More Tudors

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/history-tudors-season.html
 
Can someone please explain the fascination to me?    You would think there was no other period in English history to be explored!

You couldn't make it up!! Yet another series about the Tudors add in PG's fictional account of the WOTR that is set to delight us in June and the BBC will achieve another season of disinformation.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/history-tudors-season.html
>  
> Can someone please explain the fascination to me?    You would think there was no other period in English history to be explored!
>
>
>

From: liz williams
To: richardiii
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 10:08 PM
Subject: More Tudors


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/history-tudors-season.html

> Can someone please explain the fascination to me? You would think there
> was no other period in English history to be explored!

Gaudy, flattering costumes which are easier to construct than the late
Mediaeval ones. It's a long time ago yet well-documented. Powerful queens
and a Bluebeard in office, and people's motivations are easier to understand
than in the Middle Ages - at least after the Dissolution.

And they've already got the costumes and the wigs in wardrobe!



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: Friday, May 03, 2013 7:58 PM
To:
Subject: Re: More Tudors





From: liz williams
To: richardiii
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 10:08 PM
Subject: More Tudors

>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/history-tudors-season.html

> Can someone please explain the fascination to me? You would think there
> was no other period in English history to be explored!

Gaudy, flattering costumes which are easier to construct than the late
Mediaeval ones. It's a long time ago yet well-documented. Powerful queens
and a Bluebeard in office, and people's motivations are easier to understand

than in the Middle Ages - at least after the Dissolution.

"Thomas Penn tells the story of Henry VII (1x60). He was the founder of the Tudor dynasty and yet also one of its least well-known members. In many ways he was everything his successors were not: quiet, methodical, pragmatic  but just as deadly when crossed. He was a king who understood how to wield power both at the point of a lance and also by far more modern methods, through finance, capital, international banking and commodity trading."

In essence it means RIII was not quiet, methodical or pragmatic? And H7 could wield power on the point of a lance? Hmmm.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 3, 2013, at 5:08 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/history-tudors-season.html
>
> Can someone please explain the fascination to me? You would think there was no other period in English history to be explored!
>
>
>
>

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: More Tudors


> In essence it means RIII was not quiet, methodical or pragmatic?

He was arguably methodical but I'd never say he was the other two. Anyway
the note said Henry's successors weren't those things, not his predecessors.

From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 12:04 AM
Subject: RE: More Tudors


> And they've already got the costumes and the wigs in wardrobe!

Good point - they tend to pick a period and stick to it, because they
already have the sets, costumes and props.

Also, the Mediaeval and Dark Ages periods have rather been colonised by
fantasy. If somebody tried to write a straight play about, say, Hengist and
Horsa, the audience would expect dragons and be confused when they didn't
get them. You do *get* straight historical plays set in the Middle Ages
(other than Shakespeare and Robin Hood) but they're thin on the ground.

Dang! I read predecessor! I am just becoming paranoid I think:)

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 3, 2013, at 10:25 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 3:03 AM
> Subject: Re: More Tudors
>
> > In essence it means RIII was not quiet, methodical or pragmatic?
>
> He was arguably methodical but I'd never say he was the other two. Anyway
> the note said Henry's successors weren't those things, not his predecessors.
>
>

Nope - can't explain it either. I have never got it myself. The only part of that era I found gripping was the Pilgrimage of Grace (though I'm not Catholic) - Henry and his marital shennaigans, Mary and Elizabeth all leave me cold.... 

--- On Fri, 3/5/13, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Subject: More Tudors
To: "richardiii" <>
Date: Friday, 3 May, 2013, 22:08
















 









http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/history-tudors-season.html

 

Can someone please explain the fascination to me?    You would think there was no other period in English history to be explored!

Hysterically funny.....do they make these things up as they go along...?

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> "
>? And H7 could wield power on the point of a lance? Hmmm.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 3, 2013, at 5:08 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/history-tudors-season.html
> >
> > Can someone please explain the fascination to me? You would think there was no other period in English history to be explored!
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Hysterically funny.....do they make these things up as they go along...?

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> "
>? And H7 could wield power on the point of a lance? Hmmm.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 3, 2013, at 5:08 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/history-tudors-season.html
> >
> > Can someone please explain the fascination to me? You would think there was no other period in English history to be explored!
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

liz williams wrote:

"Can someone please explain the fascination to me? You would think there was
no other period in English history to be explored!"

Plenty of source material (however dubious their accuracy) added to colorful
costumes (because it's a visual medium), characters and situations that
stand out even with insipid writer/s and actors. What's *not* like?
Oh, and being able to show famous people from history as being no better
than they should. Or us.
Doug
(who *still* thinks Elizabeth I was the best of the bunch, just over-hyped)

H7 didn't actually fight in a battle in his life. He probably didn't know one end of a lance from the other let alone how to wield it to gain power. Richard on the other hand had plenty of experience of gaining power by wielding a lance and his administrative skills were excellent. I would imagine, and I don't really know for sure, but if you were a battle commander you would have to be extremely methodical. Also he would have been more than aware of the consequences for the country and his family if he had not become King. Another "historian" who doesn't research the WOTR before committing pen to paper.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> "Thomas Penn tells the story of Henry VII (1x60). He was the founder of the Tudor dynasty and yet also one of its least well-known members. In many ways he was everything his successors were not: quiet, methodical, pragmatic â€" but just as deadly when crossed. He was a king who understood how to wield power both at the point of a lance and also by far more modern methods, through finance, capital, international banking and commodity trading."
>
> In essence it means RIII was not quiet, methodical or pragmatic? And H7 could wield power on the point of a lance? Hmmm.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 3, 2013, at 5:08 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/history-tudors-season.html
> >
> > Can someone please explain the fascination to me? You would think there was no other period in English history to be explored!
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> H7 didn't actually fight in a battle in his life. He probably didn't know one end of a lance from the other let alone how to wield it to gain power.

I was thinking the same thing. H7 was probably more despotic wielding power through the star chamber but not with a lance.

From: hli4
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudors


> I was thinking the same thing. H7 was probably more despotic wielding
> power through the star chamber but not with a lance.

But he wielded the people who wielded the lances, I presume they mean. How
true that is I'm not sure - were his forces involved in many (any?) battles
after Stoke? Mustering the Beafeaters could be considered to be wielding
that sort of power I guess - think of it as the equivalent of "at gunpoint".

I still don't get it ....



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 3 May 2013, 23:58
Subject: Re: More Tudors

 
From: liz williams
To: richardiii
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 10:08 PM
Subject: More Tudors

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/history-tudors-season.html

> Can someone please explain the fascination to me? You would think there
> was no other period in English history to be explored!

Gaudy, flattering costumes which are easier to construct than the late
Mediaeval ones. It's a long time ago yet well-documented. Powerful queens
and a Bluebeard in office, and people's motivations are easier to understand
than in the Middle Ages - at least after the Dissolution.

Their tragic women appeal to women of today - for a start all those French hoods and nipped in waists (H8) are so flattering and we've got Holbein to record them.
 
Then we've got Liz I - the ultimate career woman who was subjected to child abuse. I'm surprised Meryl Streep never got to play her. 
 
And fat Henry; well who wouldn't want to play him viz Burton, Robert Shaw (to me the best)
 
The ultimate villains meeting sticky ends - Wolsey, Cromwell, even Mary Queen of Scots
 
The martyrs More, Cranmer, Fisher, Mary Queen of Scots
 
WOTR are just as interesting but the characters mainly unknown and the costumes a bigger challenge (though the Borgias managed it)


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 3 May 2013, 18:06
Subject: Re: More Tudors

 


liz williams wrote:

"Can someone please explain the fascination to me? You would think there was
no other period in English history to be explored!"

Plenty of source material (however dubious their accuracy) added to colorful
costumes (because it's a visual medium), characters and situations that
stand out even with insipid writer/s and actors. What's *not* like?
Oh, and being able to show famous people from history as being no better
than they should. Or us.
Doug
(who *still* thinks Elizabeth I was the best of the bunch, just over-hyped)

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudors


> WOTR are just as interesting but the characters mainly unknown and the
> costumes a bigger challenge

And nearly all of them are called Richard, Edward or Elizabeth, making it
much harder to keep track of who's who.... Not to mention that the men's
tights were so tight they could hardly be shown before 9pm!

From: Claire M Jordan
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 7:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: More Tudors

Not to mention that the men's
tights were so tight they could hardly be shown before 9pm!



Sandra: I'm all for that!

Doug said:
(who *still* thinks Elizabeth I was the best of the bunch, just over-hyped)

Liz:  I agree with you but let's face it, she didn't have much competition did she?

Claire said:

And nearly all of them are called Richard, Edward or Elizabeth, making it
much harder to keep track of who's who.... Not to mention that the men's
tights were so tight they could hardly be shown before 9pm!
 
Liz:  Better than Henry, Henry, Edward, Elizabeth and Mary don't you think?
 
As for the tights, I would have thought the Tv people would think that a plus!

The irony is that we've already got a very fantastic (as in "with lots of fantasy elements") rendering of the WOTR in the form of the George R.R. Martin novels on which the wildly popular Game of Thrones TV series is based.

I think that if enough of the general public can be interested in a fantasy-flavored version of TWOTR to make AGAT popular and lucrative, a series that hewed a touch more closely to the actual history of fifteenth-century England would be a money maker.



-----Original Message-----
From: sandramachin@...
To: <>
Sent: Sat, May 4, 2013 9:40 am
Subject: Re: More Tudors



From: Claire M Jordan
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 7:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: More Tudors

Not to mention that the men's
tights were so tight they could hardly be shown before 9pm!

Sandra: I'm all for that!



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

...as long as the other end of the lance was held by a French mercenary, or the Tydder's trusty yeoman warder bodyguard.

Then again, he did know how to wield power on the point of a quill and make his subjects bleed? If the Tydder was ever reincarnated, I think it was likely as an investigating officer of the United States Internal Revenue Service.

~Weds


--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
.
.
.
> And H7 could wield power on the point of a lance? Hmmm.

Nah -- more likely one of these guys:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2013/04/28/todays-headscratcher-kochs-consider-buying-tribune-co/2119645/







-----Original Message-----
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sat, May 4, 2013 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: More Tudors


...as long as the other end of the lance was held by a French mercenary, or the
Tydder's trusty yeoman warder bodyguard.

Then again, he did know how to wield power on the point of a quill and make his
subjects bleed? If the Tydder was ever reincarnated, I think it was likely as an
investigating officer of the United States Internal Revenue Service.

~Weds


--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
wrote:
.
.
.
> And H7 could wield power on the point of a lance? Hmmm.




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudors


> Then again, he did know how to wield power on the point of a quill and
> make his subjects bleed? If the Tydder was ever reincarnated, I think it
> was likely as an investigating officer of the United States Internal
> Revenue Service.

Or something in corporate law or intelligence. But if *looks* are any guide
he came back as Bradley Wiggins - still enthroned.
http://alittlebitofstone.com/2012/08/21/bradley-wiggins-to-race-through-stone/

>>>Or something in corporate law or intelligence. But if *looks* are any guide
he came back as Bradley Wiggins - still enthroned.
http://alittlebitofstone.com/2012/08/21/bradley-wiggins-to-race-through-stone/ <<<

Sandra: Poor Bradley. Still, at least he doesn't have the small hooded eyes. Somehow, I now have this irresistible picture of Henry, in full regalia, pedalling like mad...!

Tour de England -- with Phil Liggett announcing!

Tamara







-----Original Message-----
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sat, May 4, 2013 3:52 pm
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors


>>>Or something in corporate law or intelligence. But if *looks* are any guide
he came back as Bradley Wiggins - still enthroned.
http://alittlebitofstone.com/2012/08/21/bradley-wiggins-to-race-through-stone/
<<<

Sandra: Poor Bradley. Still, at least he doesn't have the small hooded eyes.
Somehow, I now have this irresistible picture of Henry, in full regalia,
pedalling like mad...!







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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: khafara@...
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors


> Tour de England -- with Phil Liggett announcing!

Although under the circs, if it was Henry on that throne, he'd probably be
giving the V-sign the other way around....

Tamara, do you think Henry would have calculated exactly how many bikes he'd wear out, what they would cost---to the last nth of the smallest coin---and whether he could screw the supplier for some freebies? Or perhaps he'd confiscate the whole stock and have done with it. For the security of the realm, of course. The last sounds more like it.

Sandra

From: khafara@...
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 9:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors


Tour de England -- with Phil Liggett announcing!

Tamara

-----Original Message-----
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, May 4, 2013 3:52 pm
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors

>>>Or something in corporate law or intelligence. But if *looks* are any guide
he came back as Bradley Wiggins - still enthroned.
http://alittlebitofstone.com/2012/08/21/bradley-wiggins-to-race-through-stone/
<<<

Sandra: Poor Bradley. Still, at least he doesn't have the small hooded eyes.
Somehow, I now have this irresistible picture of Henry, in full regalia,
pedalling like mad...!



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

And that's a problem....why, exactly? We do love a slender, sharp-dressed...um, yeah.

Weds


--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> Not to mention that the men's tights were so tight they could hardly be shown before 9pm!

I still think he's the Welsh guy in the Aviva advert 'now we all want to save a litttle bit here and a little bit there...'



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013, 22:10
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors


 

Tamara, do you think Henry would have calculated exactly how many bikes he'd wear out, what they would cost---to the last nth of the smallest coin---and whether he could screw the supplier for some freebies? Or perhaps he'd confiscate the whole stock and have done with it. For the security of the realm, of course. The last sounds more like it.

Sandra

From: mailto:khafara%40aol.com
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 9:53 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors

Tour de England -- with Phil Liggett announcing!

Tamara

-----Original Message-----
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, May 4, 2013 3:52 pm
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors

>>>Or something in corporate law or intelligence. But if *looks* are any guide
he came back as Bradley Wiggins - still enthroned.
http://alittlebitofstone.com/2012/08/21/bradley-wiggins-to-race-through-stone/
<<<

Sandra: Poor Bradley. Still, at least he doesn't have the small hooded eyes.
Somehow, I now have this irresistible picture of Henry, in full regalia,
pedalling like mad...!



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Or he'd try and pull a Lance Armstrong and brazen his way through obviously illicit behavior. Or perhaps a mixture of both.



-----Original Message-----
From: sandramachin@...
To: <>
Sent: Sat, May 4, 2013 12:10 pm
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors



Tamara, do you think Henry would have calculated exactly how many bikes he'd
wear out, what they would cost---to the last nth of the smallest coin---and
whether he could screw the supplier for some freebies? Or perhaps he'd
confiscate the whole stock and have done with it. For the security of the realm,
of course. The last sounds more like it.

Sandra

From: khafara@...
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 9:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors

Tour de England -- with Phil Liggett announcing!

Tamara

-----Original Message-----
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, May 4, 2013 3:52 pm
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors

>>>Or something in corporate law or intelligence. But if *looks* are any guide
he came back as Bradley Wiggins - still enthroned.
http://alittlebitofstone.com/2012/08/21/bradley-wiggins-to-race-through-stone/
<<<

Sandra: Poor Bradley. Still, at least he doesn't have the small hooded eyes.
Somehow, I now have this irresistible picture of Henry, in full regalia,
pedalling like mad...!



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

Yahoo! Groups Links





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: khafara@...
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 1:57 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: More Tudors


> Or he'd try and pull a Lance Armstrong and brazen his way through
> obviously illicit behavior. Or perhaps a mixture of both.

I can't see Henry taking performance drugs - that doesn't seem like his
style. He seems too dry and austere and controlled to do anything that
physical and sweaty. But I could imagine him quietly cutting a loop out of
the race by catching the bus, if he thought he could get away with it, or
misdirecting the opposition into a cul-de-sac, and then smirking to himself.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I still don't get it ....
>
Carol responds:

I can't speak for the Brits among us, but most Americans have heard of only three English/British monarch: Henry VIII (about whom they know that he was fat and executed some wives; Elizabeth I, whom they probably know wore a ruff and spoke "Elizabethan" English; and George III, cast as the bad guy who caused the American Revolution. At least, we can be grateful that almost no one here has heard of Henry VII!

I'm guessing that in England (or Britain in general?) as here, English history begins with Henry VIII (King John and Richard "Lionheart" being mythical beings out of the Robin Hood saga and Richard III a hunchback in a play) and ends with World War II.

So two colorful Tudors are "it" for most people as far as awareness of the English monarchy is concerned.

Just my theory as to why the Tudors are popular and the Plantagenets, including Lancastrians as well as Yorkists (not to mention their predecessors who were neither) get very little attention aside from, say, "The Lion in Winter."

Those of us who care about Richard III are not typical of either Brits or Americans in our quest for the truth about a much-maligned monarch. You'd think that more people would be intrigued by the mystery of the "princes," at least, but of the few who've heard of Richard (not as many as it appears from the current Internet brouhahas), too many already "know" the "truth," and a "hunchbacked murderer" just isn't as interesting (in their view) as an ostensibly jolly Bluebeard who also turned England Anglican, thus directly affecting the lives of ordinary Englishmen and -women, however long ago. They have no idea of the debt they owe to Richard's enlightened legislation.

Just my unprovable opinion.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:45 AM
Subject: Re: More Tudors


> I'm guessing that in England (or Britain in general?) as here, English
history begins with Henry VIII (King John and Richard "Lionheart" being
mythical beings out of the Robin Hood saga and Richard III a hunchback in a
play) and ends with World War II.

