments, he comes across to me very much as what my
> husband calls an "even" man. His regulations and laws demonstrate an
> interest in treating people equitably. It also strikes me (maybe wrong
> about this & would welcome correction) that his supporters didn't number
> very many of the "grandees" among them, other than the Duke of Norfolk &
> Viscount Lovell - I tend to think of men like the York City council, and
> Sir James Tyrell & Sir Edward Brampton for his inner circle. So one way of
> looking at Richard's story (& which makes some of us feel passionately
> about him) is the conflict between the have's and those who represent the
> have-not's. Seems as if that's a story without a beginning or an end,
> human nature being what it is.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:11 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Thank you, Claire. It's all so fascinating. Who would have thought even
> > last year that we would now be able to know so much more about Richard?
> > It's almost as if we'll suddenly wake up and found we had a collective
> > dream! When I first became interested in Richard, back in about 1969, there
> > was much more guesswork than now. But he still `grabbed' me. And suddenly
> > we have his actual skeleton to tell us so much. It brings us so
> > unbelievably close to him. I regret having deserted the 12th-15th centuries
> > for decades of writing over sixty Regency-set novels for UK and US
> > publishers, but I'm back now and loving every minute of it. I don't know
> > exactly what it is about Richard III that fires people up so much, but he
> > certainly does. He fires hearts or raises hackles. Writing about him again
> > has brought me home to the earlier period that is my first love. I am not a
> > historian, just an enthusiastic writer, hence my many dumb questions. I
> > think the forum is splendid, as are its members, and I'm proud to be part
> > of it.
> > Sandra
> > From: Claire M Jordan
> > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:12 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard's National Portrait
> > Gallery likeness
> >
> > From: SandraMachin
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:39 AM
> > Subject: Richard's National Portrait Gallery
> > likeness
> >
> > > I may be showing my ignorance again here, but on the NPG portrait there
> > is
> > > a
> > short crease/scar on Richard's forehead, between the eyebrows. It passes
> > from bottom left to top right as one looks at the portrait. Is it a scar? A
> > natural crease? A blemish on the painting itself? Does anyone know?
> >
> > The National Portrait Gallery website lets you magnify small sections of
> > the
> > portrait to a very high magnification, and some years ago I laboriously
> > worked my way over it magnifying it as far as it would go and then
> > stitching
> > the individuqal magnified sections back together using PrintScreen and
> > ImageFolio. So I can say with confidence it's not a blemish in the
> > painting
> > as it stands - although of course the NPG portrait is believed to be a
> > copy
> > from a lost original, so it's possible there ws a blemish on the
> > *original*
> > and the copyist has misinterpeted it and painted it in as a wrinkle.
> >
> > If you look closely, you'll see there's a curved wrinkle next to that
> > slanting groove, defining the shape of his right browm but there isn't one
> > on his left. It's possible, just about, that this is true to life. Some
> > people are more mobile on one side of their face than the other and it's
> > possible he was in the habit of raising his right eyebrow sardonically,
> > enough to generate a wrinkle, but not the left one.
> >
> > Or he got fed up with sitting still and wandered off to do something else
> > before the artist had finished drawing in all the lines around his eyes....
> >
> > > The missing segment of the small finger of his right hand, the one he
> > > holds the ring to, seems to be confirmed by his skeleton.
> >
> > Yes. Not only is his right little finger in his skeleton the only finger
> > which is missing more than just the nail phalanx, but the phalanx which
> > remains has a slightly wasted - and waisted - look, suggesting that it
> > hadn't had to do much work for a long time. This is consistent with his
> > having lost half his finger in battle somewhere, as opposed to it having
> > gone missing in the grave.
> >
> > The version of the standard portrait which is in the Royal Collection
> > shows
> > a nail on that unusually short finger, suggesting deformity rather than
> > injury - but it too is a copy from a lost original, plus it's been forkled
> > about with after the event, so the copyist may just have misunderstood
> > what
> > they were looking at. The NPG one definitely looks like a nailless stump -
> > especially as his left little finger is shown as quite long.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Agree...so agree....tragic...eileen

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I think that, from all the things we know about him, Richard was a man way before his time. Maybe that is why he was so vilified, the Tudor dinosaurs couldn't understand him!!
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > I've wondered too about why so many people still care. In fact, back in
> > February, a friend of mine who knew nothing about Richard & is very
> > interested in figuring out the wheels-within-wheels in today's world
> > actually asked me "who cares." Her next question was can I see anything
> > similar to Richard's story playing out today. As I've read more about
> > Richard's accomplishments, he comes across to me very much as what my
> > husband calls an "even" man. His regulations and laws demonstrate an
> > interest in treating people equitably. It also strikes me (maybe wrong
> > about this & would welcome correction) that his supporters didn't number
> > very many of the "grandees" among them, other than the Duke of Norfolk &
> > Viscount Lovell - I tend to think of men like the York City council, and
> > Sir James Tyrell & Sir Edward Brampton for his inner circle. So one way of
> > looking at Richard's story (& which makes some of us feel passionately
> > about him) is the conflict between the have's and those who represent the
> > have-not's. Seems as if that's a story without a beginning or an end,
> > human nature being what it is.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:11 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you, Claire. It's all so fascinating. Who would have thought even
> > > last year that we would now be able to know so much more about Richard?
> > > It's almost as if we'll suddenly wake up and found we had a collective
> > > dream! When I first became interested in Richard, back in about 1969, there
> > > was much more guesswork than now. But he still `grabbed' me. And suddenly
> > > we have his actual skeleton to tell us so much. It brings us so
> > > unbelievably close to him. I regret having deserted the 12th-15th centuries
> > > for decades of writing over sixty Regency-set novels for UK and US
> > > publishers, but I'm back now and loving every minute of it. I don't know
> > > exactly what it is about Richard III that fires people up so much, but he
> > > certainly does. He fires hearts or raises hackles. Writing about him again
> > > has brought me home to the earlier period that is my first love. I am not a
> > > historian, just an enthusiastic writer, hence my many dumb questions. I
> > > think the forum is splendid, as are its members, and I'm proud to be part
> > > of it.
> > > Sandra
> > > From: Claire M Jordan
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:12 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's National Portrait
> > > Gallery likeness
> > >
> > > From: SandraMachin
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:39 AM
> > > Subject: Richard's National Portrait Gallery
> > > likeness
> > >
> > > > I may be showing my ignorance again here, but on the NPG portrait there
> > > is
> > > > a
> > > short crease/scar on Richard's forehead, between the eyebrows. It passes
> > > from bottom left to top right as one looks at the portrait. Is it a scar? A
> > > natural crease? A blemish on the painting itself? Does anyone know?
> > >
> > > The National Portrait Gallery website lets you magnify small sections of
> > > the
> > > portrait to a very high magnification, and some years ago I laboriously
> > > worked my way over it magnifying it as far as it would go and then
> > > stitching
> > > the individuqal magnified sections back together using PrintScreen and
> > > ImageFolio. So I can say with confidence it's not a blemish in the
> > > painting
> > > as it stands - although of course the NPG portrait is believed to be a
> > > copy
> > > from a lost original, so it's possible there ws a blemish on the
> > > *original*
> > > and the copyist has misinterpeted it and painted it in as a wrinkle.
> > >
> > > If you look closely, you'll see there's a curved wrinkle next to that
> > > slanting groove, defining the shape of his right browm but there isn't one
> > > on his left. It's possible, just about, that this is true to life. Some
> > > people are more mobile on one side of their face than the other and it's
> > > possible he was in the habit of raising his right eyebrow sardonically,
> > > enough to generate a wrinkle, but not the left one.
> > >
> > > Or he got fed up with sitting still and wandered off to do something else
> > > before the artist had finished drawing in all the lines around his eyes....
> > >
> > > > The missing segment of the small finger of his right hand, the one he
> > > > holds the ring to, seems to be confirmed by his skeleton.
> > >
> > > Yes. Not only is his right little finger in his skeleton the only finger
> > > which is missing more than just the nail phalanx, but the phalanx which
> > > remains has a slightly wasted - and waisted - look, suggesting that it
> > > hadn't had to do much work for a long time. This is consistent with his
> > > having lost half his finger in battle somewhere, as opposed to it having
> > > gone missing in the grave.
> > >
> > > The version of the standard portrait which is in the Royal Collection
> > > shows
> > > a nail on that unusually short finger, suggesting deformity rather than
> > > injury - but it too is a copy from a lost original, plus it's been forkled
> > > about with after the event, so the copyist may just have misunderstood
> > > what
> > > they were looking at. The NPG one definitely looks like a nailless stump -
> > > especially as his left little finger is shown as quite long.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> It is strange, isn't it? We don't rush to defend Richard II or Edward II, whose reputation some might also claim to have been vilified. And what about poor old John? [snip]

Carol responds:

I think that's because, unlike Richard III, their successors were not actively blackening their reputations, calling attention to their failings and, in John's case, labeling him as a usurper (though the Robin Hood legends eventually did that).

Although Edward III may have played some part in his father's deposition, it probably was not in his interest to call attention to his father's failings as ruler--or his mother's relationship with her husband's alleged murderer. Let a few generations pass and people will forget that E III took the throne prematurely--and forget about his father altogether.

John, too, was succeeded by his son, a child of nine or ten, who, again, had no interest in blackening his father's reputation. Calling attention to it might remind people of Prince Arthur (that unspeakable teenager who attacked his own grandmother but could easily be viewed as a martyred rightful king) and call his own claim into question (though no one alive had a better one). And Henry was, if I recall correctly, still dealing with the consequences of Magna Carta and more interested in defending his rights as king than in what people thought of his father. No one was actively blackening the name of either king (though rumors about them abounded), but no one was actively defending their reputations, either. I leave it to others to determine what was real and what wasn't, but if he really left Maude de Braose and her son to starve with only a sheaf of wheat (IIRC) and a fletch (sp?) of raw bacon and also hanged the young sons of nineteen Welsh chieftains just to cow their fathers into submission, he probably deserves his reputation. And, of course, there's the Prince Arthur mystery, which hardly anyone mentions because Arthur was seventeen rather than twelve going on thirteen (or ten) like the "Princes in the Tower." Somehow, though, I don't think John helped Arthur to escape abroad! That would have been suicidal.

Regarding Richard II, whose situation most closely resembles that of Richard III in that he was succeeded not by his own son but by a usurping relative (with a considerably better claim than Henry Tudor's), you know more than I do about Henry IV's treatment of his deposed (and presumably murdered) cousin's reputation after his usurpation (which he presumably attempted to justify) since you've recently read Ian Mortimer's biography of H IV (unfortunate initials there). If Mortimer is any indication, historians may be more interested in defending *his* reputation than Richard II's. (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

At least, thanks to the recent genealogical threads, I have a clearer understanding of why Henry "Hotspur" fought for Mortimer against Henry IV.