Well - at my school, in the 1970s, kings didn't come into it much. We did
the Beaker People and the early Celts, touched very briefly on the Norman
Conquest and then studied early-to-mid-Mediaeval serfdom and the monasteries
in some detail. I think the Hanseatic League was touched on. Then iirc we
skipped ahead to the Armada, including a very brief look at Elizabeth I,
then we covered the Industrial Revolution in some detail. After that we
started studying for actual exams which meant the history of the Russian
Revolution, the founding of the League of Nations, the rise of Nazism and a
little bit of WWII.

Basically not much English history is taught in English schools, and almost
*no* Scottish history is taught in Scottish schools. History means Russia
and Germany.

However, we did have The Daughter of Time on our recommended reading list in
English classes!

> So two colorful Tudors are "it" for most people as far as awareness of the
> English monarchy is concerned.

I certainly wouldn't say that for Britain. Although we aren't taught much
about kings, anybody who is aware of history *at all* is aware at least of
the two Charleses and of Victoria, and probably of the Lionheart - and of
"our" Richard who is extremely famous, even if not neccessarily for the
right reasons. [One of the dodgier reasons he is famous is because his name
is Cockney rhyming slang for turd.]

I think the WotR are just so complicated and long-drawn-out that anybody
seeking to make a series about them just retreats bafffled.

> an ostensibly jolly Bluebeard who also turned England Anglican,

And who is constantly before the world's eyes because he's the king in the
playing cards, and in the striking full-length Holbein portrait of him which
is much reproduced. And who is believed rightly or wrongly to have composed
Greensleeves. And whose ballooning weight exerts the same sort of horrible
fascination as Elvis's.

> They have no idea of the debt they owe to Richard's enlightened
> legislation.

That's for sure.

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 4:11 AM
Subject: Re: More Tudors


> And who is constantly before the world's eyes because he's the king in the
playing cards, and in the striking full-length Holbein portrait of him which
is much reproduced. And who is believed rightly or wrongly to have composed
Greensleeves. And whose ballooning weight exerts the same sort of horrible
fascination as Elvis's.

Oh yes, also, I think the fact that we have Henry VIII's actual armour on
display contributes to his presence in the national memory, because it gives
him a physical immediacy which is not recaptured until we get toVictoria's
knickers. But mainly I think it's that both Henry VIII and Elizabeth I had
such excellent, iconic portraits made of them, more visually striking than
anything before or since. They're really very high-concept propaganda
posters, and they work.

One of AJ-H's bugaboos is the very term "The Princes in the Tower", as it
implies that the two lads were a) princes as opposed to persons without
rank, and b) constantly kept together in the Tower when in fact they were not.

By the way, one answer to those who wonder how the two boys could have just
disappeared from history, with no firm indication of their fate, is to
point to the example of their exact contemporary and status peer, Richard's
own natural son John.

No one really knows what happened to John after his father was killed and
Henry took the throne; the last official record we have of him is that Henry
gave him a pension, but he was thought by Perkin Warbeck at least to have
been incarcerated by Henry shortly thereafter and of course Buck, who has
to be taken with grains of salt at times, states that he was executed by
Henry after several years of captivity.

The reason that we don't precisely know the fates of these three natural
sons of kings -- John, Edward, and Richard -- is the same: Since it was
clear that they weren't in line for the throne, people didn't pay as close
attention to them as they would have to an actual heir. And when Henry took
the throne by force, that effectively rendered any blood claims moot anyway.


As JA-H points out, when Henry was busy chasing down the various
'pretenders', he was also poor-mouthing the blood claims of Edward's sons -- that's
why he spiffed up Richard's Greyfriars tomb in 1495, as a way to attack the
boys' claim by acknowledging their dead uncle's right to the throne. It
was only after he felt that the sons were no longer a threat to his hold on
the throne that he started having his propagandists talking them up and
dissing Richard. If young Edward had, say, managed to make it to Scotland or
Paris or even to what was left of Burgundy and hung on for a few decades
into Henry VIII's reign, openly and loudly dissing the Tudors in finest
Mary-Queen-of-Scots style, Henry would have called him a pretender and he
certainly wouldn't have acknowledged his reign by assigning him the Edward V
regnal number; but once assumed to be dead or neutralized, he was most useful
to the new régime.

Tamara




In a message dated 5/4/2013 9:45:55 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
justcarol67@... writes:



--- In , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I still don't get it ....
>
Carol responds:

I can't speak for the Brits among us, but most Americans have heard of
only three English/British monarch: Henry VIII (about whom they know that he
was fat and executed some wives; Elizabeth I, whom they probably know wore a
ruff and spoke "Elizabethan" English; and George III, cast as the bad guy
who caused the American Revolution. At least, we can be grateful that
almost no one here has heard of Henry VII!

I'm guessing that in England (or Britain in general?) as here, English
history begins with Henry VIII (King John and Richard "Lionheart" being
mythical beings out of the Robin Hood saga and Richard III a hunchback in a play)
and ends with World War II.

So two colorful Tudors are "it" for most people as far as awareness of the
English monarchy is concerned.

Just my theory as to why the Tudors are popular and the Plantagenets,
including Lancastrians as well as Yorkists (not to mention their predecessors
who were neither) get very little attention aside from, say, "The Lion in
Winter."

Those of us who care about Richard III are not typical of either Brits or
Americans in our quest for the truth about a much-maligned monarch. You'd
think that more people would be intrigued by the mystery of the "princes,"
at least, but of the few who've heard of Richard (not as many as it appears
from the current Internet brouhahas), too many already "know" the "truth,"
and a "hunchbacked murderer" just isn't as interesting (in their view) as
an ostensibly jolly Bluebeard who also turned England Anglican, thus
directly affecting the lives of ordinary Englishmen and -women, however long ago.
They have no idea of the debt they owe to Richard's enlightened legislation.

Just my unprovable opinion.

Carol



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: khafara@...
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: More Tudors


> One of AJ-H's bugaboos is the very term "The Princes in the Tower", as it
implies that the two lads were a) princes as opposed to persons without
rank, and b) constantly kept together in the Tower when in fact they were
not.

Also, "in the Tower" makes it sound as though they were prisoners in a
columnar fortress. "At the Tower" would be more accurate, just as one says
"at Windsor" or "at Buckingham Palace"

I can see Richard's facial reconstruction being pretty potent propaganda
along those same lines (of the right sort, of course!)

A J


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: Claire M Jordan
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 4:11 AM
>
> Subject: Re: More Tudors
>
> > And who is constantly before the world's eyes because he's the king in
> the
> playing cards, and in the striking full-length Holbein portrait of him
> which
> is much reproduced. And who is believed rightly or wrongly to have composed
> Greensleeves. And whose ballooning weight exerts the same sort of horrible
> fascination as Elvis's.
>
> Oh yes, also, I think the fact that we have Henry VIII's actual armour on
> display contributes to his presence in the national memory, because it
> gives
> him a physical immediacy which is not recaptured until we get toVictoria's
> knickers. But mainly I think it's that both Henry VIII and Elizabeth I had
> such excellent, iconic portraits made of them, more visually striking than
> anything before or since. They're really very high-concept propaganda
> posters, and they work.
>
>
>

I can see H7 being the one who tests E7 after he runs his race, with Richard outraged that he's daring to question his brother's integrity.

Of course, not even H7 would dare drug-test Richard. At least not a second time.

Of course, H7 might even be nasty enough to insist E7's drug test came back positive, when it didn't, just to demolish his reputation.

And Richard might be the one to prove H7 had been just that nasty, and his brother was innocent.

~Weds

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

> I can't see Henry taking performance drugs - that doesn't seem like his style. He seems too dry and austere and controlled to do anything that physical and sweaty. But I could imagine him quietly cutting a loop out of the race by catching the bus, if he thought he could get away with it, or misdirecting the opposition into a cul-de-sac, and then smirking to himself.

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudors


> I can see H7 being the one who tests E7 after he runs his race,

EIV?

> And Richard might be the one to prove H7 had been just that nasty, and his
> brother was innocent.

Except that given what he got up to with his marriages, EIV very possibly
*would* use performance drugs....

Lol...........

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I can see H7 being the one who tests E7 after he runs his race, with Richard outraged that he's daring to question his brother's integrity.
>

There were three Edwards before the Conquest.
----- Original Message -----
From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors



From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudors

> I can see H7 being the one who tests E7 after he runs his race,

EIV?

> And Richard might be the one to prove H7 had been just that nasty, and his
> brother was innocent.

Except that given what he got up to with his marriages, EIV very possibly
*would* use performance drugs....

From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors


> There were three Edwards before the Conquest.

Good point - although Edward the Elder supposedly didn't rule as far north
as York.

Why did Edward I call himself Edward I and not Edward IV? Was it because he
already intended to be the first king jointly of England and Wales?

I think it was an attempt to write off the House of Wessex as unsophisticated as no other name was used before and afterwards. Wales doesn't come into it because 1066 is the starting date not 1290. It is possible that the numbers date from after his reign.
----- Original Message -----
From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors



From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors

> There were three Edwards before the Conquest.

Good point - although Edward the Elder supposedly didn't rule as far north
as York.

Why did Edward I call himself Edward I and not Edward IV? Was it because he
already intended to be the first king jointly of England and Wales?

What has Bradley Wiggins done to deserve this comparison? He would probably be quite offended as he sees himself as a sharp dresser and sartorial icon. He models himself on Paul Weller; H7 lacks the style and poise to compare to be sure!

In terms of a career, Tudor would have been at home in either Revolutionary France as a member of the Revolutionary Tribunal, or Nazi Germany, in an administrative capacity depriving citizens of their goods, liberty or, in some cases, their lives, whilst following the exact letter of the law, which in his case, he had formulated. He would have viewed it as a crusade against those who tried to escape or subvert the ideological views of the party and would have pursued the individuals by any means he could.

Translated to his own time this could be seen in his efforts to break the power of the nobility through bonds and recognisances, attainders and his unwillingness to reverse them on those who had proved their loyalty. Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, is an example. He was given back his earldom in 1489 and was granted some lands other than those held by his father, the Duke of Norfolk. He gained back some of the original lands after he paid Henry in 1492 but did not receive his father's earldom until 1513 after Henry's death and then only after defeating the Scots.

In addition, his ruthless exploitation of his position and determination to subdue and oppress the population, exorbitant taxation and the notorious implementation of Morton's Fork, the calibre of people he employed to collect taxes such as Dudley and Empson, employment of corrupt officials who operated strong arm tactics reminiscent of the mafia who all took their cut and got rich in the process, using the law for his own ends, financial double-dealing, sale of offices, inquisitions post-mortem. The list goes on and on.
Elaine


--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> >>>Or something in corporate law or intelligence. But if *looks* are any guide
> he came back as Bradley Wiggins - still enthroned.
> http://alittlebitofstone.com/2012/08/21/bradley-wiggins-to-race-through-stone/ <<<
>
> Sandra: Poor Bradley. Still, at least he doesn’t have the small hooded eyes. Somehow, I now have this irresistible picture of Henry, in full regalia, pedalling like mad...!
>
>
>
>
>

From: ellrosa1452
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: More Tudors


> In terms of a career, Tudor would have been at home in either
> Revolutionary France as a member of the Revolutionary Tribunal, or Nazi
> Germany, in an administrative capacity depriving citizens of their goods,
> liberty or, in some cases, their lives, whilst following the exact letter
> of the law, which in his case, he had formulated. He would have viewed it
> as a crusade against those who tried to escape or subvert the ideological
> views of the party and would have pursued the individuals by any means he
> could.

Nah, I don't see him that way at all - he wasn't a fanatic fighting for a
deranged cause, he was a pragmatist, and he reckoned the law was whatever
currently suited him. In the middle of bloody revolution he would probably
have kept his head down and quietly pursued his own interests, without any
particular malice but not particularly caring whom he stepped on on the way,
either.

His best modern model imo would be a rather crooked lawyer or accountant -
one who always knew how to cook the books.

Which is why the best way to keep him on your side would be to show that backing you was the best move possible.

He wasn't personally amoral in the sense that John Morton was (and in the sense that so offended Richard), so if Edward or Richard were to offer him a nice gig suited to his talents - say, Chancellor of the Exchequer - and made it quite clear to him that loyalty was a much better bet than disloyalty (while keeping him away from the French or Scottish courts), he likely would have done quite well.



-----Original Message-----
From: whitehound@...
To: <>
Sent: Sun, May 5, 2013 3:05 pm
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors



From: ellrosa1452
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: More Tudors

> In terms of a career, Tudor would have been at home in either
> Revolutionary France as a member of the Revolutionary Tribunal, or Nazi
> Germany, in an administrative capacity depriving citizens of their goods,
> liberty or, in some cases, their lives, whilst following the exact letter
> of the law, which in his case, he had formulated. He would have viewed it
> as a crusade against those who tried to escape or subvert the ideological
> views of the party and would have pursued the individuals by any means he
> could.

Nah, I don't see him that way at all - he wasn't a fanatic fighting for a
deranged cause, he was a pragmatist, and he reckoned the law was whatever
currently suited him. In the middle of bloody revolution he would probably
have kept his head down and quietly pursued his own interests, without any
particular malice but not particularly caring whom he stepped on on the way,
either.

His best modern model imo would be a rather crooked lawyer or accountant -
one who always knew how to cook the books.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: khafara@...
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: More Tudors

> He wasn't personally amoral in the sense that John Morton was (and in the
> sense that so offended Richard), so if Edward or Richard were to offer him
> a nice gig suited to his talents - say, Chancellor of the Exchequer - and
> made it quite clear to him that loyalty was a much better bet than
> disloyalty (while keeping him away from the French or Scottish courts), he
> likely would have done quite well.

Yes. I don't know if he was capable of personal loyalty - you'd probably
always have to worry that someone might make him a better offer - but I
suspect he'd have so much fun with the Exchequer that that would be enough
incentive to stay put. And Richard would certainly have approved of him
paying his wife's debts and letting her push him around a bit.

In a message dated 5/5/2013 8:06:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
whitehound@... writes:


> He wasn't personally amoral in the sense that John Morton was (and in
the
> sense that so offended Richard), so if Edward or Richard were to offer
him
> a nice gig suited to his talents - say, Chancellor of the Exchequer -
and
> made it quite clear to him that loyalty was a much better bet than
> disloyalty (while keeping him away from the French or Scottish courts),
he
> likely would have done quite well.

Yes. I don't know if he was capable of personal loyalty - you'd probably
always have to worry that someone might make him a better offer - but I
suspect he'd have so much fun with the Exchequer that that would be enough
incentive to stay put. And Richard would certainly have approved of him
paying his wife's debts and letting her push him around a bit.



Exactly. He was a believer in judicious use of one's resources (not to
say parsimonious) -- he wasn't going to risk losing a nice position if he'd
actually had one to lose.

What made him so dangerous was that in fact he literally had nothing to
lose and everything to gain. It was either win the throne by force of arms
or quite possibly starve to death after getting tossed out on his ear from
the French court for being a useless sponger. If he'd already had a nice
position, he certainly wouldn't have thrown it away on a gamble for the
throne.

From: khafara@...
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 2:25 AM
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors


> What made him so dangerous was that in fact he literally had nothing to
lose and everything to gain.

Ouch - yes. Whereas Richard, poor boy, as a result of his unreliable
brother's inability to keep it in his pants, was forced to lose what he
wanted to hang on to and gain a promotion he probably didn't want.

Now I think you're being unkind to the Revolutionary Tribunal. They did care for the ordinary people and were prepared in the end to die for their beliefs. I doubt H7 felt the same way.

 

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 6 May 2013, 0:48
Subject: Re: More Tudors

 


What has Bradley Wiggins done to deserve this comparison? He would probably be quite offended as he sees himself as a sharp dresser and sartorial icon. He models himself on Paul Weller; H7 lacks the style and poise to compare to be sure!

In terms of a career, Tudor would have been at home in either Revolutionary France as a member of the Revolutionary Tribunal, or Nazi Germany, in an administrative capacity depriving citizens of their goods, liberty or, in some cases, their lives, whilst following the exact letter of the law, which in his case, he had formulated. He would have viewed it as a crusade against those who tried to escape or subvert the ideological views of the party and would have pursued the individuals by any means he could.

Translated to his own time this could be seen in his efforts to break the power of the nobility through bonds and recognisances, attainders and his unwillingness to reverse them on those who had proved their loyalty. Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, is an example. He was given back his earldom in 1489 and was granted some lands other than those held by his father, the Duke of Norfolk. He gained back some of the original lands after he paid Henry in 1492 but did not receive his father's earldom until 1513 after Henry's death and then only after defeating the Scots.

In addition, his ruthless exploitation of his position and determination to subdue and oppress the population, exorbitant taxation and the notorious implementation of Morton's Fork, the calibre of people he employed to collect taxes such as Dudley and Empson, employment of corrupt officials who operated strong arm tactics reminiscent of the mafia who all took their cut and got rich in the process, using the law for his own ends, financial double-dealing, sale of offices, inquisitions post-mortem. The list goes on and on.
Elaine

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> >>>Or something in corporate law or intelligence. But if *looks* are any guide
> he came back as Bradley Wiggins - still enthroned.
> http://alittlebitofstone.com/2012/08/21/bradley-wiggins-to-race-through-stone/ <<<
>
> Sandra: Poor Bradley. Still, at least he doesnâ¬"t have the small hooded eyes. Somehow, I now have this irresistible picture of Henry, in full regalia, pedalling like mad...!
>
>
>
>
>

Here Here. And Robespierre when chief of police set more accused free
than he sent on to the Tribunal. he could tell the real crimes from
those who were just after payback for previous insults or imagined crimes.
Not all legends are true, as Ricardians more than anyone should know.
I was watching a new programme on Vlad the Impaler yesterday, which
ended with the presenter accusing him of impaling thousands across a
field in the path of the oncoming massive Ottoman Turkish invaders. So
scared were they they turned and ran. He finished by telling us this was
the account of the official court historian of, you guessed it, the
Ottoman court! Vlad defeated an army of far greater numbers than his own
force, similar you might say to Agincourt, he was not expected to win or
even survive, so naturally his enemies had to make up a story that let
them off the hook of history for such an ignominious defeat.
History in this case was written by the defeated!
Paul


On 06/05/2013 09:49, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Now I think you're being unkind to the Revolutionary Tribunal. They did care for the ordinary people and were prepared in the end to die for their beliefs. I doubt H7 felt the same way.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 6 May 2013, 0:48
> Subject: Re: More Tudors
>
>
>
>
> What has Bradley Wiggins done to deserve this comparison? He would probably be quite offended as he sees himself as a sharp dresser and sartorial icon. He models himself on Paul Weller; H7 lacks the style and poise to compare to be sure!
>
> In terms of a career, Tudor would have been at home in either Revolutionary France as a member of the Revolutionary Tribunal, or Nazi Germany, in an administrative capacity depriving citizens of their goods, liberty or, in some cases, their lives, whilst following the exact letter of the law, which in his case, he had formulated. He would have viewed it as a crusade against those who tried to escape or subvert the ideological views of the party and would have pursued the individuals by any means he could.
>
> Translated to his own time this could be seen in his efforts to break the power of the nobility through bonds and recognisances, attainders and his unwillingness to reverse them on those who had proved their loyalty. Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, is an example. He was given back his earldom in 1489 and was granted some lands other than those held by his father, the Duke of Norfolk. He gained back some of the original lands after he paid Henry in 1492 but did not receive his father's earldom until 1513 after Henry's death and then only after defeating the Scots.
>
> In addition, his ruthless exploitation of his position and determination to subdue and oppress the population, exorbitant taxation and the notorious implementation of Morton's Fork, the calibre of people he employed to collect taxes such as Dudley and Empson, employment of corrupt officials who operated strong arm tactics reminiscent of the mafia who all took their cut and got rich in the process, using the law for his own ends, financial double-dealing, sale of offices, inquisitions post-mortem. The list goes on and on.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>>>>> Or something in corporate law or intelligence. But if *looks* are any guide
>> he came back as Bradley Wiggins - still enthroned.
>> http://alittlebitofstone.com/2012/08/21/bradley-wiggins-to-race-through-stone/ <<<
>>
>> Sandra: Poor Bradley. Still, at least he doesnâ¬"t have the small hooded eyes. Somehow, I now have this irresistible picture of Henry, in full regalia, pedalling like mad...!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

It's occurred to me that perhaps one of the reasons we don't see many films
etc about WotR is that the action went on so long that you need multiple
actors for each character.

I mean, with Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth the interesting parts of
their lives didn't begin until they were in their late teens, so you can get
away with one or at most two actors playing them over the years. But the
interesting part of Richard's life started when he was *seven* and it stayed
interesting until he died, so you need actors for little kid Richard,
schoolboy Richard and adult Richard and the same with George and maybe Ann,
as well as teenage and adult Edward.

Maybe we should settle for a really good animation....

Well said Elaine.

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
>
> What has Bradley Wiggins done to deserve this comparison? He would probably be quite offended as he sees himself as a sharp dresser and sartorial icon. He models himself on Paul Weller; H7 lacks the style and poise to compare to be sure!
>
> In terms of a career, Tudor would have been at home in either Revolutionary France as a member of the Revolutionary Tribunal, or Nazi Germany, in an administrative capacity depriving citizens of their goods, liberty or, in some cases, their lives, whilst following the exact letter of the law, which in his case, he had formulated. He would have viewed it as a crusade against those who tried to escape or subvert the ideological views of the party and would have pursued the individuals by any means he could.
>
> Translated to his own time this could be seen in his efforts to break the power of the nobility through bonds and recognisances, attainders and his unwillingness to reverse them on those who had proved their loyalty. Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, is an example. He was given back his earldom in 1489 and was granted some lands other than those held by his father, the Duke of Norfolk. He gained back some of the original lands after he paid Henry in 1492 but did not receive his father's earldom until 1513 after Henry's death and then only after defeating the Scots.
>
> In addition, his ruthless exploitation of his position and determination to subdue and oppress the population, exorbitant taxation and the notorious implementation of Morton's Fork, the calibre of people he employed to collect taxes such as Dudley and Empson, employment of corrupt officials who operated strong arm tactics reminiscent of the mafia who all took their cut and got rich in the process, using the law for his own ends, financial double-dealing, sale of offices, inquisitions post-mortem. The list goes on and on.
> Elaine
>
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > >>>Or something in corporate law or intelligence. But if *looks* are any guide
> > he came back as Bradley Wiggins - still enthroned.
> > http://alittlebitofstone.com/2012/08/21/bradley-wiggins-to-race-through-stone/ <<<
> >
> > Sandra: Poor Bradley. Still, at least he doesn’t have the small hooded eyes. Somehow, I now have this irresistible picture of Henry, in full regalia, pedalling like mad...!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Claire said:
Nah, I don't see him that way at all - he wasn't a fanatic
fighting for a
> deranged cause, he was a pragmatist, and he reckoned the law was
whatever
> currently suited him.

Claire, you appear to have missed the point of the analogy I was making which was that H7 was a bureaucrat in an organisational capacity. The comparison I wished to make was how draconian his laws were and how he operated within the laws of his own making. In his case, he also formulated and promulgated laws for his own enrichment. Nowhere did I suggest that he was a fanatic fighting for a cause, deranged or otherwise. He created and enforced laws for the benefit of himself. You have taken my comments out of context. If you had continued to read the rest of my comments, they were of how he utilised the law and his powers to subjugate and disempower his own people. H7 never felt secure as he had usurped and gained the throne by conquest without a legitimate claim so was always aware of the possibility of someone challenging his right to rule. As his reigm progressed, he should have felt more secure having seen off these potential challengers, but his rule became more harsh and his laws more draconian. His first instinct when he became king was one of survival, then to establish himself and eventually to ensure his dynastic ambitions bore fruit.
Elaine

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: ellrosa1452
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 12:48 AM
> Subject: Re: More Tudors
>
>
> > In terms of a career, Tudor would have been at home in either
> > Revolutionary France as a member of the Revolutionary Tribunal, or Nazi
> > Germany, in an administrative capacity depriving citizens of their goods,
> > liberty or, in some cases, their lives, whilst following the exact letter
> > of the law, which in his case, he had formulated. He would have viewed it
> > as a crusade against those who tried to escape or subvert the ideological
> > views of the party and would have pursued the individuals by any means he
> > could.
>
> Nah, I don't see him that way at all - he wasn't a fanatic fighting for a
> deranged cause, he was a pragmatist, and he reckoned the law was whatever
> currently suited him. In the middle of bloody revolution he would probably
> have kept his head down and quietly pursued his own interests, without any
> particular malice but not particularly caring whom he stepped on on the way,
> either.
>
> His best modern model imo would be a rather crooked lawyer or accountant -
> one who always knew how to cook the books.
>

Thank you.
Elaine

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Well said Elaine.
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > What has Bradley Wiggins done to deserve this comparison? He would probably be quite offended as he sees himself as a sharp dresser and sartorial icon. He models himself on Paul Weller; H7 lacks the style and poise to compare to be sure!
> >
> > In terms of a career, Tudor would have been at home in either Revolutionary France as a member of the Revolutionary Tribunal, or Nazi Germany, in an administrative capacity depriving citizens of their goods, liberty or, in some cases, their lives, whilst following the exact letter of the law, which in his case, he had formulated. He would have viewed it as a crusade against those who tried to escape or subvert the ideological views of the party and would have pursued the individuals by any means he could.
> >
> > Translated to his own time this could be seen in his efforts to break the power of the nobility through bonds and recognisances, attainders and his unwillingness to reverse them on those who had proved their loyalty. Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, is an example. He was given back his earldom in 1489 and was granted some lands other than those held by his father, the Duke of Norfolk. He gained back some of the original lands after he paid Henry in 1492 but did not receive his father's earldom until 1513 after Henry's death and then only after defeating the Scots.
> >
> > In addition, his ruthless exploitation of his position and determination to subdue and oppress the population, exorbitant taxation and the notorious implementation of Morton's Fork, the calibre of people he employed to collect taxes such as Dudley and Empson, employment of corrupt officials who operated strong arm tactics reminiscent of the mafia who all took their cut and got rich in the process, using the law for his own ends, financial double-dealing, sale of offices, inquisitions post-mortem. The list goes on and on.
> > Elaine
> >
> >
> > --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>Or something in corporate law or intelligence. But if *looks* are any guide
> > > he came back as Bradley Wiggins - still enthroned.
> > > http://alittlebitofstone.com/2012/08/21/bradley-wiggins-to-race-through-stone/ <<<
> > >
> > > Sandra: Poor Bradley. Still, at least he doesn’t have the small hooded eyes. Somehow, I now have this irresistible picture of Henry, in full regalia, pedalling like mad...!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

From: ellrosa1452
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudors


> Claire, you appear to have missed the point of the analogy I was making
> which was that H7 was a bureaucrat in an organisational capacity. The
> comparison I wished to make was how draconian his laws were and how he
> operated within the laws of his own making. In his case, he also
> formulated and promulgated laws for his own enrichment. Nowhere did I
> suggest that he was a fanatic fighting for a cause, deranged or otherwise.
> He created and enforced laws for the benefit of himself.

Nah, but you had him as working for a fanatical regime and rigidly sticking
to the letter of the law. I don't think he'd have rcognised the letter of
the law if it bit him on the bum, and as for becoming a beaurocrat working
for a fanatical regime, if he wasn't a fanatic himself there'd be too much
risk of being found out and purged. Faced with e.g. the French Revolution I
reckon he'd find himself a nice obscure job doing the accounts for a local
shop in the quietest town he could find, and keep his head down until an
opportunity arose to move to somewhere safer.

> His first instinct when he became king was one of survival,

Always - hence I can't see him getting mixed up with a regime where people
(other than himself) were liable to kill you at the drop of a hat.

> Claire,
>

you more often than not seem to miss the point on other peoples analogies and then put them down. Then you come back with a view of your own that is suspect. You say you don't think he would have recognised the law, where is your evidence to support this view? This is just your thought and I will say that your statement is not valid.

Then you go onto use the phrase I reckon, OK what facts do you have to support this following statement, it's all conjecture.
>
> Nah, but you had him as working for a fanatical regime and rigidly sticking
> to the letter of the law. I don't think he'd have rcognised the letter of
> the law if it bit him on the bum, and as for becoming a beaurocrat working
> for a fanatical regime, if he wasn't a fanatic himself there'd be too much
> risk of being found out and purged. Faced with e.g. the French Revolution I
> reckon he'd find himself a nice obscure job doing the accounts for a local
> shop in the quietest town he could find, and keep his head down until an
> opportunity arose to move to somewhere safer.
>
> > His first instinct when he became king was one of survival,
>
> Always - hence I can't see him getting mixed up with a regime where people
> (other than himself) were liable to kill you at the drop of a hat.
>
>

"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> I think it was an attempt to write off the House of Wessex as unsophisticated as no other name was used before and afterwards. Wales doesn't come into it because 1066 is the starting date not 1290. It is possible that the numbers date from after his reign.

Carol responds:

I agree--thought perhaps not so much unsophisticated as because they were a different line (though William I was Edward the Confessor's first cousin once removed), Norman rather than Saxon. Edward IV's decrees, if I recall correctly, usually if not always refer to him as "Edward, the fourth after the conquest." Whether the same is true of the earlier Plantagenet Edwards, I don't know. On a side note, I suppose that Henry VII could have declared himself Henry I since he, too, was starting a new line, but he wanted to retain a connection with the Lancastrians (he was Henry VI's half-nephew through Henry VI's mother, and, of course, there was the Beaufort connection). And he would have wanted to retain that connection through William the Conqueror despite his (supposed) connections to Welsh princes. (I wonder if he ever fantasized a resemblance between him and that other king by conquest with a shaky title--a weak blood claim reinforced in one instance by a coerced oath of loyalty from Harold Godwinson as compared with an even weaker (?) blood claim reinforced by a promise to marry Elizabeth of York.)

Carol

From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors


> You say you don't think he would have recognised the law, where is your
> evidence to support this view?

On the fact that he casually pre-dated his reign to the day before Bosworth.
This is the act of somebody who thinks that the rules are "anything I can
get away with". Didn't he also summarily execute several members of
parliament without even the shadow of a trial?

> Then you go onto use the phrase I reckon, OK what facts do you have to
> support this following statement, it's all conjecture.

Kendall's assessment, mostly. He called Henry "staggeringly objective"
iirc, and somebody that pragmatic would surely have more sense than to get
involved with a regime where the slightest wrong move would get you killed.
His reputation for living very frugally also suggests that his goal wasn't
to be able to say gosh wow, look at me I'm the king, and he didn't show any
signs of wanting to be king in order to bring benefits to the nation, so his
motive for becoming king was probably that it was his most surviveable
option, which in turn suggests he would pursue the safest course if he could
find one. Actually getting involved with the French Revolution if you
didn't share their goals (and even though I quite like the man I would never
suggest that his goals were liberty, fraternity and equality!) would be very
dangerous, so he probably would do it.

Yes. He wasn't someone prone to sticking his neck out. If he'd already had decent prospects in England he wouldn't have been hanging around the French court. It was I suspect his total lack of other options - combined perhaps with an increasingly impatient French king who wanted to, if not rule England outright at least determine who would rule - that pushed him to act.



-----Original Message-----
From: whitehound@...
To: <>
Sent: Mon, May 6, 2013 6:15 am
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors



From: ellrosa1452
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudors

> Claire, you appear to have missed the point of the analogy I was making
> which was that H7 was a bureaucrat in an organisational capacity. The
> comparison I wished to make was how draconian his laws were and how he
> operated within the laws of his own making. In his case, he also
> formulated and promulgated laws for his own enrichment. Nowhere did I
> suggest that he was a fanatic fighting for a cause, deranged or otherwise.
> He created and enforced laws for the benefit of himself.

Nah, but you had him as working for a fanatical regime and rigidly sticking
to the letter of the law. I don't think he'd have rcognised the letter of
the law if it bit him on the bum, and as for becoming a beaurocrat working
for a fanatical regime, if he wasn't a fanatic himself there'd be too much
risk of being found out and purged. Faced with e.g. the French Revolution I
reckon he'd find himself a nice obscure job doing the accounts for a local
shop in the quietest town he could find, and keep his head down until an
opportunity arose to move to somewhere safer.

> His first instinct when he became king was one of survival,

Always - hence I can't see him getting mixed up with a regime where people
(other than himself) were liable to kill you at the drop of a hat.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors


> Actually getting involved with the French Revolution if you
didn't share their goals (and even though I quite like the man I would never
suggest that his goals were liberty, fraternity and equality!) would be very
dangerous, so he probably would do it.

Sorry, typo, should be "wouldn't do it".

Of course, if he was nominally high-ranking, as he was in the 15th C, so
that he *couldn't* get away and keep his head down, then I suppose he'd go
along with the regime and just try to ride it out.

Claire,

So the point here is that when you respond can you actually quote where your sources are from so that people can understand how you came to that conclusion, even if those sources themselves may be a bit dubious themselves.

Neil

On 6 May 2013, at 17:06, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 4:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors
>
> > You say you don't think he would have recognised the law, where is your
> > evidence to support this view?
>
> On the fact that he casually pre-dated his reign to the day before Bosworth.
> This is the act of somebody who thinks that the rules are "anything I can
> get away with". Didn't he also summarily execute several members of
> parliament without even the shadow of a trial?
>
> > Then you go onto use the phrase I reckon, OK what facts do you have to
> > support this following statement, it's all conjecture.
>
> Kendall's assessment, mostly. He called Henry "staggeringly objective"
> iirc, and somebody that pragmatic would surely have more sense than to get
> involved with a regime where the slightest wrong move would get you killed.
> His reputation for living very frugally also suggests that his goal wasn't
> to be able to say gosh wow, look at me I'm the king, and he didn't show any
> signs of wanting to be king in order to bring benefits to the nation, so his
> motive for becoming king was probably that it was his most surviveable
> option, which in turn suggests he would pursue the safest course if he could
> find one. Actually getting involved with the French Revolution if you
> didn't share their goals (and even though I quite like the man I would never
> suggest that his goals were liberty, fraternity and equality!) would be very
> dangerous, so he probably would do it.
>
>

From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors


> So the point here is that when you respond can you actually quote where
> your sources are from so that people can understand how you came to that
> conclusion, even if those sources themselves may be a bit dubious
> themselves.

Sure - provided everybody else has to do the same. But it's a bit of a
deadener when we're just having a casual conversation.

It is good to remember that there are members of all levels of knowledge on the forum and in you own views about getting more people interested, it does help to let those new people understand how you make a statement and where the sources. This goes for everyone.