Two of these kings (one of them not on your list) were successful usurpers. Richard's "usurpation" was ultimately unsuccessful, chiefly because he had no legitimate son (I can't imagine him taking such chances at Bosworth if Edward were still alive or if he had remarried and had a pregnant or possibly pregnant wife). For that reason, they had no one actively smearing their reputation and deliberately painting them in the worst light as Richard III did.

It's the unfairness of it all--a good and potentially great king who never had a chance to show what he could do, with what good he did achieve labeled hypocrisy because the Tudor chroniclers could not reconcile it with his supposed "crimes"--that draws people to Richard. That and the absurdity of the myth that so many people have swallowed simply because the more exaggerated aspects (the ones that ought to be most easily disproved) came from the pens of a "saint" and the greatest genius of English literature.

Hope I haven't strayed too far from the original point, but I'm trying to contrast the other king's situations with Richard's.

Carol

Wonderful posting,with much to think about. As always, I much enjoyed it.

On Apr 25, 2013, at 3:27 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:




Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> It is strange, isn't it? We don't rush to defend Richard II or Edward II, whose reputationý some might also claim to have been vilified. And what about poor old John? [snip]

Carol responds:

I think that's because, unlike Richard III, their successors were not actively blackening their reputations, calling attention to their failings and, in John's case, labeling him as a usurper (though the Robin Hood legends eventually did that).

Although Edward III may have played some part in his father's deposition, it probably was not in his interest to call attention to his father's failings as ruler--or his mother's relationship with her husband's alleged murderer. Let a few generations pass and people will forget that E III took the throne prematurely--and forget about his father altogether.

John, too, was succeeded by his son, a child of nine or ten, who, again, had no interest in blackening his father's reputation. Calling attention to it might remind people of Prince Arthur (that unspeakable teenager who attacked his own grandmother but could easily be viewed as a martyred rightful king) and call his own claim into question (though no one alive had a better one). And Henry was, if I recall correctly, still dealing with the consequences of Magna Carta and more interested in defending his rights as king than in what people thought of his father. No one was actively blackening the name of either king (though rumors about them abounded), but no one was actively defending their reputations, either. I leave it to others to determine what was real and what wasn't, but if he really left Maude de Braose and her son to starve with only a sheaf of wheat (IIRC) and a fletch (sp?) of raw bacon and also hanged the young sons of nineteen Welsh chieftains just to cow their fathers into submission, he probably deserves his reputation. And, of course, there's the Prince Arthur mystery, which hardly anyone mentions because Arthur was seventeen rather than twelve going on thirteen (or ten) like the "Princes in the Tower." Somehow, though, I don't think John helped Arthur to escape abroad! That would have been suicidal.

Regarding Richard II, whose situation most closely resembles that of Richard III in that he was succeeded not by his own son but by a usurping relative (with a considerably better claim than Henry Tudor's), you know more than I do about Henry IV's treatment of his deposed (and presumably murdered) cousin's reputation after his usurpation (which he presumably attempted to justify) since you've recently read Ian Mortimer's biography of H IV (unfortunate initials there). If Mortimer is any indication, historians may be more interested in defending *his* reputation than Richard II's. (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

At least, thanks to the recent genealogical threads, I have a clearer understanding of why Henry "Hotspur" fought for Mortimer against Henry IV.

Two of these kings (one of them not on your list) were successful usurpers. Richard's "usurpation" was ultimately unsuccessful, chiefly because he had no legitimate son (I can't imagine him taking such chances at Bosworth if Edward were still alive or if he had remarried and had a pregnant or possibly pregnant wife). For that reason, they had no one actively smearing their reputation and deliberately painting them in the worst light as Richard III did.

It's the unfairness of it all--a good and potentially great king who never had a chance to show what he could do, with what good he did achieve labeled hypocrisy because the Tudor chroniclers could not reconcile it with his supposed "crimes"--that draws people to Richard. That and the absurdity of the myth that so many people have swallowed simply because the more exaggerated aspects (the ones that ought to be most easily disproved) came from the pens of a "saint" and the greatest genius of English literature.

Hope I haven't strayed too far from the original point, but I'm trying to contrast the other king's situations with Richard's.

Carol

Can I just make clear that I wasn't necessarily supporting them, though I have a certain sympathy for Edward II (perhaps it's because I live near where Gaveston met his end). It was just an illustration of how some appeal and some (perhaps unfairly) don't. You could add to them Charles I and James II - and I certainly have little support for the former.    



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 21:49
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken


Wonderful posting,with much to think about. As always, I much enjoyed it.

On Apr 25, 2013, at 3:27 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:




Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> It is strange, isn't it? We don't rush to defend Richard II or Edward II, whose reputation some might also claim to have been vilified. And what about poor old John? [snip]

Carol responds:

I think that's because, unlike Richard III, their successors were not actively blackening their reputations, calling attention to their failings and, in John's case, labeling him as a usurper (though the Robin Hood legends eventually did that).

Although Edward III may have played some part in his father's deposition, it probably was not in his interest to call attention to his father's failings as ruler--or his mother's relationship with her husband's alleged murderer. Let a few generations pass and people will forget that E III took the throne prematurely--and forget about his father altogether.

John, too, was succeeded by his son, a child of nine or ten, who, again, had no interest in blackening his father's reputation. Calling attention to it might remind people of Prince Arthur (that unspeakable teenager who attacked his own grandmother but could easily be viewed as a martyred rightful king) and call his own claim into question (though no one alive had a better one). And Henry was, if I recall correctly, still dealing with the consequences of Magna Carta and more interested in defending his rights as king than in what people thought of his father. No one was actively blackening the name of either king (though rumors about them abounded), but no one was actively defending their reputations, either. I leave it to others to determine what was real and what wasn't, but if he really left Maude de Braose and her son to starve with only a sheaf of wheat (IIRC) and a fletch (sp?) of raw bacon and also hanged the young sons of nineteen Welsh
chieftains just to cow their fathers into submission, he probably deserves his reputation. And, of course, there's the Prince Arthur mystery, which hardly anyone mentions because Arthur was seventeen rather than twelve going on thirteen (or ten) like the "Princes in the Tower." Somehow, though, I don't think John helped Arthur to escape abroad! That would have been suicidal.

Regarding Richard II, whose situation most closely resembles that of Richard III in that he was succeeded not by his own son but by a usurping relative (with a considerably better claim than Henry Tudor's), you know more than I do about Henry IV's treatment of his deposed (and presumably murdered) cousin's reputation after his usurpation (which he presumably attempted to justify) since you've recently read Ian Mortimer's biography of H IV (unfortunate initials there). If Mortimer is any indication, historians may be more interested in defending *his* reputation than Richard II's. (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

At least, thanks to the recent genealogical threads, I have a clearer understanding of why Henry "Hotspur" fought for Mortimer against Henry IV.

Two of these kings (one of them not on your list) were successful usurpers. Richard's "usurpation" was ultimately unsuccessful, chiefly because he had no legitimate son (I can't imagine him taking such chances at Bosworth if Edward were still alive or if he had remarried and had a pregnant or possibly pregnant wife). For that reason, they had no one actively smearing their reputation and deliberately painting them in the worst light as Richard III did.

It's the unfairness of it all--a good and potentially great king who never had a chance to show what he could do, with what good he did achieve labeled hypocrisy because the Tudor chroniclers could not reconcile it with his supposed "crimes"--that draws people to Richard. That and the absurdity of the myth that so many people have swallowed simply because the more exaggerated aspects (the ones that ought to be most easily disproved) came from the pens of a "saint" and the greatest genius of English literature.

Hope I haven't strayed too far from the original point, but I'm trying to contrast the other king's situations with Richard's.

Carol









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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: What happened to the princes in the
tower: Edward V and Richard Duke of York


> Only briefly back I'm afraid. Clarence almost certainly didn't try to swap
> his son because there was "something wrong with him". Had there been
> anything amiss with his intelligence the crown could - and should - have
> taken his lands into permanent administration. Instead, documents
> concerning those lands - up to the time when HVII regranted them to his
> grandmother then persuaded her to donate them to himself - clearly state
> that they are in the king's hands merely by virtue of Warwick's minority.

OK - but it wouldn't have to be a mental disability. It could be anything
which made him seem unfit and which was already apparent in a toddler.
Asthma, for example, or epilepsy. Or the comment about not knowing goose
from capon could mean he was a hermaphrodite - this is relatively common, so
inevitably some members of the royal family must have suffered from it over
the years.

> The reasons the imprisoned* Clarence might have tried to smuggle him
> abroad are very simple:
1) Clarence had, remember, had people executed for poisoning his wife and
one of his children, and had accused the King of poisoning so it is pretty
clear who he thought had been behind the deaths of Isabel and baby Richard.
Edward was in the process of taking control of Clarence's property and his
remaining children,so Clarence may have been trying to save Warwick from the
same fate that he believed had befallen his wife and younger son.

OK - that would mean he was setitng up the susbtitute child to be poisoned,
then. Would Edward really regard this bit of paranoia as treasonable enough
to be part of the fatal indictment?

> 2) Little Warwick could, in the short term, have been used as a figurehead
> for raising troops against Edward in the country to which he was to have
> been sent

Now that would be treasonable but in that case why would he substitute
another child, rather than just sending his son away? Wouldn't the presence
of a child in his household, presented as being his son, cause people to
think that his real son wasn't his son, and so not follow him?

> In a nutshell, the doomed Clarence was attempting to save his dynasty.

Possibly. But it's supposition - the fact that there's a possible
alternative explanation doesn't prove that he *didn't* do it because his son
had some abnormality.

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Can I just make clear that I wasn't necessarily supporting them, though I have a certain sympathy for Edward II (perhaps it's because I live near where Gaveston met his end). It was just an illustration of how some appeal and some (perhaps unfairly) don't. You could add to them Charles I and James II - and I certainly have little support for the former.    

Carol responds:

Hi, Hilary. I didn't mean to imply that you or anyone else was supporting those kings. I was just giving my views on why those figures don't share Richard's appeal--in essence, no successor from a different dynasty smeared their reputations (two of the three kings you named were succeeded by their own sons), so no one (or almost no one) feels the need to rescue them from undeserved infamy. I was also speculating as to whether John (who probably had some seldom recognized good points) deserved his reputation. I don't know enough about him (aside from Penman's novels) to form an educated opinion.