On 6 May 2013, at 17:25, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors
>
> > So the point here is that when you respond can you actually quote where
> > your sources are from so that people can understand how you came to that
> > conclusion, even if those sources themselves may be a bit dubious
> > themselves.
>
> Sure - provided everybody else has to do the same. But it's a bit of a
> deadener when we're just having a casual conversation.
>
>

From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors


> It is good to remember that there are members of all levels of knowledge
> on the forum and in you own views about getting more people interested, it
> does help to let those new people understand how you make a statement

Good point.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> It's occurred to me that perhaps one of the reasons we don't see many films etc about WotR is that the action went on so long that you need multiple actors for each character. [snip] But the interesting part of Richard's life started when he was *seven* and it stayed interesting until he died, so you need actors for little kid Richard, schoolboy Richard and adult Richard and the same with George and maybe Ann, as well as teenage and adult Edward.
>
> Maybe we should settle for a really good animation....

Carol responds:

Or a TV series, "The House of York," based on something like "The Sunne in Splendour" but with modernized dialogue. "We be" and similar constructions might alienate or puzzle some viewers. And it could include segments on the rival house, Lancaster, and its shredded remnants, with Morton the Manipulator as a figure moving in the shadows, the subtle villain of the piece.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudors


> with Morton the Manipulator as a figure moving in the shadows, the subtle
> villain of the piece.

A bit like House of Cards in tights.

In the bedroom, but not on foot?

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

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

> Except that given what he got up to with his marriages, EIV very possibly
> *would* use performance drugs....

--- In , khafara@... wrote:
>
> Yes. He wasn't someone prone to sticking his neck out. If he'd already had decent prospects in England he wouldn't have been hanging around the French court. It was I suspect his total lack of other options - combined perhaps with an increasingly impatient French king who wanted to, if not rule England outright at least determine who would rule - that pushed him to act.

Carol responds:

Or, more precisely, the French regent Anne of Beaujeu and her government since Charles VIII was fifteen years old and did not rule on his own until he turned twenty-one. But, certainly, the French preferred to support Tudor against Richard (even supplying him, briefly, with a false claim to be Henry VL's younger son--see Annette Carson's "Maligned King") to having him and his several hundred followers sponging off the French court. The French couldn't lose--either the "warlike" Richard would die in battle or (more likely), the pretender would. And, regardless of the eventual outcome, as long as Richard was occupied with Tudor, France was safe from the invasion it imagined that Richard planned against them. (Another of Edward's legacies--the French view of Edward as a greedy, lazy fool and Richard as a warmonger!)

I agree with Claire that Henry Tudor, who had no training as king, would probably have been happier in some other role rather than manipulated as a puppet by kings, dukes, Morton, Mama, and Uncle Jasper. He seems to have been reluctant to marry Elizabeth of York and to "fight" at Bosworth. There's a story in Vergil (more trustworthy with regard to Henry than with regard to Richard) that Henry disappeared for a day on the way to Bosworth and was brought back to camp by his attendants. Either he somehow wandered away and got lost (which does not suggest high intelligence or common sense) or he tried to run away. On several occasions, Vergil specifically mentions Henry's fear. And almost his first act on becoming king was to appoint a bodyguard. I'd say that he was spectacularly unprepared and paranoid--as I would be, too, had I been manipulated into fighting, deposing, and killing (by proxy) the rightful king. No wonder he was afraid of conspiracy and rebellion at every turn and refused to give his lords any substantial power. I'll say this for Henry--he learned from Richard's mistake with Buckingham and what he (or Morton) must have considered to be Edward's mistake with Richard (and Warwick)--beware of overmighty subjects.

I don't like Henry, but I suspect that if Edward had given him and Jasper their respective earldoms and provided a good but nonroyal wife for Henry (a Woodville if there were any more to go around), he might have become a loyal subject. I doubt very much that he or Jasper would have supported Richard's protectorate, much less his kingship, but at least he wouldn't have been manipulated into pretending that he had a claim to the crown. I can just see him growing up at court as the rival and bitter enemy of his close contemporary, Henry Buckingham (they were about a year and a half apart in age).

At any rate, one of the problems with Henry Tudor and his policies (e.g., backdating the reign, which he does seem to have insisted upon despite Parliament's disapproval), burning Titulus Regius unread, extortionate taxation, and so forth is determining how much of these policies was his own idea and how much was Morton's (or MB's). Almost certainly, he would have preferred *not* to marry EoY but did so because his formerly Yorkist followers insisted that he keep his promise. Had he not done so, he could have kept Titulus Regius in force, making Richard the rightful but dead king and himself king by conquest, with Edward's sons, dead or alive, as illegitimate and therefore no threat (but, of course, the Edwardian Yorkists would have none of that). I suspect that distrusting his barons was his own inclination and Morton's advice helped him to control them.

We can't get inside their minds, more's the pity, but I suspect that without Morton and MB, Buckingham's rebellion would never have happened, the rumor that Richard had killed his nephews would never have been spread, the dissident Yorkists could have been pacified, and Henry Tudor could have been dealt with effectively, whether through negotiations or threats, preferably before the release of the Earl of Oxford--all because Henry Tudor in his heart, knowing that he lacked either competence or a valid claim, was afraid to fight and afraid to rule. And I think that afterward, knowing how easily a seemingly powerful king, especially one regarded as a usurper, could be deposed, he became a tyrant for the same reason--fear. Only when the last pretender (not counting the faraway "White Rose," Richard de la Pole, had been executed and his remaining son was safely married to his first son's widow, Catherine of Aragon, could he feel safe. I don't know if he felt secure even then. Maybe he knew in his heart that the last true king of England died on Bosworth Field and that he was nothing but a usurper who succeeded against all odds--not through God's will but through the treachery of a few nobles and a fatal gamble by Richard that could well have gone the other way.

Just tossing out ideas or saying that I'm right. All of this is my own opinion subject to correction.

Carol

Love this post Carol.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 6, 2013, at 6:06 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , khafara@... wrote:
> >
> > Yes. He wasn't someone prone to sticking his neck out. If he'd already had decent prospects in England he wouldn't have been hanging around the French court. It was I suspect his total lack of other options - combined perhaps with an increasingly impatient French king who wanted to, if not rule England outright at least determine who would rule - that pushed him to act.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Or, more precisely, the French regent Anne of Beaujeu and her government since Charles VIII was fifteen years old and did not rule on his own until he turned twenty-one. But, certainly, the French preferred to support Tudor against Richard (even supplying him, briefly, with a false claim to be Henry VL's younger son--see Annette Carson's "Maligned King") to having him and his several hundred followers sponging off the French court. The French couldn't lose--either the "warlike" Richard would die in battle or (more likely), the pretender would. And, regardless of the eventual outcome, as long as Richard was occupied with Tudor, France was safe from the invasion it imagined that Richard planned against them. (Another of Edward's legacies--the French view of Edward as a greedy, lazy fool and Richard as a warmonger!)
>
> I agree with Claire that Henry Tudor, who had no training as king, would probably have been happier in some other role rather than manipulated as a puppet by kings, dukes, Morton, Mama, and Uncle Jasper. He seems to have been reluctant to marry Elizabeth of York and to "fight" at Bosworth. There's a story in Vergil (more trustworthy with regard to Henry than with regard to Richard) that Henry disappeared for a day on the way to Bosworth and was brought back to camp by his attendants. Either he somehow wandered away and got lost (which does not suggest high intelligence or common sense) or he tried to run away. On several occasions, Vergil specifically mentions Henry's fear. And almost his first act on becoming king was to appoint a bodyguard. I'd say that he was spectacularly unprepared and paranoid--as I would be, too, had I been manipulated into fighting, deposing, and killing (by proxy) the rightful king. No wonder he was afraid of conspiracy and rebellion at every turn and refused to give his lords any substantial power. I'll say this for Henry--he learned from Richard's mistake with Buckingham and what he (or Morton) must have considered to be Edward's mistake with Richard (and Warwick)--beware of overmighty subjects.
>
> I don't like Henry, but I suspect that if Edward had given him and Jasper their respective earldoms and provided a good but nonroyal wife for Henry (a Woodville if there were any more to go around), he might have become a loyal subject. I doubt very much that he or Jasper would have supported Richard's protectorate, much less his kingship, but at least he wouldn't have been manipulated into pretending that he had a claim to the crown. I can just see him growing up at court as the rival and bitter enemy of his close contemporary, Henry Buckingham (they were about a year and a half apart in age).
>
> At any rate, one of the problems with Henry Tudor and his policies (e.g., backdating the reign, which he does seem to have insisted upon despite Parliament's disapproval), burning Titulus Regius unread, extortionate taxation, and so forth is determining how much of these policies was his own idea and how much was Morton's (or MB's). Almost certainly, he would have preferred *not* to marry EoY but did so because his formerly Yorkist followers insisted that he keep his promise. Had he not done so, he could have kept Titulus Regius in force, making Richard the rightful but dead king and himself king by conquest, with Edward's sons, dead or alive, as illegitimate and therefore no threat (but, of course, the Edwardian Yorkists would have none of that). I suspect that distrusting his barons was his own inclination and Morton's advice helped him to control them.
>
> We can't get inside their minds, more's the pity, but I suspect that without Morton and MB, Buckingham's rebellion would never have happened, the rumor that Richard had killed his nephews would never have been spread, the dissident Yorkists could have been pacified, and Henry Tudor could have been dealt with effectively, whether through negotiations or threats, preferably before the release of the Earl of Oxford--all because Henry Tudor in his heart, knowing that he lacked either competence or a valid claim, was afraid to fight and afraid to rule. And I think that afterward, knowing how easily a seemingly powerful king, especially one regarded as a usurper, could be deposed, he became a tyrant for the same reason--fear. Only when the last pretender (not counting the faraway "White Rose," Richard de la Pole, had been executed and his remaining son was safely married to his first son's widow, Catherine of Aragon, could he feel safe. I don't know if he felt secure even then. Maybe he knew in his heart that the last true king of England died on Bosworth Field and that he was nothing but a usurper who succeeded against all odds--not through God's will but through the treachery of a few nobles and a fatal gamble by Richard that could well have gone the other way.
>
> Just tossing out ideas or saying that I'm right. All of this is my own opinion subject to correction.
>
> Carol
>
>

Somehow I missed seeing more than the first paragraph of this - I agree with
Ishita, it's a great post.

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudors


> There's a story in Vergil (more trustworthy with regard to Henry than with
> regard to Richard) that Henry disappeared for a day on the way to Bosworth
> and was brought back to camp by his attendants. Either he somehow wandered
> away and got lost (which does not suggest high intelligence or common
> sense) or he tried to run away.

Could be fear or just a conman's practicality. He'd got out of France, and
if he didn't think his new army looked like they were up to the job, why not
slope off and find a nice quiet rut to settle into? Especially if he'd
learned to speak Welsh from the servants when he was a boy - if he took off
into Wales and presented himself as a travelling clerk for hire, who would
ever find him? It's a pity he didn't manage to get away.

[Note for those who don't already know: even nowadays, with helicopters and
off-road vehicles and so on, a massive area of central Wales known as The
Desert of Wales is so remote and inaccessible that only a few people a year
go there, yet the climate of Wales is friendlier than other remote areas
like the Highlands. It would be a great place to disappear in, especially
before modern communications.]

> I can just see him growing up at court as the rival and bitter enemy of
> his close contemporary, Henry Buckingham (they were about a year and a
> half apart in age).

I wonder whether the supposed great enmity between Richard and John Fogge
was a schoolboy thing. There's certainly a letter from 12-ish Edward IV
complaining that some of the other boys are bullying him.

> Had he not done so, he could have kept Titulus Regius in force, making
> Richard the rightful but dead king and himself king by conquest, with
> Edward's sons, dead or alive, as illegitimate and therefore no threat

Yes. Especially as he was at least vaguely Lancastrian, in sentiment if not
very much in blood, so he would regard the Yorkist claim as invalid anyway.
He would have no need to present Richard as a usurper, only as a member of a
royal house with a questonable claim. No Bad Richard stories - but then
perhaps no famous Richard either.

> (but, of course, the Edwardian Yorkists would have none of that). I
> suspect that distrusting his barons

Very sensible of him, too.

> And I think that afterward, knowing how easily a seemingly powerful king,
> especially one regarded as a usurper, could be deposed, he became a tyrant
> for the same reason

Technically, the original meaning of "tyrant" was a ruler who took the
throne by open force, so strictly speaking Henry was a tyrant rather than a
usurper - and then became a tyrant in the other sense. How much more of a
tyrant in that sense was he than Edward, who employed Tiptoft?

Carol wrote:

//snip//
"I agree with Claire that Henry Tudor, who had no training as king, would
probably have been happier in some other role rather than manipulated as a
puppet by kings, dukes, Morton, Mama, and Uncle Jasper. He seems to have
been reluctant to marry Elizabeth of York and to "fight" at Bosworth.
There's a story in Vergil (more trustworthy with regard to Henry than with
regard to Richard) that Henry disappeared for a day on the way to Bosworth
and was brought back to camp by his attendants. Either he somehow wandered
away and got lost (which does not suggest high intelligence or common sense)
or he tried to run away. On several occasions, Vergil specifically mentions
Henry's fear. And almost his first act on becoming king was to appoint a
bodyguard. I'd say that he was spectacularly unprepared and paranoid--as I
would be, too, had I been manipulated into fighting, deposing, and killing
(by proxy) the rightful king. No wonder he was afraid of conspiracy and
rebellion at every turn and refused to give his lords any substantial power.
I'll say this for Henry--he learned from Richard's mistake with Buckingham
and what he (or Morton) must have considered to be Edward's mistake with
Richard (and Warwick)--beware of overmighty subjects."

Doug here:
I wonder if it could be that Henry's "fears" were used to manipulate him?
IOW, left to his own devices, Henry would have been content to remain in
France and live out his life fairly quietly, but those around him noted his
fear(s) and played them up for *their* own reasons? Thus *any* move on
Edward's or Richard's part to normalize relations with France could (was?)
portrayed as an attempt to "get" Henry" into their vile clutches and do away
with him?

"I don't like Henry, but I suspect that if Edward had given him and Jasper
their respective earldoms and provided a good but nonroyal wife for Henry (a
Woodville if there were any more to go around), he might have become a loyal
subject. I doubt very much that he or Jasper would have supported Richard's
protectorate, much less his kingship, but at least he wouldn't have been
manipulated into pretending that he had a claim to the crown. I can just see
him growing up at court as the rival and bitter enemy of his close
contemporary, Henry Buckingham (they were about a year and a half apart in
age)."

Now *there's* something to consider!

"At any rate, one of the problems with Henry Tudor and his policies (e.g.,
backdating the reign, which he does seem to have insisted upon despite
Parliament's disapproval), burning Titulus Regius unread, extortionate
taxation, and so forth is determining how much of these policies was his own
idea and how much was Morton's (or MB's). Almost certainly, he would have
preferred *not* to marry EoY but did so because his formerly Yorkist
followers insisted that he keep his promise. Had he not done so, he could
have kept Titulus Regius in force, making Richard the rightful but dead king
and himself king by conquest, with Edward's sons, dead or alive, as
illegitimate and therefore no threat (but, of course, the Edwardian Yorkists
would have none of that). I suspect that distrusting his barons was his own
inclination and Morton's advice helped him to control them."

I wonder how Henry operated *after* Morton died compares with when Morton
was alive? If Henry *was* beng manipulated by Morton and/or others, a
difference in Henry's ways of approaching governing might be noticeable.
Are there any good, non-hagiographic biographies of Henry that you know of?

"We can't get inside their minds, more's the pity, but I suspect that
without Morton and MB, Buckingham's rebellion would never have happened, the
rumor that Richard had killed his nephews would never have been spread, the
dissident Yorkists could have been pacified, and Henry Tudor could have been
dealt with effectively, whether through negotiations or threats, preferably
before the release of the Earl of Oxford--all because Henry Tudor in his
heart, knowing that he lacked either competence or a valid claim, was afraid
to fight and afraid to rule. And I think that afterward, knowing how easily
a seemingly powerful king, especially one regarded as a usurper, could be
deposed, he became a tyrant for the same reason--fear. Only when the last
pretender (not counting the faraway "White Rose," Richard de la Pole, had
been executed and his remaining son was safely married to his first son's
widow, Catherine of Aragon, could he feel safe. I don't know if he felt
secure even then. Maybe he knew in his heart that the last true king of
England died on Bosworth Field and that he was nothing but a usurper who
succeeded against all odds--not through God's will but through the treachery
of a few nobles and a fatal gamble by Richard that could well have gone the
other way."

I've always wondered about that "rumor"! If I remember correctly, Croyland
merely says that the rumor spread that the boys were dead with no further
information. Offhand, I can't recall any others from England, but there *is*
that speech by the French PM (more or less) about Richard murdering the
boys, but would it have been well-publicized in England?

"Just tossing out ideas or saying that I'm right. All of this is my own
opinion subject to correction."

I (for what *that's* worth!) tend to think you may very well have gotten it
"right", or close to it and really enjoyed your post. And as, when those
documents/diaries/state papers are *finally* discovered, we're going to lose
the opportunity to conjecture, it's best we enjoy the opportunity while it
exists!
Doug
>
> Carol
>
Are there any non-hagiographic biographies of Henry?

"Are there any non-hagiographic biographies of Henry? "
Try The Winter King. :-)
Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors



 

Carol wrote:

//snip//
"I agree with Claire that Henry Tudor, who had no training as king, would
probably have been happier in some other role rather than manipulated as a
puppet by kings, dukes, Morton, Mama, and Uncle Jasper. He seems to have
been reluctant to marry Elizabeth of York and to "fight" at Bosworth.
There's a story in Vergil (more trustworthy with regard to Henry than with
regard to Richard) that Henry disappeared for a day on the way to Bosworth
and was brought back to camp by his attendants. Either he somehow wandered
away and got lost (which does not suggest high intelligence or common sense)
or he tried to run away. On several occasions, Vergil specifically mentions
Henry's fear. And almost his first act on becoming king was to appoint a
bodyguard. I'd say that he was spectacularly unprepared and paranoid--as I
would be, too, had I been manipulated into fighting, deposing, and killing
(by proxy) the rightful king. No wonder he was afraid of conspiracy and
rebellion at every turn and refused to give his lords any substantial power.
I'll say this for Henry--he learned from Richard's mistake with Buckingham
and what he (or Morton) must have considered to be Edward's mistake with
Richard (and Warwick)--beware of overmighty subjects."

Doug here:
I wonder if it could be that Henry's "fears" were used to manipulate him?
IOW, left to his own devices, Henry would have been content to remain in
France and live out his life fairly quietly, but those around him noted his
fear(s) and played them up for *their* own reasons? Thus *any* move on
Edward's or Richard's part to normalize relations with France could (was?)
portrayed as an attempt to "get" Henry" into their vile clutches and do away
with him?

"I don't like Henry, but I suspect that if Edward had given him and Jasper
their respective earldoms and provided a good but nonroyal wife for Henry (a
Woodville if there were any more to go around), he might have become a loyal
subject. I doubt very much that he or Jasper would have supported Richard's
protectorate, much less his kingship, but at least he wouldn't have been
manipulated into pretending that he had a claim to the crown. I can just see
him growing up at court as the rival and bitter enemy of his close
contemporary, Henry Buckingham (they were about a year and a half apart in
age)."

Now *there's* something to consider!

"At any rate, one of the problems with Henry Tudor and his policies (e.g.,
backdating the reign, which he does seem to have insisted upon despite
Parliament's disapproval), burning Titulus Regius unread, extortionate
taxation, and so forth is determining how much of these policies was his own
idea and how much was Morton's (or MB's). Almost certainly, he would have
preferred *not* to marry EoY but did so because his formerly Yorkist
followers insisted that he keep his promise. Had he not done so, he could
have kept Titulus Regius in force, making Richard the rightful but dead king
and himself king by conquest, with Edward's sons, dead or alive, as
illegitimate and therefore no threat (but, of course, the Edwardian Yorkists
would have none of that). I suspect that distrusting his barons was his own
inclination and Morton's advice helped him to control them."

I wonder how Henry operated *after* Morton died compares with when Morton
was alive? If Henry *was* beng manipulated by Morton and/or others, a
difference in Henry's ways of approaching governing might be noticeable.
Are there any good, non-hagiographic biographies of Henry that you know of?

"We can't get inside their minds, more's the pity, but I suspect that
without Morton and MB, Buckingham's rebellion would never have happened, the
rumor that Richard had killed his nephews would never have been spread, the
dissident Yorkists could have been pacified, and Henry Tudor could have been
dealt with effectively, whether through negotiations or threats, preferably
before the release of the Earl of Oxford--all because Henry Tudor in his
heart, knowing that he lacked either competence or a valid claim, was afraid
to fight and afraid to rule. And I think that afterward, knowing how easily
a seemingly powerful king, especially one regarded as a usurper, could be
deposed, he became a tyrant for the same reason--fear. Only when the last
pretender (not counting the faraway "White Rose," Richard de la Pole, had
been executed and his remaining son was safely married to his first son's
widow, Catherine of Aragon, could he feel safe. I don't know if he felt
secure even then. Maybe he knew in his heart that the last true king of
England died on Bosworth Field and that he was nothing but a usurper who
succeeded against all odds--not through God's will but through the treachery
of a few nobles and a fatal gamble by Richard that could well have gone the
other way."

I've always wondered about that "rumor"! If I remember correctly, Croyland
merely says that the rumor spread that the boys were dead with no further
information. Offhand, I can't recall any others from England, but there *is*
that speech by the French PM (more or less) about Richard murdering the
boys, but would it have been well-publicized in England?

"Just tossing out ideas or saying that I'm right. All of this is my own
opinion subject to correction."

I (for what *that's* worth!) tend to think you may very well have gotten it
"right", or close to it and really enjoyed your post. And as, when those
documents/diaries/state papers are *finally* discovered, we're going to lose
the opportunity to conjecture, it's best we enjoy the opportunity while it
exists!
Doug
>
> Carol
>
Are there any non-hagiographic biographies of Henry?

Here's a link to a NY Times review of the book, which seems to have been released last April.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/books/review/winter-king-a-portrait-of-henry-vii.html?_r=0



--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> "Are there any non-hagiographic biographies of Henry? "
> Try The Winter King. :-)
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie

It is very good - the author is objective and as unbiased as he can be (in fact you can tell he finds it hard to like Henry). I would strongly recommend it - but bear in mind that it starts at about the time of the death of EOY so you miss out a lot of the conspiracy stuff.


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 7 May 2013, 17:34
Subject: Re: More Tudors

 

Here's a link to a NY Times review of the book, which seems to have been released last April.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/books/review/winter-king-a-portrait-of-henry-vii.html?_r=0

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> "Are there any non-hagiographic biographies of Henry? "
> Try The Winter King. :-)
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie

I've said before I found it fascinating and very well written and
researched. And for a die hard Ricardian, it is a bonus that the author
clearly does not much like his subject! There is also no Richard bashing
except where it is on record as having happened during Henry's time.
Recommended.
Paul

On 07/05/2013 17:34, wednesday_mc wrote:
> Here's a link to a NY Times review of the book, which seems to have been released last April.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/books/review/winter-king-a-portrait-of-henry-vii.html?_r=0
>
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>> "Are there any non-hagiographic biographies of Henry? "
>> Try The Winter King. :-)
>> Judy
>> Â
>> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Judy Thomson wrote

"Try The Winter King."
Thank you, I've put it on my list!
Doug
(Now, where *did* I put that winning lottery ticket that's to pay for all
these books...)

inter library loan is usually free!
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: destama@...
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 13:14:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors




























Judy Thomson wrote



"Try The Winter King."

Thank you, I've put it on my list!

Doug

(Now, where *did* I put that winning lottery ticket that's to pay for all

these books...)

Welcome!

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors



 

Judy Thomson wrote

"Try The Winter King."
Thank you, I've put it on my list!
Doug
(Now, where *did* I put that winning lottery ticket that's to pay for all
these books...)

wednesday_mc wrote:

"Here's a link to a NY Times review of the book, which seems to have been
released last April.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/books/review/winter-king-a-portrait-of-henry-vii.html?_r=0


The article certainly seems to support the general view here of Henry!
Doug
--- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> "Are there any non-hagiographic biographies of Henry? "
> Try The Winter King. :-)
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Doug wrote:

> [snip]
> I wonder how Henry operated *after* Morton died compares with when Morton was alive? If Henry *was* beng manipulated by Morton and/or others, a difference in Henry's ways of approaching governing might be noticeable.
> Are there any good, non-hagiographic biographies of Henry that you know of?

Carol responds:

IMO, the place to start is with Bacon's biography, which is admiring but not hagiographic, bearing in mind that it's influenced by the Tudor chronicles--or maybe even start with Vergil and compare him to Bacon, who is objective by comparison. As for modern biographies, there's a newish one (2011) which I haven't read called "Henry VII: The First Tudor King" by Bryan Bevan available through Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Henry-VII-First-Tudor-King/dp/094869565X

The title is unobjectionable, but the blurb speaks of Richard as "tyrannous" and of Henry as "a born politician" and one of the ablest English kings--clearly not what you (or I) are looking for.

"Winter King: Henry VII and the Dawn of the Tudors" by Thomas Penn looks more promising: http://www.amazon.com/Winter-King-Henry-Tudor-England/dp/1439191573/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_2

At least the blurb admits that Henry gained the throne throne through "luck, guile, and ruthlessness" and that as a usurper with a shaky claim, his hold on his throne was precarious. Hilary, I think, has read this book and recommends it. Right, Hilary?

Doug wrote:
> I've always wondered about that "rumor"! If I remember correctly, Croyland merely says that the rumor spread that the boys were dead with no further information. Offhand, I can't recall any others from England, but there *is* that speech by the French PM (more or less) about Richard murdering the boys, but would it have been well-publicized in England?

Carol responds:

As I mentioned to Claire, it's easy to find out what Croyland says on any given point as long as you know the date. Just go to the American branch's online library http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/?page_id=57 and click on the Croyland/Crowland chronicle (or go there directly, http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/?page_id=57). Then click on the relevant section, in this case, Part VIII, July 1483-March 1485.

The chronicler, to paraphrase from memory, says that a rumor was spread that the sons of Edward IV were dead, none knew how. (I think that this particular translation words it a little differently, but the gist is the same.) The context (Buckingham's rebellion) suggests that the Tudor faction spread the rumor; the very vagueness--no details, no perpretrator--suggests its nature as a recruiting tool for dissident Yorkists rather than a statement of truth.

Mancini, who admittedly left England around the time of Richard's coronation, says that he has heard rumors that the older brother, Edward, has been done away with (no mention of the younger brother, Richard) but he can't confirm them, and, in any case, he must have heard those rumors while he was in contact with Tudor supporters, including Dr. Argentine, while he was abroad since the Croyland chronicler states that the boys were still in the Tower when Richard went on his progress--after Mancini left England. There seems to have been cross-contamination, with Mancini's unconfirmed rumors becoming "fact" in a speech by a French official. The men who spoke tearfully to Mancini of Edward ex-V need not have been in England. They could well have been former Yorkists who had joined Tudor's cause because of those very rumors!

There's too much confusion, and as I keep saying, we need a new edition of Mancini that translates the text accurately without after-the-"fact" assumptions and sorts out his connections with the pro-Tudor exiles, particularly Dr. Argentine (a closet Lancastrian from the get-go yet assigned to "Prince Edward"/"E5" as his personal physician or an Edwardian Yorkist converted to Tudorism by the rumor?) and Morton.

Doug:
> I (for what *that's* worth!) tend to think you may very well have gotten it "right", or close to it and really enjoyed your post.

Carol:

Thanks very much! There's so much we don't know, and I, for one, am tired of reading the same old arguments on both sides, so it's fun and perhaps profitable to explore new territory.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudors


> Mancini, who admittedly left England around the time of Richard's
> coronation, says that he has heard rumors that the older brother, Edward,
> has been done away with (no mention of the younger brother, Richard) but
> he can't confirm them, and, in any case, he must have heard those rumors
> while he was in contact with Tudor supporters, including Dr. Argentine,
> while he was abroad since the Croyland chronicler states that the boys
> were still in the Tower when Richard went on his progress--after Mancini
> left England.

Well - another possibility is that he indeed heard those rumours before he
left England, in which case we *know* they weren't true and they would lose
all significance. I wonder if it's possible to tell from the Latin when he
heard them.

Kendall has the rumors beginning with Morton and Buckingham's perfidy (and Margaret Beaufort by association) after Buckingham made it back to Brecon after leaving Richard on his progress.

First came the rebellion's intention to "rescue" the princes. Then came the announcement that the princes were gone and couldn't be rescued, along with -- surprise! -- Buckingham had come over and would "lead" the rebellion...which then morphed into a rebellion to depose Richard and impose the Tydder.

So...Kendall places the beginning of the rumors as Morton and Buckingham were plotting together in Breaknock, with MB kindly sending Reginald Bray to carry messages to and fro. Kendall places MB still in London after the coronation/while Richard was on progression.

~Weds


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

>>...the Croyland chronicler states that the boys were still in the Tower when Richard went on his progress--after Mancini left England.
>
> Well - another possibility is that he indeed heard those rumours before he left England, in which case we *know* they weren't true and they would lose all significance. I wonder if it's possible to tell from the Latin when he heard them.

Doug
You could also try Henry VII by S B Chrimes, which has been the standard biography for many years and is on many university syllabus book lists. There is also The Life of Henry VII by Bernard Andre translated by Daniel Hobbins. A primary source written between 1500 and 1502 by a humanist poet and historian who was tutor to Henry's son, Arthur. I haven't read that one but can recommend the Chrimes. For something easier to digest, Colin Pendrill's The War of The Roses and Henry VII by Heinemann is useful and he is quite objective on Henry and his "achievements" and legacy.
Elaine

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> wednesday_mc wrote:
>
> "Here's a link to a NY Times review of the book, which seems to have been
> released last April.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/books/review/winter-king-a-portrait-of-henry-vii.html?_r=0
>
>
> The article certainly seems to support the general view here of Henry!
> Doug
> --- In , Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > "Are there any non-hagiographic biographies of Henry? "
> > Try The Winter King. :-)
> > Judy
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Hello Forum members,

I recommend Winter King with a couple of warnings:
1) it is written in a manner that promotes a sense of dread & secrecy at times. One reviewer refers to John Le Carre.
2) It recounts the old tale of Richard III watching Henry Wyatt being tortured, which has been refuted on Wikipedia - yes..... I posted on this previously. This raises the possibility that other statements are not accurate.
Read it all the same. It is possible to feel sorry for Henry VII at times, but read it & form your own opinion.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 7 May 2013, at 22:43, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:

> Doug
> You could also try Henry VII by S B Chrimes, which has been the standard biography for many years and is on many university syllabus book lists. There is also The Life of Henry VII by Bernard Andre translated by Daniel Hobbins. A primary source written between 1500 and 1502 by a humanist poet and historian who was tutor to Henry's son, Arthur. I haven't read that one but can recommend the Chrimes. For something easier to digest, Colin Pendrill's The War of The Roses and Henry VII by Heinemann is useful and he is quite objective on Henry and his "achievements" and legacy.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > wednesday_mc wrote:
> >
> > "Here's a link to a NY Times review of the book, which seems to have been
> > released last April.
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/books/review/winter-king-a-portrait-of-henry-vii.html?_r=0
> >
> >
> > The article certainly seems to support the general view here of Henry!
> > Doug
> > --- In , Judy Thomson
> > <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Are there any non-hagiographic biographies of Henry? "
> > > Try The Winter King. :-)
> > > Judy
> > > Â
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
>

Elaine wrote:

"You could also try Henry VII by S B Chrimes, which has been the standard
biography for many years and is on many university syllabus book lists.
There is also The Life of Henry VII by Bernard Andre translated by Daniel
Hobbins. A primary source written between 1500 and 1502 by a humanist poet
and historian who was tutor to Henry's son, Arthur. I haven't read that one
but can recommend the Chrimes. For something easier to digest, Colin
Pendrill's The War of The Roses and Henry VII by Heinemann is useful and he
is quite objective on Henry and his "achievements" and legacy."

"Ask and ye shall receive!"
Thank you, Elaine. I've put them on my list. Now to decide which to buy and
which to borrow...
Doug

Borrow all; decide to buy, based on what you think when you read'em. Unless, of course, you know the author.

If I'd followed my own advice, I would have fewer turkeys to give away :-)

Judy

 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors



 

Elaine wrote:

"You could also try Henry VII by S B Chrimes, which has been the standard
biography for many years and is on many university syllabus book lists.
There is also The Life of Henry VII by Bernard Andre translated by Daniel
Hobbins. A primary source written between 1500 and 1502 by a humanist poet
and historian who was tutor to Henry's son, Arthur. I haven't read that one
but can recommend the Chrimes. For something easier to digest, Colin
Pendrill's The War of The Roses and Henry VII by Heinemann is useful and he
is quite objective on Henry and his "achievements" and legacy."

"Ask and ye shall receive!"
Thank you, Elaine. I've put them on my list. Now to decide which to buy and
which to borrow...
Doug

wednesday_mc wrote:

"Kendall has the rumors beginning with Morton and Buckingham's perfidy (and
Margaret Beaufort by association) after Buckingham made it back to Brecon
after leaving Richard on his progress.
First came the rebellion's intention to "rescue" the princes. Then came the
announcement that the princes were gone and couldn't be rescued, along
with -- surprise! -- Buckingham had come over and would "lead" the
rebellion...which then morphed into a rebellion to depose Richard and impose
the Tydder.
So...Kendall places the beginning of the rumors as Morton and Buckingham
were plotting together in Breaknock, with MB kindly sending Reginald Bray to
carry messages to and fro. Kendall places MB still in London after the
coronation/while Richard was on progression."

Doug here:
The attempt to free Edward and Richard, was that before or during Richard's
progress? Was it before Richard wrote that letter describing Buckingham as
that "most untrue creature"?
Because I don't see how Buckingham, Morton, MB and Bray could risk spreading
a rumor about the boys' deaths, if they knew Richard could produce them. If
the rumor was *that* widespread, Richard could bring his nephews along with
him as he rounded up men to fight against Buckingham. Which leads me, again,
to the idea that Edward and Richard weren't supposed to survive their
"rescue".
Now, *if* Buckingham knew all along they weren't supposed to survive and was
even instrumental in planning that they not survive, but also was dumb
enough to allow evidence of his involvment be retained by Morton; could
*that* explain why Buckingham "ceded" his claim to the throne to Henry
Tudor?
Or is that too convoluted?
Doug

The rescue attempt preceded the letter, Doug.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors



 

wednesday_mc wrote:

"Kendall has the rumors beginning with Morton and Buckingham's perfidy (and
Margaret Beaufort by association) after Buckingham made it back to Brecon
after leaving Richard on his progress.
First came the rebellion's intention to "rescue" the princes. Then came the
announcement that the princes were gone and couldn't be rescued, along
with -- surprise! -- Buckingham had come over and would "lead" the
rebellion...which then morphed into a rebellion to depose Richard and impose
the Tydder.
So...Kendall places the beginning of the rumors as Morton and Buckingham
were plotting together in Breaknock, with MB kindly sending Reginald Bray to
carry messages to and fro. Kendall places MB still in London after the
coronation/while Richard was on progression."