I entirely agree with you that some monarchs appeal to readers or historians and some don't (fairly or unfairly). Frankly, I'm surprised that there's no Mary I Society. Imagine having your own father declare you (and your half-sister by turns) illegitimate and having him take away the religion that forms the basis of your education and worldview. Granted, her reaction was extreme. At least, no one calls Richard "Bloody Richard"!

Carol

How I agree. And about poor Mary too. Feople tend to forget that little brother Edward was a right little horror.  Good debate :)



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2013, 23:18
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken

 



Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Can I just make clear that I wasn't necessarily supporting them, though I have a certain sympathy for Edward II (perhaps it's because I live near where Gaveston met his end). It was just an illustration of how some appeal and some (perhaps unfairly) don't. You could add to them Charles I and James II - and I certainly have little support for the former.    

Carol responds:

Hi, Hilary. I didn't mean to imply that you or anyone else was supporting those kings. I was just giving my views on why those figures don't share Richard's appeal--in essence, no successor from a different dynasty smeared their reputations (two of the three kings you named were succeeded by their own sons), so no one (or almost no one) feels the need to rescue them from undeserved infamy. I was also speculating as to whether John (who probably had some seldom recognized good points) deserved his reputation. I don't know enough about him (aside from Penman's novels) to form an educated opinion.

I entirely agree with you that some monarchs appeal to readers or historians and some don't (fairly or unfairly). Frankly, I'm surprised that there's no Mary I Society. Imagine having your own father declare you (and your half-sister by turns) illegitimate and having him take away the religion that forms the basis of your education and worldview. Granted, her reaction was extreme. At least, no one calls Richard "Bloody Richard"!

Carol

Some thoughts in Richard's continuing to stor up such strong feelings.

He fulfills several archetypal roles:

1) He suffered badly during the last few years of his life, and people tend to empathise with the Suffering Hero.

2) He was the younger son come to power, like in all the old folk tales.

3) He was a spectacularly brave military hero, praised for his courage even by his enemies.

4) He lost, and the British love a gallant loser.

5) His relationship with Ann has the potential to be portrayed as a Great Romance.

6) His death connects to the archetype of the king-sacrifice.

7) He and his brother were the most ethnically English kings England ever had.

I'm sure there's others I've forgotten. In addition, his story appeals not only to anyone interested in justice but also to conspiracy theorists and anybody who feels that "the establishment" - in this case established historical othodoxy - is not to be trusted.

He himself stands out like a rock above the flood, and only Henry II really compares with him. He wasn't trained to be king and on one level he didn't act like a king: he behaved more like Josiah Wedgewood or William Lever, wealthy managers with strong social consciences who devoted much money and effort to improving the lives of their workforces, whilst still running a competitive company. Yet he also tried to behave (and quite often succeeded in behaving) like a noble Arthurian warrior out of an antique tale, so whether you see history as a succession of striking individuals or as a succession of social reforms, either way there he is.

As to why he's hated, the first and most important reason imo is because the treacherous older relative who turns out to be out to get you is such a powerful archetype. Think of the beginning of Kidnapped, for example, where David Balfour's uncle first tries to do him in and then sells him as a slave. The myth of the murderous uncle is too deliciously sinister to give up.

Then there's the literary and cultural weight carried by Shakespeare and More, already mentioned.

Then there's the great admiration which is still felt for Elizabeth I. I think people think that acknoledging Richard as rightful king undermines the Tudors - although in fact it doesn't, since their claim was primarily by conquest, not by blood, and with all the dodgy things Henry VIII got up to the idea that Elizabeth I's grandmother might have been the product of a bigamous union hardly matters.

Then there's the feeling that Ricardians are just trying to whitewash a villain, or that we're being sentimental, and that sentiment has no place in history. The plethora of mediocre romance novels about Richard doesn't really help this.

Then there's cynicism and inverted snobbery - a lot of people I suspect just don't want to consider somebody royal might be an earnest proto-socialist doing his best for the people, instead of grinding the poor into the dust like they think the aristocracy are supposed to do.

I'm sure I've missed a few.

I agree with everything you (Claire) & Hilary have said about why people
care about Richard even now. For me, I think there's also the element of
having "discovered" him at a young enough age that I was still pretty
idealistic & believed the world to be a better place than it seems to be
today. And given my growing understanding of Richard's apparent impulse to
treat people fairly, I think he was just never going to have a quiet reign
as long as he operated that way. Just about everything I've learned in
those 50 years tells me that those who have power and access to resources
are going to do whatever it takes to keep it that way.

A J


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Some thoughts in Richard's continuing to stor up such strong feelings.
>
> He fulfills several archetypal roles:
>
> 1) He suffered badly during the last few years of his life, and people
> tend to empathise with the Suffering Hero.
>
> 2) He was the younger son come to power, like in all the old folk tales.
>
> 3) He was a spectacularly brave military hero, praised for his courage
> even by his enemies.
>
> 4) He lost, and the British love a gallant loser.
>
> 5) His relationship with Ann has the potential to be portrayed as a Great
> Romance.
>
> 6) His death connects to the archetype of the king-sacrifice.
>
> 7) He and his brother were the most ethnically English kings England ever
> had.
>
> I'm sure there's others I've forgotten. In addition, his story appeals not
> only to anyone interested in justice but also to conspiracy theorists and
> anybody who feels that "the establishment" - in this case established
> historical othodoxy - is not to be trusted.
>
> He himself stands out like a rock above the flood, and only Henry II
> really compares with him. He wasn't trained to be king and on one level he
> didn't act like a king: he behaved more like Josiah Wedgewood or William
> Lever, wealthy managers with strong social consciences who devoted much
> money and effort to improving the lives of their workforces, whilst still
> running a competitive company. Yet he also tried to behave (and quite often
> succeeded in behaving) like a noble Arthurian warrior out of an antique
> tale, so whether you see history as a succession of striking individuals or
> as a succession of social reforms, either way there he is.
>
> As to why he's hated, the first and most important reason imo is because
> the treacherous older relative who turns out to be out to get you is such a
> powerful archetype. Think of the beginning of Kidnapped, for example, where
> David Balfour's uncle first tries to do him in and then sells him as a
> slave. The myth of the murderous uncle is too deliciously sinister to give
> up.
>
> Then there's the literary and cultural weight carried by Shakespeare and
> More, already mentioned.
>
> Then there's the great admiration which is still felt for Elizabeth I. I
> think people think that acknoledging Richard as rightful king undermines
> the Tudors - although in fact it doesn't, since their claim was primarily
> by conquest, not by blood, and with all the dodgy things Henry VIII got up
> to the idea that Elizabeth I's grandmother might have been the product of a
> bigamous union hardly matters.
>
> Then there's the feeling that Ricardians are just trying to whitewash a
> villain, or that we're being sentimental, and that sentiment has no place
> in history. The plethora of mediocre romance novels about Richard doesn't
> really help this.
>
> Then there's cynicism and inverted snobbery - a lot of people I suspect
> just don't want to consider somebody royal might be an earnest
> proto-socialist doing his best for the people, instead of grinding the poor
> into the dust like they think the aristocracy are supposed to do.
>
> I'm sure I've missed a few.
>
>
>
>
>
>

great summary! I would be one of those Down with the Establishment types :-) but several of the others apply too
Nicole

~~~ Music is lots of sound waves coming toward us in a completely chaotic manner and somehow our brain receives that as something beautiful - Matthew Bellamy

To:
From: whitehound@...
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:43:43 +0100
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken


























Some thoughts in Richard's continuing to stor up such strong feelings.



He fulfills several archetypal roles:



1) He suffered badly during the last few years of his life, and people tend to empathise with the Suffering Hero.



2) He was the younger son come to power, like in all the old folk tales.



3) He was a spectacularly brave military hero, praised for his courage even by his enemies.



4) He lost, and the British love a gallant loser.



5) His relationship with Ann has the potential to be portrayed as a Great Romance.



6) His death connects to the archetype of the king-sacrifice.



7) He and his brother were the most ethnically English kings England ever had.



I'm sure there's others I've forgotten. In addition, his story appeals not only to anyone interested in justice but also to conspiracy theorists and anybody who feels that "the establishment" - in this case established historical othodoxy - is not to be trusted.



He himself stands out like a rock above the flood, and only Henry II really compares with him. He wasn't trained to be king and on one level he didn't act like a king: he behaved more like Josiah Wedgewood or William Lever, wealthy managers with strong social consciences who devoted much money and effort to improving the lives of their workforces, whilst still running a competitive company. Yet he also tried to behave (and quite often succeeded in behaving) like a noble Arthurian warrior out of an antique tale, so whether you see history as a succession of striking individuals or as a succession of social reforms, either way there he is.



As to why he's hated, the first and most important reason imo is because the treacherous older relative who turns out to be out to get you is such a powerful archetype. Think of the beginning of Kidnapped, for example, where David Balfour's uncle first tries to do him in and then sells him as a slave. The myth of the murderous uncle is too deliciously sinister to give up.



Then there's the literary and cultural weight carried by Shakespeare and More, already mentioned.



Then there's the great admiration which is still felt for Elizabeth I. I think people think that acknoledging Richard as rightful king undermines the Tudors - although in fact it doesn't, since their claim was primarily by conquest, not by blood, and with all the dodgy things Henry VIII got up to the idea that Elizabeth I's grandmother might have been the product of a bigamous union hardly matters.



Then there's the feeling that Ricardians are just trying to whitewash a villain, or that we're being sentimental, and that sentiment has no place in history. The plethora of mediocre romance novels about Richard doesn't really help this.



Then there's cynicism and inverted snobbery - a lot of people I suspect just don't want to consider somebody royal might be an earnest proto-socialist doing his best for the people, instead of grinding the poor into the dust like they think the aristocracy are supposed to do.



I'm sure I've missed a few.

>
> Then there's the feeling that Ricardians are just trying to whitewash a villain, or that we're being sentimental, and that sentiment has no place in history. The plethora of mediocre romance novels about Richard doesn't really help this.
>

It is an excellent summary of why many become Ricardians. There are so few facts are known about Richard, his enemies twisted them one way to assign even his good acts with insincere and manipulative motives; while his supporters interpret the same facts as a reflection of his true character of fair mindedness and social conscientiousness.

Although sentiment has something to do with history, if not, then the history books should only contain the known facts about Richard and not assign blame and motives to events they have no definitive proof.

The romance novels may be soapy but it does give a different and coherent portrait of this enigmatic man. They are often much more historically accurate then Shakespeare and More. So who is to say they should be objects of ridicule and embarrassment and not the works of the other playwright and the "saint".

>
> Then there's the feeling that Ricardians are just trying to whitewash a villain, or that we're being sentimental, and that sentiment has no place in history. The plethora of mediocre romance novels about Richard doesn't really help this.
>
At least even mediocre novels take the relevant truths' to a much wider audience that might not otherwise have given two hoots about Richard. Better that than no interest at all.
Sandra

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about
King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken


> At least even mediocre novels take the relevant truths' to a much wider
> audience that might not otherwise have given two hoots about Richard.
> Better that than no interest at all.

Sure. But there's a risk of it giving the impression that people support
him primarily because they find him sexually attractive, or at least a
"romantic" figure, rather than because they see that he was an able and, by
the standards of the time, unusually generous and sincere political leader.

I think Rupert of the Rhine suffers from the same sort of thing - not that
anybody has ever denigrated Ruper that I know of, apart from some of
Cromwell's troops at the time, but because he was this "romantic" figure, a
long-haired cavalier charging into battle with his black warhorse and his
white poodle and his long brown hair and his ribbons and bows, the fact that
he was one of the greatest scientists and artists of his day tends to get
overlooked. People tend not to take the romantic lead very seriously.

From: hli4
To:
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about
King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken


> It is an excellent summary of why many become Ricardians.

Thanks.

> There are so few facts are known about Richard, his enemies twisted them
> one way to assign even his good acts with insincere and manipulative
> motives; while his supporters interpret the same facts as a reflection of
> his true character of fair mindedness and social conscientiousness.

Whereas in reality it was probably a bit of both. His history in the north
suggests a genuine and long-standing concern for impartial justice and the
well-being of his subjects, but as a successful military commander he must
also have been aware of morale issues and how to please his followers and
get them rooting for him - just as Elizabeth I, or indeed Churchill, knew
how to make a rabble-rousing speech which would get people behind them, and
nobody thinks the worse of them for it.

Although sentiment has something to do with history, if not, then the
history books should only contain the known facts about Richard and not
assign blame and motives to events they have no definitive proof.

> The romance novels may be soapy but it does give a different and coherent
> portrait of this enigmatic man.

Well - *some*times coherent!

> They are often much more historically accurate then Shakespeare and More.
> So who is to say they should be objects of ridicule and embarrassment and
> not the works of the other playwright and the "saint".

Sigh. Because the novel as an established form hadn't officially been
invented yet, so people forget that More was writing what would nowadays
probably be called a "faction" novelisation in which a certain amount of
historical fact was padded out with a great deal of imagination, and
Shakespeare was writing a Hollywood blockbuster which was hardly more
historical than that 300 thing about the Spartans (which managed to take a
brutal incompetant racist dictatorship in which, perhaps uniquely, being gay
was compulsory if you were a bloke, and portray it as a bunch of sweatily
heterosexual freedom-fighters).

I'd add another two things to that list on the "Why He's Hated" side: Inertia and Ego, both belonging to the traditional-historian types, many of whom look down on Ricardians but who've gone about as near to the source material as I have, and I'm an American. :-)






-----Original Message-----
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, Apr 25, 2013 10:14 pm
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken


Some thoughts in Richard's continuing to stor up such strong feelings.

He fulfills several archetypal roles:

1) He suffered badly during the last few years of his life, and people tend to
empathise with the Suffering Hero.

2) He was the younger son come to power, like in all the old folk tales.

3) He was a spectacularly brave military hero, praised for his courage even by
his enemies.

4) He lost, and the British love a gallant loser.

5) His relationship with Ann has the potential to be portrayed as a Great
Romance.

6) His death connects to the archetype of the king-sacrifice.

7) He and his brother were the most ethnically English kings England ever had.

I'm sure there's others I've forgotten. In addition, his story appeals not only
to anyone interested in justice but also to conspiracy theorists and anybody who
feels that "the establishment" - in this case established historical othodoxy -
is not to be trusted.

He himself stands out like a rock above the flood, and only Henry II really
compares with him. He wasn't trained to be king and on one level he didn't act
like a king: he behaved more like Josiah Wedgewood or William Lever, wealthy
managers with strong social consciences who devoted much money and effort to
improving the lives of their workforces, whilst still running a competitive
company. Yet he also tried to behave (and quite often succeeded in behaving)
like a noble Arthurian warrior out of an antique tale, so whether you see
history as a succession of striking individuals or as a succession of social
reforms, either way there he is.

As to why he's hated, the first and most important reason imo is because the
treacherous older relative who turns out to be out to get you is such a powerful
archetype. Think of the beginning of Kidnapped, for example, where David
Balfour's uncle first tries to do him in and then sells him as a slave. The
myth of the murderous uncle is too deliciously sinister to give up.

Then there's the literary and cultural weight carried by Shakespeare and More,
already mentioned.

Then there's the great admiration which is still felt for Elizabeth I. I think
people think that acknoledging Richard as rightful king undermines the Tudors -
although in fact it doesn't, since their claim was primarily by conquest, not by
blood, and with all the dodgy things Henry VIII got up to the idea that
Elizabeth I's grandmother might have been the product of a bigamous union hardly
matters.

Then there's the feeling that Ricardians are just trying to whitewash a villain,
or that we're being sentimental, and that sentiment has no place in history.
The plethora of mediocre romance novels about Richard doesn't really help this.

Then there's cynicism and inverted snobbery - a lot of people I suspect just
don't want to consider somebody royal might be an earnest proto-socialist doing
his best for the people, instead of grinding the poor into the dust like they
think the aristocracy are supposed to do.

I'm sure I've missed a few.





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Claire: Sure. But there's a risk of it giving the impression that people support
him primarily because they find him sexually attractive, or at least a
"romantic" figure, rather than because they see that he was an able and, by
the standards of the time, unusually generous and sincere political leader.
Sandra: Claire, I agree with your point about the danger of the sexually attractive bit, and thus the unfortunate impression that may be perceived of his supporters in general, but I don't think poor old Richard is going to shake it off. He pushes far too many buttons. Even when he's given the Shakespeare/Olivier treatment, he comes over as exciting and sexy. Not that I've ever experienced this (can't stand Olivier!) but I do know from others that it's true. Heck, I do know that Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham was amazing. So, Good Richard or Bad Richard, he is so different and interesting, and his story so astonishing and affecting, that I believe it is well nigh impossible to brush aside the romance of it. No matter how many references, dates and sources, or how erudite the discussions, nothing is going to change the romantic aspect of this king. Good Richard inspires devotion, if that is not too strong a word. Five hundred years on, and we still defend him and want to prove he could not possibly be Bad Richard. That, to me, is the romance of him. Like it or not. For those who enjoy fiction and romance, it then becomes only too easy to look at the NPG portrait and imagine it suddenly smiling, toying with that ring, or glancing around. Anything. That's when the tilt over into sexually attractive begins. But it does not mean that his being able, and by the standards of the time, [an] unusually generous and sincere political leader' has to go by the wayside. It should all be there, alongside the fiction. So, while I accept and appreciate the views and discomfort of those who do not like this side of it all, I have to say that I do not think it is entirely bad news.

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
It should all be there, alongside the fiction. So, while I accept and appreciate the views and discomfort of those who do not like this side of it all, I have to say that I do not think it is entirely bad news.
>

Agreed. Being good looking, at least compared to Tudor, is normally a positive for one's image.

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about
King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken


> Sandra: Claire, I agree with your point about the danger of the sexually
> attractive bit, and thus the unfortunate impression that may be perceived
> of his supporters in general, but I don't think poor old Richard is going
> to shake it off. He pushes far too many buttons. Even when he's given the
> Shakespeare/Olivier treatment, he comes over as exciting and sexy.

Yes. And the "honour of Hector" rhyme and the fact that somebody carved a
pledge of allegiance to him into the wall of the guardsroom at Penrith
Castle suggests that this was also true in life, and that he enjoyed the
same sort of rock-star-like popularity as Nelson.

> Not that I've ever experienced this (can't stand Olivier!) but I do know
> from others that it's true.

Oh yes - he's mesmerising.

> Good Richard inspires devotion, if that is not too strong a word.

It's not, not at all. Of course, if you believe in reincarnation - which I