Doug here:
The attempt to free Edward and Richard, was that before or during Richard's
progress? Was it before Richard wrote that letter describing Buckingham as
that "most untrue creature"?
Because I don't see how Buckingham, Morton, MB and Bray could risk spreading
a rumor about the boys' deaths, if they knew Richard could produce them. If
the rumor was *that* widespread, Richard could bring his nephews along with
him as he rounded up men to fight against Buckingham. Which leads me, again,
to the idea that Edward and Richard weren't supposed to survive their
"rescue".
Now, *if* Buckingham knew all along they weren't supposed to survive and was
even instrumental in planning that they not survive, but also was dumb
enough to allow evidence of his involvment be retained by Morton; could
*that* explain why Buckingham "ceded" his claim to the throne to Henry
Tudor?
Or is that too convoluted?
Doug

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Kendall has the rumors beginning with Morton and Buckingham's perfidy (and Margaret Beaufort by association) after Buckingham made it back to Brecon after leaving Richard on his progress.

[snip]>
> So...Kendall places the beginning of the rumors as Morton and Buckingham were plotting together in Breaknock, with MB kindly sending Reginald Bray to carry messages to and fro. Kendall places MB still in London after the coronation/while Richard was on progression.

Carol responds:

Kendall is following the Croyland chronicler (who would know better than Mancini, I think) regarding the timing of the rumors, which coincides with Buckingham's rebellion and the dissident Yorkists changing their focus to support Tudor (if he promises to marry EoY). But Croyland says nothing about Buckingham meeting with Richard during the progress to York. That comes from Vergil, echoed (with differences) by More. Kendall is also working the "enterprise" letter into the picture. I don't have time to check on the specifics now.

However, you're right about the timing of the rumors. Croyland is very specific in associating them with the rebellion (and makes it clear that they are exactly that--vague rumors deliberately spread). Unlike Mancini, who is very vague with regard to the timing, he does not speculate that the rumors might be true. He notes only their effect on the rebellion.

The Great Chronicle seems to suggest that rumors began to spread in London itself only "after Easter," which could only mean Easter 1484 since at Easter 1483, plans were still underway for Edward V's coronation and Richard, then Duke of York, was still in sanctuary. So it seems to me that the tearful rumors Mancini heard must have been from dissident Yorkist exiles who had chosen to follow Tudor *because* of those rumors. Any tears shed by true Tudor partisans for Edward IV's sons would have been crocodile tears. Mancini left England right before Richard's coronation, when the boys were known to be alive, but didn't submit his report to Angelo Cato until December 1483, about a month after the rumors had been spread (in the southern counties where the rebellion was and possibly only among the dissident Yorkists to persuade them to change their allegiance and Tudor's own followers to persuade them of the "justness" of their cause in ridding England of a "murderer" and "tyrant"). I'm not sure whether Mancini's report influenced the French official who openly stated that Richard had murdered his nephews (a stretch because Mancini speaks only of a rumor that the elder nephew had been done away with) or whether the rumors reached France sooner via Tudor, Morton, et al. Does anyone know the date when Tudor et al. escaped from Brittany to France and where it fits in with the rumors? Did Mancini have time for direct contact with, say, Morton or Argentine before he submitted his report? Or the Woodville faction, amongst whom he must have found the tearful men mourning the older nephew's supposed death?

Too many unanswered questions, too many contradictions, too little information.

Carol

Judy Thomson wrote:

"The rescue attempt preceded the letter, Doug."

I was half-hoping it was the other way 'round, because now I get to start a
"Stillington" on that "resuce" attempt!
And if there'd *already* been one attempt; well, that might explain why
Richard felt hiding his nephews' whereabouts was more important than having
them available to refute rumors about their demise.
I try to rely on logic, but the sources *are* limited, and fallible people
are involved, so logic doesn't always apply. I could be completely off-base
with my idea, but really...
Doug

I'm just reading Fields book and he says Mancini's contact with Dr
Argentine didn't occur until Mancini was back on the continent. Seems as
if we really need a consolidated timeline that illuminates who said what
when about what happened and when it was supposed to have occurred.
Once I finish
this book, think I'll go back and try to extract a more exact sequence of
events and what sources Fields used.

A J

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013, justcarol67 wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> '%40yahoogroups.com');>, "wednesday_mc"
> <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >
> > Kendall has the rumors beginning with Morton and Buckingham's perfidy
> (and Margaret Beaufort by association) after Buckingham made it back to
> Brecon after leaving Richard on his progress.
>
> [snip]>
> > So...Kendall places the beginning of the rumors as Morton and Buckingham
> were plotting together in Breaknock, with MB kindly sending Reginald Bray
> to carry messages to and fro. Kendall places MB still in London after the
> coronation/while Richard was on progression.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Kendall is following the Croyland chronicler (who would know better than
> Mancini, I think) regarding the timing of the rumors, which coincides with
> Buckingham's rebellion and the dissident Yorkists changing their focus to
> support Tudor (if he promises to marry EoY). But Croyland says nothing
> about Buckingham meeting with Richard during the progress to York. That
> comes from Vergil, echoed (with differences) by More. Kendall is also
> working the "enterprise" letter into the picture. I don't have time to
> check on the specifics now.
>
> However, you're right about the timing of the rumors. Croyland is very
> specific in associating them with the rebellion (and makes it clear that
> they are exactly that--vague rumors deliberately spread). Unlike Mancini,
> who is very vague with regard to the timing, he does not speculate that the
> rumors might be true. He notes only their effect on the rebellion.
>
> The Great Chronicle seems to suggest that rumors began to spread in London
> itself only "after Easter," which could only mean Easter 1484 since at
> Easter 1483, plans were still underway for Edward V's coronation and
> Richard, then Duke of York, was still in sanctuary. So it seems to me that
> the tearful rumors Mancini heard must have been from dissident Yorkist
> exiles who had chosen to follow Tudor *because* of those rumors. Any tears
> shed by true Tudor partisans for Edward IV's sons would have been crocodile
> tears. Mancini left England right before Richard's coronation, when the
> boys were known to be alive, but didn't submit his report to Angelo Cato
> until December 1483, about a month after the rumors had been spread (in the
> southern counties where the rebellion was and possibly only among the
> dissident Yorkists to persuade them to change their allegiance and Tudor's
> own followers to persuade them of the "justness" of their cause in ridding
> England of a "murderer" and "tyrant"). I'm not sure whether Mancini's
> report influenced the French official who openly stated that Richard had
> murdered his nephews (a stretch because Mancini speaks only of a rumor that
> the elder nephew had been done away with) or whether the rumors reached
> France sooner via Tudor, Morton, et al. Does anyone know the date when
> Tudor et al. escaped from Brittany to France and where it fits in with the
> rumors? Did Mancini have time for direct contact with, say, Morton or
> Argentine before he submitted his report? Or the Woodville faction, amongst
> whom he must have found the tearful men mourning the older nephew's
> supposed death?
>
> Too many unanswered questions, too many contradictions, too little
> information.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

Doug wrote:

>...Richard could bring his nephews along with him as he rounded up men to fight against Buckingham. Which leads me, again, to the idea that Edward and Richard weren't supposed to survive their "rescue".

Weds writes:
No, they weren't supposed to survive. More importantly, it didn't matter if they *did* survive as long as they couldn't be produced quickly to prove the rumors of their death were false.

And Buckingham was stupid enough to allow someone to *publicly publish* his desertion of Richard and his going over to the rebellion, so go figure.

This is the chronology of the rebellion, et. al., that Kendall has:

*July - Richard departs Windsor to begin his progression.

-- People in the south and west start to meet and plan to deliver the two princes from the Tower.
-- EW was encouraged (by whom? MB?) to smuggle her daughters out of Westminster and send them oversea so *that if anything happened to the princes* one might get a husband who would help her restore "King Edward's blood" to the throne.
-- The plan is discovered. Richard's council sets John Nesfeld to guard the sanctuary at Westminster.
-- The conspiracy keeps going. ("Never give up, never surrender.")

Members of the conspiracy:
1. Men loyal to the line of E4.
2. Men upset at the redistribution of offices in Richard's new regime. (These included Sir John Cheyney, whom Richard replaced with Sir James Tyrell.)
3. Men among the gentry (particularly Kent & Devonshire) who were eager to advance in troubled times. (Old Lancastrians like the Courtenays).
4. The Woodvilles -- at this point Kendall thinks they dominated the movement, had the most recruits, and directed the conspiracy. Kendall lists Dorset, Richard Guildford, Sir John Fogge, friends of Morton, Sir Richard Woodville, Sir Thomas St. Leger...all aimed to restore E5 to the throne. The Woodville conspiracy also attracted other malcontents because the Woodvilles promised to overthrow R3.

* Early September -- After Richard left York on his progression, he went to establish a royal household at Sheriff Hutton to provide residence for:
-- Clarence's son, the young Earl of Warwick (who was with Richard on the progression)
-- The son of Richard's sister (Duchess of Suffolk), John Earl of Lincoln (also with Richard on the Progression -- Kendall lists all on the progression on page 308 of my copy).

I'm struck that Richard brought two heirs of York with him -- getting both out of London after the attempt on the princes' lives. Kendall further notes that this is the household out of which Richard's Council of the North would develop.

* Mid-September -- Anne and Richard part their ways. Anne takes Edward home to Middleham while Richard heads southward. E of M was kept far away from London -- but it still didn't save him.

I wonder if Richard deliberately got Warwick and Lincoln and Edward of Middleham safely out of the way so attempts could not be made on their lives. He didn't allow E of M to get anywhere near London...not that his father's caution saved him in the end.

* September 16 - Richard is still dispatching writs (in the name of his son, Prince Edward), to royal officers in North and South Wales, ordering them to pay their accounts to Buckingham. Buckingham also headed the commissions of oyer and terminer that were investigating the signs of rebellion -- which presumably is the official reason why Buckingham went to Wales rather than on progression with Richard?

* End of September -- By now, the three conspiracies had coalesced into a single effort to end Richard's reign. Kendall believes this is because:
-- Sometime in Sept, the leaders of the movement (still the Woodville movement) were informed Buckingham had come over to their cause.
-- A few days later, leaders and footsoldiers were informed *by Buckingham* that the princes had been put to death, "none knew how." (Kendall's source: Croyland p. 491.) More and the later Tudor writers all date the murder of the princes as occuring *days after Buckingham had reached Brecon* (per Kendall, page 315).

Croyland states (paragraphs inserted for ease of reading):

"At last it was determined by the people in the vicinity of the city of London, throughout the counties of [listed] to avenge their grievances before- states [i.e., to rescue Edward's sons from captivity; upon which, public proclamation was made, that [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 rumor was spread that the sons of King Edward before-named had died a violent death, but it was uncertain how.

"Accordingly, all those who had set on foot this insurrection, seeing that if they could find no one to take the lead in their designs, the ruin of all would speedily ensue, turned their thoughts to Henry, Earl of Richmond.

"To him a message was sent by [Buckingham] by the advice of the lord Bishop of Ely, who was then his prisoner at Brecknock, requesting him [Henry] to hasten over to England as soon as he possibly could, for the purpose of marrying Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of the late King, and at the same time, together with her, taking possession of the throne."

So, (1) Buckingham's taking over leadership of the rebellion; and, (2) rumor of the princes' death appear to have been concurrent, not subsequent to each other. The murk starts at this point, but it appears that Buckingham's motives were interlinked with the enigma of the princes' fate.

Another point of interest (at least to me) is that Kendall has the Countess of Richmond (MB) remaining in London after the coronation. Kendall states his opinion outright on page 316: he thought that the sum of the evidence showed that Buckingham and Morton -- with the help of MB, who sent Reginald Bray to Buckingham to help as he could and presumably to carry messages to Tudor -- overran the conspiracy meant to free the princes.

By stating that the princes were dead, Buckingham, Morton, and MB exploded the conspiracy's original motive for existing existing and deliberately diverted that conspiracy to the radically different focus of overthrowing Richard in order to put Henry Tudor on the throne.

The rumor was selectively spread at this point (per Croyland) *among the Woodville rebels*. The actual fate of the princes didn't matter (just as the actual truth of Stillington's testimony regarding E4's pre-contract didn't matter); what mattered is that certain people believed the rumor. At that point, the call to set aside the princes and replace them with the Tydder came from Morton and Margaret Beaufort, with Buckingham presumably trailing along behind. What choice had he but to fall in with the others' plans when public proclamation had been made that he was traitor to Richard?

I keep going back to *if* MB helped make that attempt on the princes' lives (or even knew about, as she must have), and *if* Buckingham knew (because MB, Stanley, and Buckingham all had official access to the Tower), then everyone attached to the Tower by position must have known that Richard removed the princes after the attempt on their lives. What mattered is that Richard couldn't produce them quickly and disprove the rumor, not that they were dead.

* Beginning of October -- Richard leaves Pontefract and heads toward Lincolnshire.

* October 11. Richard reaches Lincoln and is told Buckingham has betrayed him. He had no armed force with him. Many of the lords and councilors who had been with him had gone home.

* October 12. Richard writes the "most untrue creature living" letter to Russell asking him to deliver the Great Seal.

* October 15. Richard issues his first public proclamation, declaring Buckingham to be a rebel.

And so it goes... and I *still* can't help but see Margaret Beaufort moving everyone like a shadow puppet for weeks and weeks. It's like those lists murderers have been known to make:

1. Get fitted for new dress.

2. Look feminine and helpless and harmless as long as that idiot Richard is still in London.

3. Write my son and tell him, "Don't be daft, be patient and trust that Mummy will see you safely to the throne."

4. Borrow husband's keys to the Tower and deliver poisoned sweetmeats to try and knock off the princes.

5. Sit tight until something happens we can take advantage of.

6. Figure out a way to knock off Edward of Middleham from 240 miles away.

7. Rejoice! Buckingham's ego has delivered him unto Morton.

8. Send Reggie to help Our Cause.

9. Dear Diary, what next?


~Weds

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> The rescue attempt preceded the letter, Doug.
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors
>
>
>
>
> wednesday_mc wrote:
>
> "Kendall has the rumors beginning with Morton and Buckingham's perfidy (and Margaret Beaufort by association) after Buckingham made it back to Brecon after leaving Richard on his progress.

>First came the rebellion's intention to "rescue" the princes. Then came the announcement that the princes were gone and couldn't be rescued, along with -- surprise! -- Buckingham had come over and would "lead" the rebellion...which then morphed into a rebellion to depose Richard and impose the Tydder.

> So...Kendall places the beginning of the rumors as Morton and Buckingham were plotting together in Breaknock, with MB kindly sending Reginald Bray to carry messages to and fro. Kendall places MB still in London after the coronation/while Richard was on progression."
>
> Doug here:
> The attempt to free Edward and Richard, was that before or during Richard's progress? Was it before Richard wrote that letter describing Buckingham as that "most untrue creature"?

> Because I don't see how Buckingham, Morton, MB and Bray could risk spreading a rumor about the boys' deaths, if they knew Richard could produce them. If the rumor was *that* widespread, Richard could bring his nephews along with him as he rounded up men to fight against Buckingham. Which leads me, again, to the idea that Edward and Richard weren't supposed to survive their "rescue".

> Now, *if* Buckingham knew all along they weren't supposed to survive and was even instrumental in planning that they not survive, but also was dumb enough to allow evidence of his involvment be retained by Morton; could *that* explain why Buckingham "ceded" his claim to the throne to Henry Tudor?

>Or is that too convoluted?
> Doug

A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> I'm just reading Fields book and he says Mancini's contact with Dr
> Argentine didn't occur until Mancini was back on the continent. Seems as if we really need a consolidated timeline that illuminates who said what when about what happened and when it was supposed to have occurred.
> Once I finish this book, think I'll go back and try to extract a more exact sequence of events and what sources Fields used.

Carol responds:

That sounds like a good idea. Unfortunatly, Fields's book doesn't have footnotes (the publisher wanted it to appeal to a general audience, not a scholarly one), but the notes he would have included are online. I meant to go back and match them up to the text but never found the time.

Mancini, too, doesn't name his sources--make that informants--except for Dr. Argentine. We need to find out more about *him* and his association with Cato (Mancini's patron) as well as his real political leanings. What was a Tudor supporter doing as "Edward V's" physician in the first place? Or was he yet another Edwardian Yorkist who opposed Richard as a "usurper" and believed or wanted to believe (and helped spread) the rumor that Edward (only--no mention of his brother Richard) was dead and became a Tudor supporter by default? But Argentine was also physician to Henry Tudor's son Arthur--who died in Ludlow. (Closet Edwardian Yorkist who poisoned "Prince" Arthur? Sorry, but if we consider poison in other unexplained or early deaths, why not that one?)

Anyway, it does seem (only seem) that Mancini did *not* hear the rumors while he was in England but only on the continent--and from dissident Yorkists like Argentine who had fallen in with Tudor and had by this time arrived at the French court. No wonder Mancini claims that he hasn't yet had time to provide names and that he's been unable to verify rumors. He'd have been better off staying in England longer, away from those biased and uninformed "sources"!

It's enough to make you cry, especially since so many people cling to Mancini as an "objective" source with no Lancastrian or anti-Richard bias! The very fact that he has "Prince" Richard arriving in London after his brother ought to cause us to examine what he says very closely. And where did he get the material for the detailed dialogue between Richard, Buckingham, and, later, "Edward V"? From Argentine, who could only have witnessed the part at Stony Stratford? That would be, at best, part of a conversation remembered by a biased witness and translated into a different language retranscribed as remembered by someone who never met Richard. Eyewitness testimony isn't quite as reliable as most people believe, especially months after the fact by a biased witness, and, of course, it's secondhand by the time Mancini reports it. Alternatively, as a humanist "historian," he could simply have invented the dialogue based on a much vaguer summary (from Argentine?) of the conversation.

Anyway, yes, we need a timeline of Mancini's movements and his contacts with Argentine, et al. If he never met Argentine until *after* he left England, that would explain the more earlier portions of his report, which would come from a different source or sources.

Carol

wednesday_mc wrote:

"No, they weren't supposed to survive. More importantly, it didn't matter if
they *did* survive as long as they couldn't be produced quickly to prove the
rumors of their death were false.
And Buckingham was stupid enough to allow someone to *publicly publish* his
desertion of Richard and his going over to the rebellion, so go figure.
//snip//

This is the chronology of the rebellion, et. al., that Kendall has:
*July - Richard departs Windsor to begin his progression.
-- People in the south and west start to meet and plan to deliver the two
princes from the Tower.
-- EW was encouraged (by whom? MB?) to smuggle her daughters out of
Westminster and send them oversea so *that if anything happened to the
princes* one might get a husband who would help her restore "King Edward's
blood" to the throne.
-- The plan is discovered. Richard's council sets John Nesfeld to guard
the sanctuary at Westminster.
-- The conspiracy keeps going. ("Never give up, never surrender.")

Members of the conspiracy:
1. Men loyal to the line of E4.
2. Men upset at the redistribution of offices in Richard's new regime.
(These included Sir John Cheyney, whom Richard replaced with Sir James
Tyrell.)
3. Men among the gentry (particularly Kent & Devonshire) who were eager
to advance in troubled times. (Old Lancastrians like the Courtenays).
4. The Woodvilles -- at this point Kendall thinks they dominated the
movement, had the most recruits, and directed the conspiracy. Kendall lists
Dorset, Richard Guildford, Sir John Fogge, friends of Morton, Sir Richard
Woodville, Sir Thomas St. Leger...all aimed to restore E5 to the throne. The
Woodville conspiracy also attracted other malcontents because the Woodvilles
promised to overthrow R3.

* Early September -- After Richard left York on his progression, he went to
establish a royal household at Sheriff Hutton to provide residence for:
-- Clarence's son, the young Earl of Warwick (who was with Richard on
the progression)
-- The son of Richard's sister (Duchess of Suffolk), John Earl of
Lincoln (also with Richard on the Progression -- Kendall lists all on the
progression on page 308 of my copy).

I'm struck that Richard brought two heirs of York with him -- getting both
out of London after the attempt on the princes' lives. Kendall further notes
that this is the household out of which Richard's Council of the North would
develop.

* Mid-September -- Anne and Richard part their ways. Anne takes Edward home
to Middleham while Richard heads southward. E of M was kept far away from
London -- but it still didn't save him.

I wonder if Richard deliberately got Warwick and Lincoln and Edward of
Middleham safely out of the way so attempts could not be made on their
lives. He didn't allow E of M to get anywhere near London...not that his
father's caution saved him in the end.

* September 16 - Richard is still dispatching writs (in the name of his son,
Prince Edward), to royal officers in North and South Wales, ordering them to
pay their accounts to Buckingham. Buckingham also headed the commissions of
oyer and terminer that were investigating the signs of rebellion -- which
presumably is the official reason why Buckingham went to Wales rather than
on progression with Richard?

* End of September -- By now, the three conspiracies had coalesced into a
single effort to end Richard's reign. Kendall believes this is because:
-- Sometime in Sept, the leaders of the movement (still the Woodville
movement) were informed Buckingham had come over to their cause.
-- A few days later, leaders and footsoldiers were informed *by
Buckingham* that the princes had been put to death, "none knew how."
(Kendall's source: Croyland p. 491.) More and the later Tudor writers all
date the murder of the princes as occuring *days after Buckingham had
reached Brecon* (per Kendall, page 315).

Croyland states (paragraphs inserted for ease of reading):

"At last it was determined by the people in the vicinity of the city of
London, throughout the counties of [listed] to avenge their grievances
before- states [i.e., to rescue Edward's sons from captivity; upon which,
public proclamation was made, that [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 rumor was spread that the sons of King
Edward before-named had died a violent death, but it was uncertain how.

"Accordingly, all those who had set on foot this insurrection, seeing that
if they could find no one to take the lead in their designs, the ruin of all
would speedily ensue, turned their thoughts to Henry, Earl of Richmond.

"To him a message was sent by [Buckingham] by the advice of the lord Bishop
of Ely, who was then his prisoner at Brecknock, requesting him [Henry] to
hasten over to England as soon as he possibly could, for the purpose of
marrying Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of the late King, and at the same
time, together with her, taking possession of the throne."

So, (1) Buckingham's taking over leadership of the rebellion; and, (2) rumor
of the princes' death appear to have been concurrent, not subsequent to each
other. The murk starts at this point, but it appears that Buckingham's
motives were interlinked with the enigma of the princes' fate.

Another point of interest (at least to me) is that Kendall has the Countess
of Richmond (MB) remaining in London after the coronation. Kendall states
his opinion outright on page 316: he thought that the sum of the evidence
showed that Buckingham and Morton -- with the help of MB, who sent Reginald
Bray to Buckingham to help as he could and presumably to carry messages to
Tudor -- overran the conspiracy meant to free the princes.

By stating that the princes were dead, Buckingham, Morton, and MB exploded
the conspiracy's original motive for existing existing and deliberately
diverted that conspiracy to the radically different focus of overthrowing
Richard in order to put Henry Tudor on the throne.

The rumor was selectively spread at this point (per Croyland) *among the
Woodville rebels*. The actual fate of the princes didn't matter (just as the
actual truth of Stillington's testimony regarding E4's pre-contract didn't
matter); what mattered is that certain people believed the rumor. At that
point, the call to set aside the princes and replace them with the Tydder
came from Morton and Margaret Beaufort, with Buckingham presumably trailing
along behind. What choice had he but to fall in with the others' plans when
public proclamation had been made that he was traitor to Richard?

I keep going back to *if* MB helped make that attempt on the princes' lives
(or even knew about, as she must have), and *if* Buckingham knew (because
MB, Stanley, and Buckingham all had official access to the Tower), then
everyone attached to the Tower by position must have known that Richard
removed the princes after the attempt on their lives. What mattered is that
Richard couldn't produce them quickly and disprove the rumor, not that they
were dead.

* Beginning of October -- Richard leaves Pontefract and heads toward
Lincolnshire.

* October 11. Richard reaches Lincoln and is told Buckingham has betrayed
him. He had no armed force with him. Many of the lords and councilors who
had been with him had gone home.

* October 12. Richard writes the "most untrue creature living" letter to
Russell asking him to deliver the Great Seal.

* October 15. Richard issues his first public proclamation, declaring
Buckingham to be a rebel.

And so it goes... and I *still* can't help but see Margaret Beaufort moving
everyone like a shadow puppet for weeks and weeks. It's like those lists
murderers have been known to make:

1. Get fitted for new dress.
2. Look feminine and helpless and harmless as long as that idiot Richard is
still in London.
3. Write my son and tell him, "Don't be daft, be patient and trust that
Mummy will see you safely to the throne."
4. Borrow husband's keys to the Tower and deliver poisoned sweetmeats to try
and knock off the princes.
5. Sit tight until something happens we can take advantage of.
6. Figure out a way to knock off Edward of Middleham from 240 miles away.
7. Rejoice! Buckingham's ego has delivered him unto Morton.
8. Send Reggie to help Our Cause.
9. Dear Diary, what next? "

Doug here:

Do you know roughly when the "rescue" attempt was made? My sources,
admittedly quite limited, don't have it, but I *thought* it was in
September, 1483. If the attempt *was* in September, after Richard had begun
his progress, Richard's establishing the "nursery" at Sherriff Hutton could
very well have been a response to the failed "rescue" attempt in London.
Richard may have originally planned to keep all three boys together, but
decided that, if someone was trying to kill his *illegitimate* nephews, then
he'd be criminally negligent not to consider his son, Warwick and Lincoln,
all of whom had clearer titles to the throne, as also being possible
targets. Separating them could also make that much harder for anyone
intending harm to the boys to do so.
BTW, according to Williamson, there's reference to the boys not being seen
in the Tower "after Easter", which she concluded, rightly I believe, as
meaning Easter of 1484 and them as being seen "less and less" prior to that.
Could that bit about being seen less and less might be seen to mean the boys
weren't allowed out into the more public spaces because "that's* where the
"rescue" attempt had been made? After all, the Tower *was* a public place,
basically a small village if I understand correctly, with people coming and
going all the time, carrying out valid business. It wasn't until HVII that
the Tower became "off-limits", so to speak.
I hope you won't mind, but I've kept your complete post as a timeline for
"Buckingham's" Rebellion and plan on adding and subtracting from it as more
information becomes available (or definitive). I really think that a
historian approaching the rebellion from a non-traditional point; ie,
ignoring what we "know", could do a lot of good, if only in clearly
demonstrating there's so much we either don't know or is so heavily
contaminated by Tudor propaganda as to be useless in determining what really
*did* happen. Might be a very short book, though!
I have to say, I really, really liked your last part! It was hilarious!
Trying to picture MB in stilleto heels, a tight dress and floppy hat,
nibbling at her lacquered nails as she laboriously writes in her Diary is
hard, though! Sort of an evil "Lorelei Lee"?
Doug
(who didn't know where to "snip" the original, so included it all)

~Weds

--- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> The rescue attempt preceded the letter, Doug.
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors
>
>
>
>
> wednesday_mc wrote:
>
> "Kendall has the rumors beginning with Morton and Buckingham's perfidy
> (and Margaret Beaufort by association) after Buckingham made it back to
> Brecon after leaving Richard on his progress.

>First came the rebellion's intention to "rescue" the princes. Then came the
>announcement that the princes were gone and couldn't be rescued, along
>with -- surprise! -- Buckingham had come over and would "lead" the
>rebellion...which then morphed into a rebellion to depose Richard and
>impose the Tydder.

> So...Kendall places the beginning of the rumors as Morton and Buckingham
> were plotting together in Breaknock, with MB kindly sending Reginald Bray
> to carry messages to and fro. Kendall places MB still in London after the
> coronation/while Richard was on progression."
>
> Doug here:
> The attempt to free Edward and Richard, was that before or during
> Richard's progress? Was it before Richard wrote that letter describing
> Buckingham as that "most untrue creature"?

> Because I don't see how Buckingham, Morton, MB and Bray could risk
> spreading a rumor about the boys' deaths, if they knew Richard could
> produce them. If the rumor was *that* widespread, Richard could bring his
> nephews along with him as he rounded up men to fight against Buckingham.
> Which leads me, again, to the idea that Edward and Richard weren't
> supposed to survive their "rescue".

> Now, *if* Buckingham knew all along they weren't supposed to survive and
> was even instrumental in planning that they not survive, but also was dumb
> enough to allow evidence of his involvment be retained by Morton; could
> *that* explain why Buckingham "ceded" his claim to the throne to Henry
> Tudor?

>Or is that too convoluted?
> Doug




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> The rescue attempt preceded the letter, Doug.

Carol responds:

I'm responding to this post rather than Wednesday's detailed one because I don't know where to snip the long one! However, I'm including material related to Wednesday's post.

Two letters from Richard to Bishop Russell are involved here, both sent while Richard was on progress. The first, dated July 29, 1483, and referring mysteriously to "the fact of an enterprise" which the chancellor knows about, seems, based on the identity of the conspirators (as Wednesday noted) to refer to an attempt to "rescue" the "Princes" from the Tower. I agree with her that given the involvement of Tudor elements, it is most unlikely that the boys would have survived the attempt. The second is the "most untrue creature living" letter, written two and a half months later on October 12, by which time Richard knew the depth of Buckingham's involvement. Kendall quotes the second letter but I couldn't find the first in his book. It's quoted in full in Hammond and Sutton's "The Road to Bosworth Field" (p. 125) and in whole or in part in various sources partially available through Boogle Gooks--er, Google Books. the search URL is impossibly long, but if you search for the quoted phrase "taken upon them the fact of an enterprise," you'll find them.

I disagree with Wednesday (sorry, Weds!) about Buckingham being the person who spread the rumor. Yes, the rumor coincides with his involvement, but the chronicler carefully uses the passive voice. Clearly, the rumor was spread by Tudor elements to deflect the dissident Yorkists to their cause (along with the promise that Tudor would marry EoY, presented as E4's heir after the supposed deaths of her brothers), but there's no implication that B. himself spread the rumor. I'm not saying that he didn't, and I wouldn't put it past him, but I suspect that it originated with Morton and/or MB. The easily manipulated Buckingham wasn't smart enough to come up with it on his own, IMO. Possibly Morton suggested it as a semi-plausible "reason" for Buckingham's defection. We don't have enough information to know what really happened.

While I do believe that Richard moved Edward's sons to safety at some point after the July conspiracy (we should perhaps check the date that he sent Sir James Tyrell to London in this connection), I don't think that the presence of the other heirs on his progress had anything to do with it. They had been with him from the beginning of the progress--before the "enterprise" to rescue the "Princes" (if that's indeed what the thwarted conspiracy involved). I suspect that he had intended to leave them in the North since little Warwick was a Neville heir and people would be loyal to him and the Earl of Lincoln was his trusted lieutenant who could run the council of the North despite his youth. (He was about twenty.) However, the decision to send his own son Edward home with his mother to Middleham could well have been related to his safety in relation to the conspiracy (or just his health and emotional well-being--Richard had never called him to live at Westminster or London presumably because of the poisoned atmosphere of conspiracy and intrigue endemic to life at court).

Anyway, Kendall's timeline is not altogether trustworthy because he relies in part on Vergil and More. The Croyland chronicler says nothing about Richard and Buckingham meeting while Richard was on progress.

Carol

Carol said:

 SNIP >Unfortunatly, Fields's book doesn't have footnotes (the publisher wanted it to appeal to a general audience, not a scholarly one),
 
Liz replied:  I can't tell you how much that annoys me.  I don't think of myself as especially scholarly but I "do" want footnotes and surely those who don't, don't actually have to read them so why not put them in for the rest of us?
 
 

Just to be clear, the letter in question was the "untrue creature" one.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 10:38 AM
Subject: Buckingham and the rumor (Was: More Tudors)



 


Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> The rescue attempt preceded the letter, Doug.

Carol responds:

I'm responding to this post rather than Wednesday's detailed one because I don't know where to snip the long one! However, I'm including material related to Wednesday's post.

Two letters from Richard to Bishop Russell are involved here, both sent while Richard was on progress. The first, dated July 29, 1483, and referring mysteriously to "the fact of an enterprise" which the chancellor knows about, seems, based on the identity of the conspirators (as Wednesday noted) to refer to an attempt to "rescue" the "Princes" from the Tower. I agree with her that given the involvement of Tudor elements, it is most unlikely that the boys would have survived the attempt. The second is the "most untrue creature living" letter, written two and a half months later on October 12, by which time Richard knew the depth of Buckingham's involvement. Kendall quotes the second letter but I couldn't find the first in his book. It's quoted in full in Hammond and Sutton's "The Road to Bosworth Field" (p. 125) and in whole or in part in various sources partially available through Boogle Gooks--er, Google Books. the search URL is impossibly long, but if
you search for the quoted phrase "taken upon them the fact of an enterprise," you'll find them.

I disagree with Wednesday (sorry, Weds!) about Buckingham being the person who spread the rumor. Yes, the rumor coincides with his involvement, but the chronicler carefully uses the passive voice. Clearly, the rumor was spread by Tudor elements to deflect the dissident Yorkists to their cause (along with the promise that Tudor would marry EoY, presented as E4's heir after the supposed deaths of her brothers), but there's no implication that B. himself spread the rumor. I'm not saying that he didn't, and I wouldn't put it past him, but I suspect that it originated with Morton and/or MB. The easily manipulated Buckingham wasn't smart enough to come up with it on his own, IMO. Possibly Morton suggested it as a semi-plausible "reason" for Buckingham's defection. We don't have enough information to know what really happened.

While I do believe that Richard moved Edward's sons to safety at some point after the July conspiracy (we should perhaps check the date that he sent Sir James Tyrell to London in this connection), I don't think that the presence of the other heirs on his progress had anything to do with it. They had been with him from the beginning of the progress--before the "enterprise" to rescue the "Princes" (if that's indeed what the thwarted conspiracy involved). I suspect that he had intended to leave them in the North since little Warwick was a Neville heir and people would be loyal to him and the Earl of Lincoln was his trusted lieutenant who could run the council of the North despite his youth. (He was about twenty.) However, the decision to send his own son Edward home with his mother to Middleham could well have been related to his safety in relation to the conspiracy (or just his health and emotional well-being--Richard had never called him to live at
Westminster or London presumably because of the poisoned atmosphere of conspiracy and intrigue endemic to life at court).