do - it may be that the rock-star-like admiration he inspired in life has
carried through to people who had lives then, and who automatically know
that Bad Richard doesn't match the dazzlingly popular and generous young
duke they remember hero-worshipping at the time, and whose name they carved
into walls the way people nowadays spray-paint the name of their favourite
band.

> So, while I accept and appreciate the views and discomfort of those who do
> not like this side of it all, I have to say that I do not think it is
> entirely bad news.

I'm not saying it is - it probably inspires more people than it puts off.
But I'm sure it does contribute to Ricardians not being taken entirely
seriously by the establishment.

Sandra:
> So, while I accept and appreciate the views and discomfort of those who do
> not like this side of it all, I have to say that I do not think it is
> entirely bad news.

Claire replied:
>>I'm not saying it is - it probably inspires more people than it puts off.
>>But I'm sure it does contribute to Ricardians not being taken entirely
>>seriously by the establishment.

Sandra again: Ah, but we have our doughty champion, Sir Percy Vere! He'll dispose of them all in the end.



Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (77)

Do you think it had anything to do with the fact that some of the key books - and I'm thinking of 'We Speak No Treason' came out when we were at an impressionable age? There hasn't really been a key fiction book on Richard since Penman in the Nineties, and whatever you say, it's often fiction that starts you on a trail. For example I wouldn't have thought about exploring 17th c France without The Three Musketeers, or Richard/John without Ivanhoe. They might not all be true to history, but they spark an interest. And once you discover the reality, which in the case of Richard is courageous and good, then you have to support his cause.
 
Must get back to work!  


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 26 April 2013, 4:32
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken


I agree with everything you (Claire) & Hilary have said about why people
care about Richard even now.  For me, I think there's also the element of
having "discovered" him at a young enough age that I was still pretty
idealistic & believed the world to be a better place than it seems to be
today.  And given my growing understanding of Richard's apparent impulse to
treat people fairly, I think he was just never going to have a quiet reign
as long as he operated that way.  Just about everything I've learned in
those 50 years tells me that those who have power and access to resources
are going to do whatever it takes to keep it that way.

A J


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Some thoughts in Richard's continuing to stor up such strong feelings.
>
> He fulfills several archetypal roles:
>
> 1) He suffered badly during the last few years of his life, and people
> tend to empathise with the Suffering Hero.
>
> 2) He was the younger son come to power, like in all the old folk tales.
>
> 3) He was a spectacularly brave military hero, praised for his courage
> even by his enemies.
>
> 4) He lost, and the British love a gallant loser.
>
> 5) His relationship with Ann has the potential to be portrayed as a Great
> Romance.
>
> 6) His death connects to the archetype of the king-sacrifice.
>
> 7) He and his brother were the most ethnically English kings England ever
> had.
>
> I'm sure there's others I've forgotten. In addition, his story appeals not
> only to anyone interested in justice but also to conspiracy theorists and
> anybody who feels that "the establishment" - in this case established
> historical othodoxy - is not to be trusted.
>
> He himself stands out like a rock above the flood, and only Henry II
> really compares with him. He wasn't trained to be king and on one level he
> didn't act like a king: he behaved more like Josiah Wedgewood or William
> Lever, wealthy managers with strong social consciences who devoted much
> money and effort to improving the lives of their workforces, whilst still
> running a competitive company. Yet he also tried to behave (and quite often
> succeeded in behaving) like a noble Arthurian warrior out of an antique
> tale, so whether you see history as a succession of striking individuals or
> as a succession of social reforms, either way there he is.
>
> As to why he's hated, the first and most important reason imo is because
> the treacherous older relative who turns out to be out to get you is such a
> powerful archetype. Think of the beginning of Kidnapped, for example, where
> David Balfour's uncle first tries to do him in and then sells him as a
> slave. The myth of the murderous uncle is too deliciously sinister to give
> up.
>
> Then there's the literary and cultural weight carried by Shakespeare and
> More, already mentioned.
>
> Then there's the great admiration which is still felt for Elizabeth I. I
> think people think that acknoledging Richard as rightful king undermines
> the Tudors - although in fact it doesn't, since their claim was primarily
> by conquest, not by blood, and with all the dodgy things Henry VIII got up
> to the idea that Elizabeth I's grandmother might have been the product of a
> bigamous union hardly matters.
>
> Then there's the feeling that Ricardians are just trying to whitewash a
> villain, or that we're being sentimental, and that sentiment has no place
> in history. The plethora of mediocre romance novels about Richard doesn't
> really help this.
>
> Then there's cynicism and inverted snobbery - a lot of people I suspect
> just don't want to consider somebody royal might be an earnest
> proto-socialist doing his best for the people, instead of grinding the poor
> into the dust like they think the aristocracy are supposed to do.
>
> I'm sure I've missed a few.
>
>
>
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I realize that there are plenty of Ricardians who probably wish the whole 'fiction' side of things would just go away. While I respect those feelings, and even understand them, I think that to disparage all fiction about Richard pushes us in the direction of the elitism we so often feel directed at us by so-called 'serious' (for which read, more often than not, 'traditionalist') historians. I think it is important not to lump all Ricardian fiction into one bunch that we then label sappy, sentimental, poorly-researched. That's a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water. There are indeed too many novels about Richard that are nothing more than paeans to his prowess as a lover. I remember reading one many years ago (when I was, as Hilary says, at a far more impressionable age) in which the fictional heroine managed, in the space of only a couple of hundred pages, to bed all three Yorkist brothers. But, Richard was, of course, the one she truly loved, the one who was a tender and accomplished lover. But I think we must concede that novels like 'Some Touch of Pity', 'We Speak No Treason' and 'The Sunne in Splendour' have brought countless numbers to Richard's cause. I have rarely been so moved as I was/am by Rosemary Hawley Jarman's description of Richard's journey back into Leicester and the preparation of his body for burial. I still cannot read those passages without being brought to tears. A recent Rciardian novel—'A Rose for the Crown' by Anne Easter Smith—is meticulously researched (as are all her books), beautifully written, and brings Richard to life in a completely pleasing and believable way.

I agree that there is a certain danger in all of this for it creates an easy target that then allows Ricardians not to be taken seriously and harkens back to that tired old relic: "Ladies of a certain age in love with a dead king." But as has been pointed out, there's no escaping that Richard has indeed achieved a kind of rock-star status that isn't likely to change. Just read Claire's perfect accounting of the reasons he inspires such passion—both positive and negative—to understand why. Perhaps, in the end, it all comes down to whether one believes it more important to bring more of the mainstream populace into the Ricardian fold, or to be accepted by academia and establishment historians. I think both are important and as a trained medieval historian myself, I'm not ashamed to say that I enjoy good Ricardian fiction just as much as I do poking around in contemporary sources, reading a new perspective on Bosworth, or learning about the complex intricacies of tracing DNA. –Pamela Garrett





---

Agree guys!


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

On Apr 25, 2013, at 3:19 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Agree...so agree....tragic...eileen
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> >
> > I think that, from all the things we know about him, Richard was a man way before his time. Maybe that is why he was so vilified, the Tudor dinosaurs couldn't understand him!!
> >
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've wondered too about why so many people still care. In fact, back in
> > > February, a friend of mine who knew nothing about Richard & is very
> > > interested in figuring out the wheels-within-wheels in today's world
> > > actually asked me "who cares." Her next question was can I see anything
> > > similar to Richard's story playing out today. As I've read more about
> > > Richard's accomplishments, he comes across to me very much as what my
> > > husband calls an "even" man. His regulations and laws demonstrate an
> > > interest in treating people equitably. It also strikes me (maybe wrong
> > > about this & would welcome correction) that his supporters didn't number
> > > very many of the "grandees" among them, other than the Duke of Norfolk &
> > > Viscount Lovell - I tend to think of men like the York City council, and
> > > Sir James Tyrell & Sir Edward Brampton for his inner circle. So one way of
> > > looking at Richard's story (& which makes some of us feel passionately
> > > about him) is the conflict between the have's and those who represent the
> > > have-not's. Seems as if that's a story without a beginning or an end,
> > > human nature being what it is.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:11 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@>wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, Claire. It's all so fascinating. Who would have thought even
> > > > last year that we would now be able to know so much more about Richard?
> > > > It's almost as if we'll suddenly wake up and found we had a collective
> > > > dream! When I first became interested in Richard, back in about 1969, there
> > > > was much more guesswork than now. But he still `grabbed' me. And suddenly
> > > > we have his actual skeleton to tell us so much. It brings us so
> > > > unbelievably close to him. I regret having deserted the 12th-15th centuries
> > > > for decades of writing over sixty Regency-set novels for UK and US
> > > > publishers, but I'm back now and loving every minute of it. I don't know
> > > > exactly what it is about Richard III that fires people up so much, but he
> > > > certainly does. He fires hearts or raises hackles. Writing about him again
> > > > has brought me home to the earlier period that is my first love. I am not a
> > > > historian, just an enthusiastic writer, hence my many dumb questions. I
> > > > think the forum is splendid, as are its members, and I'm proud to be part
> > > > of it.
> > > > Sandra
> > > > From: Claire M Jordan
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:12 PM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's National Portrait
> > > > Gallery likeness
> > > >
> > > > From: SandraMachin
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:39 AM
> > > > Subject: Richard's National Portrait Gallery
> > > > likeness
> > > >
> > > > > I may be showing my ignorance again here, but on the NPG portrait there
> > > > is
> > > > > a
> > > > short crease/scar on Richard's forehead, between the eyebrows. It passes
> > > > from bottom left to top right as one looks at the portrait. Is it a scar? A
> > > > natural crease? A blemish on the painting itself? Does anyone know?
> > > >
> > > > The National Portrait Gallery website lets you magnify small sections of
> > > > the
> > > > portrait to a very high magnification, and some years ago I laboriously
> > > > worked my way over it magnifying it as far as it would go and then
> > > > stitching
> > > > the individuqal magnified sections back together using PrintScreen and
> > > > ImageFolio. So I can say with confidence it's not a blemish in the
> > > > painting
> > > > as it stands - although of course the NPG portrait is believed to be a
> > > > copy
> > > > from a lost original, so it's possible there ws a blemish on the
> > > > *original*
> > > > and the copyist has misinterpeted it and painted it in as a wrinkle.
> > > >
> > > > If you look closely, you'll see there's a curved wrinkle next to that
> > > > slanting groove, defining the shape of his right browm but there isn't one
> > > > on his left. It's possible, just about, that this is true to life. Some
> > > > people are more mobile on one side of their face than the other and it's
> > > > possible he was in the habit of raising his right eyebrow sardonically,
> > > > enough to generate a wrinkle, but not the left one.
> > > >
> > > > Or he got fed up with sitting still and wandered off to do something else
> > > > before the artist had finished drawing in all the lines around his eyes....
> > > >
> > > > > The missing segment of the small finger of his right hand, the one he
> > > > > holds the ring to, seems to be confirmed by his skeleton.
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Not only is his right little finger in his skeleton the only finger
> > > > which is missing more than just the nail phalanx, but the phalanx which
> > > > remains has a slightly wasted - and waisted - look, suggesting that it
> > > > hadn't had to do much work for a long time. This is consistent with his
> > > > having lost half his finger in battle somewhere, as opposed to it having
> > > > gone missing in the grave.
> > > >
> > > > The version of the standard portrait which is in the Royal Collection
> > > > shows
> > > > a nail on that unusually short finger, suggesting deformity rather than
> > > > injury - but it too is a copy from a lost original, plus it's been forkled
> > > > about with after the event, so the copyist may just have misunderstood
> > > > what
> > > > they were looking at. The NPG one definitely looks like a nailless stump -
> > > > especially as his left little finger is shown as quite long.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Claire, I really like your analyses.
He fascinates us in so many levels. Then there is the thing about people in general wanting to right the wrong. And Ricardians feel this man has been very shabbily treated by history. Hence our fervor. I am still not sure why some people seems to personally dislike Richard. As if giving him a chance would destroy world peace or something! Very strange.

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

On Apr 25, 2013, at 7:43 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> Some thoughts in Richard's continuing to stor up such strong feelings.
>
> He fulfills several archetypal roles:
>
> 1) He suffered badly during the last few years of his life, and people tend to empathise with the Suffering Hero.
>
> 2) He was the younger son come to power, like in all the old folk tales.
>
> 3) He was a spectacularly brave military hero, praised for his courage even by his enemies.
>
> 4) He lost, and the British love a gallant loser.
>
> 5) His relationship with Ann has the potential to be portrayed as a Great Romance.
>
> 6) His death connects to the archetype of the king-sacrifice.
>
> 7) He and his brother were the most ethnically English kings England ever had.
>
> I'm sure there's others I've forgotten. In addition, his story appeals not only to anyone interested in justice but also to conspiracy theorists and anybody who feels that "the establishment" - in this case established historical othodoxy - is not to be trusted.
>
> He himself stands out like a rock above the flood, and only Henry II really compares with him. He wasn't trained to be king and on one level he didn't act like a king: he behaved more like Josiah Wedgewood or William Lever, wealthy managers with strong social consciences who devoted much money and effort to improving the lives of their workforces, whilst still running a competitive company. Yet he also tried to behave (and quite often succeeded in behaving) like a noble Arthurian warrior out of an antique tale, so whether you see history as a succession of striking individuals or as a succession of social reforms, either way there he is.
>
> As to why he's hated, the first and most important reason imo is because the treacherous older relative who turns out to be out to get you is such a powerful archetype. Think of the beginning of Kidnapped, for example, where David Balfour's uncle first tries to do him in and then sells him as a slave. The myth of the murderous uncle is too deliciously sinister to give up.
>
> Then there's the literary and cultural weight carried by Shakespeare and More, already mentioned.
>
> Then there's the great admiration which is still felt for Elizabeth I. I think people think that acknoledging Richard as rightful king undermines the Tudors - although in fact it doesn't, since their claim was primarily by conquest, not by blood, and with all the dodgy things Henry VIII got up to the idea that Elizabeth I's grandmother might have been the product of a bigamous union hardly matters.
>
> Then there's the feeling that Ricardians are just trying to whitewash a villain, or that we're being sentimental, and that sentiment has no place in history. The plethora of mediocre romance novels about Richard doesn't really help this.
>
> Then there's cynicism and inverted snobbery - a lot of people I suspect just don't want to consider somebody royal might be an earnest proto-socialist doing his best for the people, instead of grinding the poor into the dust like they think the aristocracy are supposed to do.
>
> I'm sure I've missed a few.
>
>
>
>

Many of us came to Richard through fiction. Sunne being my entry to the Ricardian world! Not all of them are bad. Specially Sunne is a well researched and well written book.
But then I have read books where Richard is made out to be a saint who is fabulous in bed! Those are probably the ones Claire is referring to........ But I will take well written Ricardian novels anytime:)

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

On Apr 26, 2013, at 10:52 AM, "hli4" <hli4@...> wrote:

>
>
> >
> > Then there's the feeling that Ricardians are just trying to whitewash a villain, or that we're being sentimental, and that sentiment has no place in history. The plethora of mediocre romance novels about Richard doesn't really help this.
> >
>
> It is an excellent summary of why many become Ricardians. There are so few facts are known about Richard, his enemies twisted them one way to assign even his good acts with insincere and manipulative motives; while his supporters interpret the same facts as a reflection of his true character of fair mindedness and social conscientiousness.
>
> Although sentiment has something to do with history, if not, then the history books should only contain the known facts about Richard and not assign blame and motives to events they have no definitive proof.
>
> The romance novels may be soapy but it does give a different and coherent portrait of this enigmatic man. They are often much more historically accurate then Shakespeare and More. So who is to say they should be objects of ridicule and embarrassment and not the works of the other playwright and the "saint".
>
>

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:00 AM
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about
King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken


> I am still not sure why some people seems to personally dislike Richard.
> As if giving him a chance would destroy world peace or something! Very
> strange.

Well, there's the point I mentioned before, that acknowledging that Richard
wasn't a usurper means acknowledging that Henry was an invader, just like
Duke William. And admitting that we were successfully invaded and conquered
by a French-backed army in 1485 strikes at our national myth - it's like
telling an American that the Mayflower never existed.

Then there's the point Pamela Tudor-Craig mentioned, that Richard's
pronouncements and letters are "sharply personal" - he's not malleable or
bland, his personality is very in-your-face and some people don't like that.
And some of his statements make him seem quite vulnerable and people who are
bullies, or who don't like men to show emotion, will attack that.

But also - and I think this is a big thing - cynicism is very popular. A
certain amount of cynicism is healthy - I'd rather be cynical than sappy any
day - but a lot of people use cynicism as an excuse for their own moral
laziness. They want to believe that everybody is selfish and nobody is
altruistic because then they don't need to try to be altruistic themselves.
They don't want to believe that somebody they've been brought up to see as
an exemplar of self-serving and ruthless cynicism, as per Shakespeare, was
really a decent, hard-working adminstrator who seems to have been mainly
motivated by (somewhat misplaced, imo) loyalty and a desire to Do the Right
Thing. So Good Richard strikes at their world view.

When I write my RIII novel with a female protagonist, she will not bed RIII.? But she will get him to look at LOLcat pictures on the internet.

(Runs away merrily)

Tamara






-----Original Message-----
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: <>
Sent: Fri, Apr 26, 2013 8:10 pm
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken




Many of us came to Richard through fiction. Sunne being my entry to the
Ricardian world! Not all of them are bad. Specially Sunne is a well researched
and well written book.
But then I have read books where Richard is made out to be a saint who is
fabulous in bed! Those are probably the ones Claire is referring to........ But
I will take well written Ricardian novels anytime:)

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

On Apr 26, 2013, at 10:52 AM, "hli4" <hli4@...> wrote:

>
>
> >
> > Then there's the feeling that Ricardians are just trying to whitewash a
villain, or that we're being sentimental, and that sentiment has no place in
history. The plethora of mediocre romance novels about Richard doesn't really
help this.
> >
>
> It is an excellent summary of why many become Ricardians. There are so few
facts are known about Richard, his enemies twisted them one way to assign even
his good acts with insincere and manipulative motives; while his supporters
interpret the same facts as a reflection of his true character of fair
mindedness and social conscientiousness.
>
> Although sentiment has something to do with history, if not, then the history
books should only contain the known facts about Richard and not assign blame and
motives to events they have no definitive proof.
>
> The romance novels may be soapy but it does give a different and coherent
portrait of this enigmatic man. They are often much more historically accurate
then Shakespeare and More. So who is to say they should be objects of ridicule
and embarrassment and not the works of the other playwright and the "saint".
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]

<*> 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/

From: Pamela
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 12:10 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken
I agree that there is a certain danger in all of this for it creates an easy target that then allows Ricardians not to be taken seriously and harkens back to that tired old relic: "Ladies of a certain age in love with a dead king."

Sandra:
I was in my mid-twenties, not of a certain age', when I first wondered what Richard might have been like in bed. In the absence of proof that he was indifferent, I'm happy with my original decision. Nothing to do with a dead king', but a person. If I wondered so many other things about Richard, not least whether he actually warranted any of the odium, why not wonder about the more personal side of him as well? Not to consider it seems a little selective to me. He wasn't two-dimensional. What is known of Richard's character strongly suggests that the last thing he'd be is a selfish lover. Would anyone on the forum argue with that assessment? The not being a selfish lover' bit I mean. If only Anne Neville had recorded her thoughts. Brief jottings, no doubt. Dear Diary. Last night Richard gave me so much pleasure that my ears still whistle.

I've wondered the same thing about a lot of men, past and present  no first-hand experience of anyone famous in particular, I hasten to add. Was Charles II was as good as his reputation suggests? Or was he just a randy git who got his leg over at every opportunity, and to hell with whoever that leg happened to be over at the time? Was Josephine actually relieved when she was told Not tonight? Might the Big Bad Wolf have been an intriguing prospect? Was Nelson a mind-blowing experience? Why the hell did Guinevere go off with Lancelot when she had Arthur? Was Henry VIII's prowess worth the terror? Did Byron live up to the panting hero-worship of half the young women in Regency London? What was it about Albert that had Victoria's knickers in such an unbelievable twist? And in the present day, just how many of these heartthrob film actors can really deliver between the sheets? It's probably the less likely ones who can. Oh, the list goes on. I'll still be wondering about it all when I eventually turn up my toes. Maybe when I get to that other place, I'll be able to learn the answers. Face to face, so to speak. And yes, my husband of forty-five years *is* still alive and can walk! <g>

I recently acquired a DVD of The Trial which comes as an extra to the remastered DVD of Olivier's Richard III.  I hadn't seen it since the original TV showing and had forgotten quite how interesting it was.  I know that the lawyer appearing for the defence (Mr Dawson) was in fact Richard du Cann, but does anyone know who the lawyer appearing for the prosecution was?  I've tried Google, but haven't found anything.

I must agree about there being no romantic novels about John, or even
Richard his brother, that I can think of to give either of them much of
a following.
The parallels between John and Richard are however numerous.
John took the throne from his nephew, though primogeniture had not yet
been established as such. It would only come in after John's death when
a young heir was seen as an advantage by feuding and greedy barons.
He is accused of murdering his nephew, some even say he did it
personally, which none say of our Richard.
His supporters were the like of William Marshall, loyal to the family
first before anything, and a man all agree as being honorable. No writer
the Marshall, to set down the facts as he saw them. So the chronicles
were written by churchmen, and as John had at one point put it about
that if the Pope didn't set aside his dispute with the king he would
take the country to Islam, we know what their bias was!
John must have had some charisma though to keep men fighting for him,
even after losing his French lands. But then he was up against a master
in the person of Philippe Augustus, the French king. Few would have
bettered him, as John's father would testify.
In his favour, John was a brilliant administrator who put into effect
his father's laws, and made sure they were enforced.
Then of course John did not die heroically in battle.
Paul


On 26/04/2013 22:24, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Do you think it had anything to do with the fact that some of the key books - and I'm thinking of 'We Speak No Treason' came out when we were at an impressionable age? There hasn't really been a key fiction book on Richard since Penman in the Nineties, and whatever you say, it's often fiction that starts you on a trail. For example I wouldn't have thought about exploring 17th c France without The Three Musketeers, or Richard/John without Ivanhoe. They might not all be true to history, but they spark an interest. And once you discover the reality, which in the case of Richard is courageous and good, then you have to support his cause.
>
> Must get back to work!
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about
King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken


> What is known of Richard's character strongly suggests that the last thing
> he'd be is a selfish lover. Would anyone on the forum argue with that
> assessment? The not being a selfish lover' bit I mean.

Yes - we know, because he said so himself, that he considered it a husband's
duty to love his wife and treat her well and accto Croyland (not 100%
reliable) he shared a bed with Ann, at a time when that was probably
unusual, and had to be banned from it by his doctors when she got sick.
Taken together these suggest that he probably saw sexual attention as part
of that requirement to be loving.

OTOH we don't know how much pain he might have been in at night.
Near-contemporary claims that he had to take his own bed with him wherever
he went or else he couldn't sleep, and that he would sometimes leap out of
bed screaming in the middle of the night (neither from a very reliable
source, though) both suggest back-pain, and a friend of mine who has a mild
scoliosis certainly finds it difficult to get comfortable in bed, even
though he's usually OK when he's upright. So Richard might have preferred
female-dominant positions of neccessity.

But what better reason to learn to be good at foreplay....

Claire: So Richard might have preferred
female-dominant positions of neccessity.
But what better reason to learn to be good at foreplay....
Sandra: Now there's a thought to conjure with.

er, yes, that does conjure some very interesting visualizations!
Nicole

~~~ Music is lots of sound waves coming toward us in a completely chaotic manner and somehow our brain receives that as something beautiful - Matthew Bellamy

To:
From: sandramachin@...
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 11:38:43 +0100
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken


























Claire: So Richard might have preferred

female-dominant positions of neccessity.

But what better reason to learn to be good at foreplay....

Sandra: Now thereýs a thought to conjure with.

Hi, Claire & Sandra & Everyone 

Well, I leave the Forum for a few months (had to catch up on my studies, doncha know) and when I come back, what do I find? The Forum has turned into an R-rated hotspot! J



I will tell you honestly, I have never had romantic fantasies about Richard, but I love to imagine him in other ways. Maybe that has something to do with my introduction to him at the age of 20 via Josephine Tey and PMK, which are romances, without being romantic like so much fiction about Richard. Even Sharon Kay Penman, in *Sunne* does create romantic scenarios for Richard, including one completely imaginary (so far as I know) after Anne's death and before Bosworth. I imagine Richard as the keen leader, modest, humble, especially compared to brothers Edward and George (I would say we don't know enough about Edmund, but he, too, may have had that Plantagenet grandiosity).



I really think that it is useful to think of the Tudor slanders about Richard, conveyed via More (Morton) and Shakespeare, and then think of the opposite in character, and you will come much closer to the truth about Richard  especially that he was the last one to dream of his being king and only took on the task from a sense of duty.



As far as the romantic aspect, well, I do think he is a figure of romance, for all the reasons that Claire mentioned. The most striking fact for me is the fact that there is so much conventional wisdom about Richard that is obviously distorted, and so many traditionalists seem to have judged him out of hand, without giving him the benefit of the doubt. I agree that the prevalence of cynicism in our society has encouraged the prevalence of this view. And that is why I think Richard appeals to many women (as opposed to guys who seem to be drawn to the medieval warrior-knight and maybe the legitimate-king images of Richard in particular), because women are often more intuitive, and I think intuition about Richard's true character plays a great role in how people like me see him. The historical record is so spotty, one has to be able to connect the dots and read between the lines!



Anyway, regarding Richard as lover, and considering what we know of his scoliosis, I could see him saying, Not tonight, dear, I've got a terrible backache! I am fairly sure that after the scoliosis developed, Richard's behavior probably became more than ever an example of moral rectitude (in other words, he sowed his wild oats fairly early in his teens and then cleaned up his act, which is what most historians surmise), not only because of physical discomfort he may have suffered, but perhaps if he accepted the conventional wisdom that his infirmity was brought about by his sins, that would have been a powerful motivation for him to be as pure as possible in thought, word and deed. I wonder if he felt that he was being punished for all the sins of the Plantagenets, especially Edward's profligacy! (pure speculation there).



Nice to be back  y'all carry on!



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 6:07 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken





From: SandraMachin
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about
King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken

> What is known of Richard's character strongly suggests that the last thing
> he'd be is a selfish lover. Would anyone on the forum argue with that
> assessment? The not being a selfish lover' bit I mean.

Yes - we know, because he said so himself, that he considered it a husband's
duty to love his wife and treat her well and accto Croyland (not 100%
reliable) he shared a bed with Ann, at a time when that was probably
unusual, and had to be banned from it by his doctors when she got sick.
Taken together these suggest that he probably saw sexual attention as part
of that requirement to be loving.

OTOH we don't know how much pain he might have been in at night.
Near-contemporary claims that he had to take his own bed with him wherever
he went or else he couldn't sleep, and that he would sometimes leap out of
bed screaming in the middle of the night (neither from a very reliable
source, though) both suggest back-pain, and a friend of mine who has a mild
scoliosis certainly finds it difficult to get comfortable in bed, even
though he's usually OK when he's upright. So Richard might have preferred
female-dominant positions of neccessity.

But what better reason to learn to be good at foreplay....

"SandraMachin" wrote:

> [snip] What is known of Richard’s character strongly suggests that the last thing he’d be is a selfish lover. Would anyone on the forum argue with that assessment? [snip]

Carol responds:

I think his promise to Elizabeth Woodville (Dame Elizabeth Gray to him) to find husbands for her daughters who would ""lovingly . . . love and entreat [treat] them, as wives and my kinswomen, as they will avoid and eschew my displeasure" indicates strongly how he believed that a wife should be treated--and how he treated his own wife. What other man or king would exact such a promise from a future husband in the business of fifteenth-century arranged marriage? I'll bet that Edward, who happily married off children, including his own son, didn't do it.

Carol

I am passionate about King Richard, but had never even thought about his abilities as a lover. He was just a mystery for me, why he was treated with such rancor and disdain. You who posted about his sexuality made me smile. When I open up my email, I never fail to be surprised!

On Apr 27, 2013, at 5:03 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



"SandraMachin" wrote:

> [snip] What is known of Richardýýýs character strongly suggests that the last thing heýýýd be is a selfish lover. Would anyone on the forum argue with that assessment? [snip]

Carol responds:

I think his promise to Elizabeth Woodville (Dame Elizabeth Gray to him) to find husbands for her daughters who would ""lovingly . . . love and entreat [treat] them, as wives and my kinswomen, as they will avoid and eschew my displeasure" indicates strongly how he believed that a wife should be treated--and how he treated his own wife. What other man or king would exact such a promise from a future husband in the business of fifteenth-century arranged marriage? I'll bet that Edward, who happily married off children, including his own son, didn't do it.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about
King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken


> "lovingly . . . love and entreat [treat] them, as wives and my kinswomen,
> as they will avoid and eschew my displeasure"

If this is sincere - and it certainly sounds it - it's a clear statement
that he still saw Edward's children as his kin, legitimate or not, and
wanted to do well by them - he's not seeing them as Woodvilles and the
enemy. That greatly reduces the lielihood of his having offed his nephews.

Johanne Tournier wrote:
> [snip] Even Sharon Kay Penman, in *Sunne* does create romantic scenarios for Richard, including one completely imaginary (so far as I know) after Anne’s death and before Bosworth. I imagine Richard as the keen leader, modest, humble, especially compared to brothers Edward and George (I would say we don’t know enough about Edmund, but he, too, may have had that Plantagenet grandiosity).

> I really think that it is useful to think of the Tudor slanders about Richard, conveyed via More (Morton) and Shakespeare, and then think of the opposite in character, and you will come much closer to the truth about Richard â€" especially that he was the last one to dream of his being king and only took on the task from a sense of duty. [snip]

Carol responds:

Hi, Johann! Great to have you back. If you get a chance, you might want to follow the interesting thread about whether George might have been right that Isabel was poisoned. (We haven't arrived at any conclusions. We're just trying to make connections.)

I like your description of Richard, which is more or less as I see him, only I would add that was a hard worker, perhaps bad at delegating authority, and a good negotiator who seems to have been uncommonly interested in fairness and justice.

I think the problem with most historians reading Richard is that they share Polydore Vergil's perspective--Richard performed a lot of good actions because he wanted to *look good* and call attention away from his bad deeds with good ones--in other words, he was a hypocrite. If we eliminate that perspective and what we know or think we know through hindsight and biased chroniclers and take Richard's words and actions at face value we'll understand him better than those who see him as a grasping, ambitious, ruthless hypocrite whose every good action must have a base motive. Or as "a genius of propaganda," as one author has recently called him in a book about *Sir Edward Woodville* as the last knight errant. (If Sir E were a knight errant, he would have followed Richard as the ideal king, putting chivalry before Woodville interests. Alas, he was a pirate and a traitor who believed Tudor's lies.)

I know it's impossible to catch up on all you've missed, especially since we were averaging a thousand posts a day for a while, but I hope you get a chance to browse through the threads to find some that interest you.

Carol

That word "sincerity" is one of the issues isn't it. I've been thinking
that if we receive Richard's words as given sincerely, we get such a
different impression of his character. Those same words received by
someone who is already convinced that Richard was a Machiavelli are heard
as evidence of his duplicity and cunning.

Will the twain ever meet?

A J


On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 11:03 PM
>
> Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate
> about
> King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken
>
> > "lovingly . . . love and entreat [treat] them, as wives and my
> kinswomen,
> > as they will avoid and eschew my displeasure"
>
> If this is sincere - and it certainly sounds it - it's a clear statement
> that he still saw Edward's children as his kin, legitimate or not, and
> wanted to do well by them - he's not seeing them as Woodvilles and the
> enemy. That greatly reduces the lielihood of his having offed his nephews.
>
>
>

Hi, Carol 



I have only been back since this morning, and I'm already in awe . . . it looks like there are some really knowledgeable new members, and put that together with the old crew, and you should have been having some amazing discussions.



While I was gone from the Forum, I couldn't completely abandon Richard, so I became a lot more active on Facebook than I have ever been before. That's fun, too, because it can bring together friends from different circles and cross-pollinate, you might say. But, while Facebook is great for the sense of immediacy you can get when someone responds to something you post, and you get a little heads-up pop-up thingy, and it's great for sharing photos and videos, it's not as good for having a complex discussion, because, you know, your comments just go one after the other in what looks almost like a thumbnail format.



Thanks for the suggestion to check out the old messages about Ankarette Twynyho (sp?) thread. I just finished reading Peter Hancock's *RIII and the Murder in the Tower* and I highly recommend it!! He discusses George in connection with Stillington, though I don't think he got into as much detail as he did about the Hastings-Catesby-Stillington connections. Hancock is the first author I have read that puts a plausible theory of the execution of Hastings and how the pre-contract was disclosed to Richard. It really is fascinating, and although his literary style is not particularly fluid, I would highly recommend the book.



Great to be back! And glad to see that Richard's popularity in February was not just a flash-in-the-pan!



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 7:24 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken






Johanne Tournier wrote:
> [snip] Even Sharon Kay Penman, in *Sunne* does create romantic scenarios for Richard, including one completely imaginary (so far as I know) after Anneâ¬"s death and before Bosworth. I imagine Richard as the keen leader, modest, humble, especially compared to brothers Edward and George (I would say we donâ¬"t know enough about Edmund, but he, too, may have had that Plantagenet grandiosity).

> I really think that it is useful to think of the Tudor slanders about Richard, conveyed via More (Morton) and Shakespeare, and then think of the opposite in character, and you will come much closer to the truth about Richard â¬" especially that he was the last one to dream of his being king and only took on the task from a sense of duty. [snip]

Carol responds:

Hi, Johann! Great to have you back. If you get a chance, you might want to follow the interesting thread about whether George might have been right that Isabel was poisoned. (We haven't arrived at any conclusions. We're just trying to make connections.)

I like your description of Richard, which is more or less as I see him, only I would add that was a hard worker, perhaps bad at delegating authority, and a good negotiator who seems to have been uncommonly interested in fairness and justice.

I think the problem with most historians reading Richard is that they share Polydore Vergil's perspective--Richard performed a lot of good actions because he wanted to *look good* and call attention away from his bad deeds with good ones--in other words, he was a hypocrite. If we eliminate that perspective and what we know or think we know through hindsight and biased chroniclers and take Richard's words and actions at face value we'll understand him better than those who see him as a grasping, ambitious, ruthless hypocrite whose every good action must have a base motive. Or as "a genius of propaganda," as one author has recently called him in a book about *Sir Edward Woodville* as the last knight errant. (If Sir E were a knight errant, he would have followed Richard as the ideal king, putting chivalry before Woodville interests. Alas, he was a pirate and a traitor who believed Tudor's lies.)

I know it's impossible to catch up on all you've missed, especially since we were averaging a thousand posts a day for a while, but I hope you get a chance to browse through the threads to find some that interest you.

Carol

I have always thought it a travesty that the so-called Lionheart has a statue outside Parliament when he didn't care a fig for this country; yet his brother who did, and albeit made some mistakes, is reviled. It just echoes the justice of propeganda. And as you say, he didn't have the 'luck' to die in battle.
 

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 11:04
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken

 

I must agree about there being no romantic novels about John, or even
Richard his brother, that I can think of to give either of them much of
a following.
The parallels between John and Richard are however numerous.
John took the throne from his nephew, though primogeniture had not yet
been established as such. It would only come in after John's death when
a young heir was seen as an advantage by feuding and greedy barons.
He is accused of murdering his nephew, some even say he did it
personally, which none say of our Richard.
His supporters were the like of William Marshall, loyal to the family
first before anything, and a man all agree as being honorable. No writer
the Marshall, to set down the facts as he saw them. So the chronicles
were written by churchmen, and as John had at one point put it about
that if the Pope didn't set aside his dispute with the king he would
take the country to Islam, we know what their bias was!
John must have had some charisma though to keep men fighting for him,
even after losing his French lands. But then he was up against a master
in the person of Philippe Augustus, the French king. Few would have
bettered him, as John's father would testify.
In his favour, John was a brilliant administrator who put into effect
his father's laws, and made sure they were enforced.
Then of course John did not die heroically in battle.
Paul

On 26/04/2013 22:24, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Do you think it had anything to do with the fact that some of the key books - and I'm thinking of 'We Speak No Treason' came out when we were at an impressionable age? There hasn't really been a key fiction book on Richard since Penman in the Nineties, and whatever you say, it's often fiction that starts you on a trail. For example I wouldn't have thought about exploring 17th c France without The Three Musketeers, or Richard/John without Ivanhoe. They might not all be true to history, but they spark an interest. And once you discover the reality, which in the case of Richard is courageous and good, then you have to support his cause.
>
> Must get back to work!
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Funnily enough I was thinking that about Richard the Lionheart a few weeks ago when they showed his statue outside Parliament on television. My thoughts were more why has he got a statue there when Richard III cared a lot more about this country than Lionheart ever did. I realise that Richard's damaged reputation would deny him that honour. However, in future who knows!!

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I have always thought it a travesty that the so-called Lionheart has a statue outside Parliament when he didn't care a fig for this country; yet his brother who did, and albeit made some mistakes, is reviled. It just echoes the justice of propeganda. And as you say, he didn't have the 'luck' to die in battle.
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 11:04
> Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken
>
>  
>
> I must agree about there being no romantic novels about John, or even
> Richard his brother, that I can think of to give either of them much of
> a following.
> The parallels between John and Richard are however numerous.
> John took the throne from his nephew, though primogeniture had not yet
> been established as such. It would only come in after John's death when
> a young heir was seen as an advantage by feuding and greedy barons.
> He is accused of murdering his nephew, some even say he did it
> personally, which none say of our Richard.
> His supporters were the like of William Marshall, loyal to the family
> first before anything, and a man all agree as being honorable. No writer
> the Marshall, to set down the facts as he saw them. So the chronicles
> were written by churchmen, and as John had at one point put it about
> that if the Pope didn't set aside his dispute with the king he would
> take the country to Islam, we know what their bias was!
> John must have had some charisma though to keep men fighting for him,
> even after losing his French lands. But then he was up against a master
> in the person of Philippe Augustus, the French king. Few would have
> bettered him, as John's father would testify.
> In his favour, John was a brilliant administrator who put into effect
> his father's laws, and made sure they were enforced.
> Then of course John did not die heroically in battle.
> Paul
>
> On 26/04/2013 22:24, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > Do you think it had anything to do with the fact that some of the key books - and I'm thinking of 'We Speak No Treason' came out when we were at an impressionable age? There hasn't really been a key fiction book on Richard since Penman in the Nineties, and whatever you say, it's often fiction that starts you on a trail. For example I wouldn't have thought about exploring 17th c France without The Three Musketeers, or Richard/John without Ivanhoe. They might not all be true to history, but they spark an interest. And once you discover the reality, which in the case of Richard is courageous and good, then you have to support his cause.
> >
> > Must get back to work!
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>

Yes and even poor John has a nicer tomb than what we can expect for Richard
by the sounds of it.

Sent from my iPhone

On 2013-04-27, at 4:54 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:



I have always thought it a travesty that the so-called Lionheart has a
statue outside Parliament when he didn't care a fig for this country; yet
his brother who did, and albeit made some mistakes, is reviled. It just
echoes the justice of propeganda. And as you say, he didn't have the 'luck'
to die in battle.


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 27 April 2013, 11:04
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about
King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken



I must agree about there being no romantic novels about John, or even
Richard his brother, that I can think of to give either of them much of
a following.
The parallels between John and Richard are however numerous.
John took the throne from his nephew, though primogeniture had not yet
been established as such. It would only come in after John's death when
a young heir was seen as an advantage by feuding and greedy barons.
He is accused of murdering his nephew, some even say he did it
personally, which none say of our Richard.
His supporters were the like of William Marshall, loyal to the family
first before anything, and a man all agree as being honorable. No writer
the Marshall, to set down the facts as he saw them. So the chronicles
were written by churchmen, and as John had at one point put it about
that if the Pope didn't set aside his dispute with the king he would
take the country to Islam, we know what their bias was!
John must have had some charisma though to keep men fighting for him,
even after losing his French lands. But then he was up against a master
in the person of Philippe Augustus, the French king. Few would have
bettered him, as John's father would testify.
In his favour, John was a brilliant administrator who put into effect
his father's laws, and made sure they were enforced.
Then of course John did not die heroically in battle.
Paul

On 26/04/2013 22:24, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Do you think it had anything to do with the fact that some of the key
books - and I'm thinking of 'We Speak No Treason' came out when we were at
an impressionable age? There hasn't really been a key fiction book on
Richard since Penman in the Nineties, and whatever you say, it's often
fiction that starts you on a trail. For example I wouldn't have thought
about exploring 17th c France without The Three Musketeers, or Richard/John
without Ivanhoe. They might not all be true to history, but they spark an
interest. And once you discover the reality, which in the case of Richard
is courageous and good, then you have to support his cause.
>
> Must get back to work!
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Sandra, I am laughing my a** off!!! Too funny!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 27, 2013, at 2:50 AM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

> From: Pamela
> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 12:10 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken
> I agree that there is a certain danger in all of this for it creates an easy target that then allows Ricardians not to be taken seriously and harkens back to that tired old relic: "Ladies of a certain age in love with a dead king."
>
> Sandra:
> I was in my mid-twenties, not of a certain age', when I first wondered what Richard might have been like in bed. In the absence of proof that he was indifferent, I'm happy with my original decision. Nothing to do with a dead king', but a person. If I wondered so many other things about Richard, not least whether he actually warranted any of the odium, why not wonder about the more personal side of him as well? Not to consider it seems a little selective to me. He wasn't two-dimensional. What is known of Richard's character strongly suggests that the last thing he'd be is a selfish lover. Would anyone on the forum argue with that assessment? The not being a selfish lover' bit I mean. If only Anne Neville had recorded her thoughts. Brief jottings, no doubt. Dear Diary. Last night Richard gave me so much pleasure that my ears still whistle.
>
> I've wondered the same thing about a lot of men, past and present  no first-hand experience of anyone famous in particular, I hasten to add. Was Charles II was as good as his reputation suggests? Or was he just a randy git who got his leg over at every opportunity, and to hell with whoever that leg happened to be over at the time? Was Josephine actually relieved when she was told Not tonight? Might the Big Bad Wolf have been an intriguing prospect? Was Nelson a mind-blowing experience? Why the hell did Guinevere go off with Lancelot when she had Arthur? Was Henry VIII's prowess worth the terror? Did Byron live up to the panting hero-worship of half the young women in Regency London? What was it about Albert that had Victoria's knickers in such an unbelievable twist? And in the present day, just how many of these heartthrob film actors can really deliver between the sheets? It's probably the less likely ones who can. Oh, the list goes on. I'll still be wondering about it all when I eventually turn up my toes. Maybe when I get to that other place, I'll be able to learn the answers. Face to face, so to speak. And yes, my husband of forty-five years *is* still alive and can walk! <g>
>
>
>
>

Claire, exactly. If he is thoughtful about his nieces then it does not sounds likely that he would just smoother the nephews. But again someone mentioned in another forum if he had to promise EW that no harm would come to the nieces, that would mean that EW must have thought the princes have come to harm to extract such promise........I think my sentence construction is strange.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 27, 2013, at 6:23 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 11:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about
> King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken
>
> > "lovingly . . . love and entreat [treat] them, as wives and my kinswomen,
> > as they will avoid and eschew my displeasure"
>
> If this is sincere - and it certainly sounds it - it's a clear statement
> that he still saw Edward's children as his kin, legitimate or not, and
> wanted to do well by them - he's not seeing them as Woodvilles and the
> enemy. That greatly reduces the lielihood of his having offed his nephews.
>
>

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: Why aren't people passionate about
King John et al.? (Was: Richard's NPG liken


> Claire, exactly. If he is thoughtful about his nieces then it does not
> sounds likely that he would just smoother the nephews. But again someone
> mentioned in another forum if he had to promise EW that no harm would come
> to the nieces, that would mean that EW must have thought the princes have
> come to harm to extract such promise........

It wouldn't have to mean that she thought they *had* come to harm, only that
she was concerned that they *might* - which would be natural under the
circumstances.