Anyway, Kendall's timeline is not altogether trustworthy because he relies in part on Vergil and More. The Croyland chronicler says nothing about Richard and Buckingham meeting while Richard was on progress.

Carol

Doug wrote:

> I was half-hoping it was the other way 'round, because now I get to start a "Stillington" on that "resuce" attempt!
> And if there'd *already* been one attempt; well, that might explain why Richard felt hiding his nephews' whereabouts was more important than having them available to refute rumors about their demise.
> I try to rely on logic, but the sources *are* limited, and fallible people are involved, so logic doesn't always apply. I could be completely off-base with my idea, but really...

Carol responds:

I think that the "rescue" attempt (assuming that's what it was, and it seems a fair assumption) prompted Richard to hide the boys from either Woodville rescuers *or* Tudor kidnappers who would have no qualms about killing them. The rumors had nothing to do with his motivation but may have been suggested by the boys' absence from public view. On the other hand, no one seems to have heard the rumors except the target audience (dissident Yorkists wanting to depose Richard and reinstitute Edward V and, later, the French). As Tey pointed out in her novel, there were no other rumors specifically related to the boys in Richard's time--at least none reported in the chronicles.

At any rate, I think that hiding his nephews' whereabouts preceded rather than followed the rumors and that, except for sending out orders to punish anyone spreading a seditious rumor or lie (content unspecified), Richard felt it best to ignore the rumors. He could hardly clear his own reputation by revealing his nephews' whereabouts and continue to hide them at the same time, so he apparently chose to continue hiding them despite the rumors, in the meantime hoping that the ultimate defeat of Henry Tudor would resolve the problem and let him get on with the business of ruling the kingdom.

Carol

This is such an excellent post from both Wednesday and Douglas I have saved it...Eileen

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> wednesday_mc wrote:
>
> "No, they weren't supposed to survive. More importantly, it didn't matter if
> they *did* survive as long as they couldn't be produced quickly to prove the
> rumors of their death were false.
> And Buckingham was stupid enough to allow someone to *publicly publish* his
> desertion of Richard and his going over to the rebellion, so go figure.
> //snip//
>
> This is the chronology of the rebellion, et. al., that Kendall has:
> *July - Richard departs Windsor to begin his progression.
> -- People in the south and west start to meet and plan to deliver the two
> princes from the Tower.
> -- EW was encouraged (by whom? MB?) to smuggle her daughters out of
> Westminster and send them oversea so *that if anything happened to the
> princes* one might get a husband who would help her restore "King Edward's
> blood" to the throne.
> -- The plan is discovered. Richard's council sets John Nesfeld to guard
> the sanctuary at Westminster.
> -- The conspiracy keeps going. ("Never give up, never surrender.")
>
> Members of the conspiracy:
> 1. Men loyal to the line of E4.
> 2. Men upset at the redistribution of offices in Richard's new regime.
> (These included Sir John Cheyney, whom Richard replaced with Sir James
> Tyrell.)
> 3. Men among the gentry (particularly Kent & Devonshire) who were eager
> to advance in troubled times. (Old Lancastrians like the Courtenays).
> 4. The Woodvilles -- at this point Kendall thinks they dominated the
> movement, had the most recruits, and directed the conspiracy. Kendall lists
> Dorset, Richard Guildford, Sir John Fogge, friends of Morton, Sir Richard
> Woodville, Sir Thomas St. Leger...all aimed to restore E5 to the throne. The
> Woodville conspiracy also attracted other malcontents because the Woodvilles
> promised to overthrow R3.
>
> * Early September -- After Richard left York on his progression, he went to
> establish a royal household at Sheriff Hutton to provide residence for:
> -- Clarence's son, the young Earl of Warwick (who was with Richard on
> the progression)
> -- The son of Richard's sister (Duchess of Suffolk), John Earl of
> Lincoln (also with Richard on the Progression -- Kendall lists all on the
> progression on page 308 of my copy).
>
> I'm struck that Richard brought two heirs of York with him -- getting both
> out of London after the attempt on the princes' lives. Kendall further notes
> that this is the household out of which Richard's Council of the North would
> develop.
>
> * Mid-September -- Anne and Richard part their ways. Anne takes Edward home
> to Middleham while Richard heads southward. E of M was kept far away from
> London -- but it still didn't save him.
>
> I wonder if Richard deliberately got Warwick and Lincoln and Edward of
> Middleham safely out of the way so attempts could not be made on their
> lives. He didn't allow E of M to get anywhere near London...not that his
> father's caution saved him in the end.
>
> * September 16 - Richard is still dispatching writs (in the name of his son,
> Prince Edward), to royal officers in North and South Wales, ordering them to
> pay their accounts to Buckingham. Buckingham also headed the commissions of
> oyer and terminer that were investigating the signs of rebellion -- which
> presumably is the official reason why Buckingham went to Wales rather than
> on progression with Richard?
>
> * End of September -- By now, the three conspiracies had coalesced into a
> single effort to end Richard's reign. Kendall believes this is because:
> -- Sometime in Sept, the leaders of the movement (still the Woodville
> movement) were informed Buckingham had come over to their cause.
> -- A few days later, leaders and footsoldiers were informed *by
> Buckingham* that the princes had been put to death, "none knew how."
> (Kendall's source: Croyland p. 491.) More and the later Tudor writers all
> date the murder of the princes as occuring *days after Buckingham had
> reached Brecon* (per Kendall, page 315).
>
> Croyland states (paragraphs inserted for ease of reading):
>
> "At last it was determined by the people in the vicinity of the city of
> London, throughout the counties of [listed] to avenge their grievances
> before- states [i.e., to rescue Edward's sons from captivity; upon which,
> public proclamation was made, that [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 rumor was spread that the sons of King
> Edward before-named had died a violent death, but it was uncertain how.
>
> "Accordingly, all those who had set on foot this insurrection, seeing that
> if they could find no one to take the lead in their designs, the ruin of all
> would speedily ensue, turned their thoughts to Henry, Earl of Richmond.
>
> "To him a message was sent by [Buckingham] by the advice of the lord Bishop
> of Ely, who was then his prisoner at Brecknock, requesting him [Henry] to
> hasten over to England as soon as he possibly could, for the purpose of
> marrying Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of the late King, and at the same
> time, together with her, taking possession of the throne."
>
> So, (1) Buckingham's taking over leadership of the rebellion; and, (2) rumor
> of the princes' death appear to have been concurrent, not subsequent to each
> other. The murk starts at this point, but it appears that Buckingham's
> motives were interlinked with the enigma of the princes' fate.
>
> Another point of interest (at least to me) is that Kendall has the Countess
> of Richmond (MB) remaining in London after the coronation. Kendall states
> his opinion outright on page 316: he thought that the sum of the evidence
> showed that Buckingham and Morton -- with the help of MB, who sent Reginald
> Bray to Buckingham to help as he could and presumably to carry messages to
> Tudor -- overran the conspiracy meant to free the princes.
>
> By stating that the princes were dead, Buckingham, Morton, and MB exploded
> the conspiracy's original motive for existing existing and deliberately
> diverted that conspiracy to the radically different focus of overthrowing
> Richard in order to put Henry Tudor on the throne.
>
> The rumor was selectively spread at this point (per Croyland) *among the
> Woodville rebels*. The actual fate of the princes didn't matter (just as the
> actual truth of Stillington's testimony regarding E4's pre-contract didn't
> matter); what mattered is that certain people believed the rumor. At that
> point, the call to set aside the princes and replace them with the Tydder
> came from Morton and Margaret Beaufort, with Buckingham presumably trailing
> along behind. What choice had he but to fall in with the others' plans when
> public proclamation had been made that he was traitor to Richard?
>
> I keep going back to *if* MB helped make that attempt on the princes' lives
> (or even knew about, as she must have), and *if* Buckingham knew (because
> MB, Stanley, and Buckingham all had official access to the Tower), then
> everyone attached to the Tower by position must have known that Richard
> removed the princes after the attempt on their lives. What mattered is that
> Richard couldn't produce them quickly and disprove the rumor, not that they
> were dead.
>
> * Beginning of October -- Richard leaves Pontefract and heads toward
> Lincolnshire.
>
> * October 11. Richard reaches Lincoln and is told Buckingham has betrayed
> him. He had no armed force with him. Many of the lords and councilors who
> had been with him had gone home.
>
> * October 12. Richard writes the "most untrue creature living" letter to
> Russell asking him to deliver the Great Seal.
>
> * October 15. Richard issues his first public proclamation, declaring
> Buckingham to be a rebel.
>
> And so it goes... and I *still* can't help but see Margaret Beaufort moving
> everyone like a shadow puppet for weeks and weeks. It's like those lists
> murderers have been known to make:
>
> 1. Get fitted for new dress.
> 2. Look feminine and helpless and harmless as long as that idiot Richard is
> still in London.
> 3. Write my son and tell him, "Don't be daft, be patient and trust that
> Mummy will see you safely to the throne."
> 4. Borrow husband's keys to the Tower and deliver poisoned sweetmeats to try
> and knock off the princes.
> 5. Sit tight until something happens we can take advantage of.
> 6. Figure out a way to knock off Edward of Middleham from 240 miles away.
> 7. Rejoice! Buckingham's ego has delivered him unto Morton.
> 8. Send Reggie to help Our Cause.
> 9. Dear Diary, what next? "
>
> Doug here:
>
> Do you know roughly when the "rescue" attempt was made? My sources,
> admittedly quite limited, don't have it, but I *thought* it was in
> September, 1483. If the attempt *was* in September, after Richard had begun
> his progress, Richard's establishing the "nursery" at Sherriff Hutton could
> very well have been a response to the failed "rescue" attempt in London.
> Richard may have originally planned to keep all three boys together, but
> decided that, if someone was trying to kill his *illegitimate* nephews, then
> he'd be criminally negligent not to consider his son, Warwick and Lincoln,
> all of whom had clearer titles to the throne, as also being possible
> targets. Separating them could also make that much harder for anyone
> intending harm to the boys to do so.
> BTW, according to Williamson, there's reference to the boys not being seen
> in the Tower "after Easter", which she concluded, rightly I believe, as
> meaning Easter of 1484 and them as being seen "less and less" prior to that.
> Could that bit about being seen less and less might be seen to mean the boys
> weren't allowed out into the more public spaces because "that's* where the
> "rescue" attempt had been made? After all, the Tower *was* a public place,
> basically a small village if I understand correctly, with people coming and
> going all the time, carrying out valid business. It wasn't until HVII that
> the Tower became "off-limits", so to speak.
> I hope you won't mind, but I've kept your complete post as a timeline for
> "Buckingham's" Rebellion and plan on adding and subtracting from it as more
> information becomes available (or definitive). I really think that a
> historian approaching the rebellion from a non-traditional point; ie,
> ignoring what we "know", could do a lot of good, if only in clearly
> demonstrating there's so much we either don't know or is so heavily
> contaminated by Tudor propaganda as to be useless in determining what really
> *did* happen. Might be a very short book, though!
> I have to say, I really, really liked your last part! It was hilarious!
> Trying to picture MB in stilleto heels, a tight dress and floppy hat,
> nibbling at her lacquered nails as she laboriously writes in her Diary is
> hard, though! Sort of an evil "Lorelei Lee"?
> Doug
> (who didn't know where to "snip" the original, so included it all)
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > The rescue attempt preceded the letter, Doug.
> >
> > Judy
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 12:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: More Tudors
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > wednesday_mc wrote:
> >
> > "Kendall has the rumors beginning with Morton and Buckingham's perfidy
> > (and Margaret Beaufort by association) after Buckingham made it back to
> > Brecon after leaving Richard on his progress.
>
> >First came the rebellion's intention to "rescue" the princes. Then came the
> >announcement that the princes were gone and couldn't be rescued, along
> >with -- surprise! -- Buckingham had come over and would "lead" the
> >rebellion...which then morphed into a rebellion to depose Richard and
> >impose the Tydder.
>
> > So...Kendall places the beginning of the rumors as Morton and Buckingham
> > were plotting together in Breaknock, with MB kindly sending Reginald Bray
> > to carry messages to and fro. Kendall places MB still in London after the
> > coronation/while Richard was on progression."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > The attempt to free Edward and Richard, was that before or during
> > Richard's progress? Was it before Richard wrote that letter describing
> > Buckingham as that "most untrue creature"?
>
> > Because I don't see how Buckingham, Morton, MB and Bray could risk
> > spreading a rumor about the boys' deaths, if they knew Richard could
> > produce them. If the rumor was *that* widespread, Richard could bring his
> > nephews along with him as he rounded up men to fight against Buckingham.
> > Which leads me, again, to the idea that Edward and Richard weren't
> > supposed to survive their "rescue".
>
> > Now, *if* Buckingham knew all along they weren't supposed to survive and
> > was even instrumental in planning that they not survive, but also was dumb
> > enough to allow evidence of his involvment be retained by Morton; could
> > *that* explain why Buckingham "ceded" his claim to the throne to Henry
> > Tudor?
>
> >Or is that too convoluted?
> > Doug
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Yours too Carol...eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Judy Thomson wrote:
> >
> > The rescue attempt preceded the letter, Doug.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm responding to this post rather than Wednesday's detailed one because I don't know where to snip the long one! However, I'm including material related to Wednesday's post.
>
> Two letters from Richard to Bishop Russell are involved here, both sent while Richard was on progress. The first, dated July 29, 1483, and referring mysteriously to "the fact of an enterprise" which the chancellor knows about, seems, based on the identity of the conspirators (as Wednesday noted) to refer to an attempt to "rescue" the "Princes" from the Tower. I agree with her that given the involvement of Tudor elements, it is most unlikely that the boys would have survived the attempt. The second is the "most untrue creature living" letter, written two and a half months later on October 12, by which time Richard knew the depth of Buckingham's involvement. Kendall quotes the second letter but I couldn't find the first in his book. It's quoted in full in Hammond and Sutton's "The Road to Bosworth Field" (p. 125) and in whole or in part in various sources partially available through Boogle Gooks--er, Google Books. the search URL is impossibly long, but if you search for the quoted phrase "taken upon them the fact of an enterprise," you'll find them.
>
> I disagree with Wednesday (sorry, Weds!) about Buckingham being the person who spread the rumor. Yes, the rumor coincides with his involvement, but the chronicler carefully uses the passive voice. Clearly, the rumor was spread by Tudor elements to deflect the dissident Yorkists to their cause (along with the promise that Tudor would marry EoY, presented as E4's heir after the supposed deaths of her brothers), but there's no implication that B. himself spread the rumor. I'm not saying that he didn't, and I wouldn't put it past him, but I suspect that it originated with Morton and/or MB. The easily manipulated Buckingham wasn't smart enough to come up with it on his own, IMO. Possibly Morton suggested it as a semi-plausible "reason" for Buckingham's defection. We don't have enough information to know what really happened.
>
> While I do believe that Richard moved Edward's sons to safety at some point after the July conspiracy (we should perhaps check the date that he sent Sir James Tyrell to London in this connection), I don't think that the presence of the other heirs on his progress had anything to do with it. They had been with him from the beginning of the progress--before the "enterprise" to rescue the "Princes" (if that's indeed what the thwarted conspiracy involved). I suspect that he had intended to leave them in the North since little Warwick was a Neville heir and people would be loyal to him and the Earl of Lincoln was his trusted lieutenant who could run the council of the North despite his youth. (He was about twenty.) However, the decision to send his own son Edward home with his mother to Middleham could well have been related to his safety in relation to the conspiracy (or just his health and emotional well-being--Richard had never called him to live at Westminster or London presumably because of the poisoned atmosphere of conspiracy and intrigue endemic to life at court).
>
> Anyway, Kendall's timeline is not altogether trustworthy because he relies in part on Vergil and More. The Croyland chronicler says nothing about Richard and Buckingham meeting while Richard was on progress.
>
> Carol
>

Yes...footnotes are very useful..and Im probably the dimmest one on here:0)....even though it annoying sometimes to have to keep flicking to the footnotes...I generally end up with bits of paper sticking out as markers...eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Carol said:
>
>  SNIP >Unfortunatly, Fields's book doesn't have footnotes (the publisher wanted it to appeal to a general audience, not a scholarly one),
>  
> Liz replied:  I can't tell you how much that annoys me.  I don't think of myself as especially scholarly but I "do" want footnotes and surely those who don't, don't actually have to read them so why not put them in for the rest of us?
>  
>  
>
>
>
>

Oh, me too.....and often I have to search for the footnoted author, book, etc. It is a chase for this goose, but I always learn something.

On May 9, 2013, at 12:28 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Yes...footnotes are very useful..and Im probably the dimmest one on here:0)....even though it annoying sometimes to have to keep flicking to the footnotes...I generally end up with bits of paper sticking out as markers...eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Carol said:
>
> ý SNIP >Unfortunatly, Fields's book doesn't have footnotes (the publisher wanted it to appeal to a general audience, not a scholarly one),
> ý
> Liz replied:ý I can't tell you how much that annoys me.ý I don't think of myself as especially scholarly but I "do" want footnotes and surely those who don't, don't actually have to read them so why not put them in for the rest of us?
> ý
> ý
>
>
>
>

Neither does Annette Carson (have moved on to reading her revised edition
of Maligned King) although she says the same thing that Mancini did not
talk to Dr Argentine until after he (Mancini) had returned to the continent.

A J


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:37 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > I'm just reading Fields book and he says Mancini's contact with Dr
> > Argentine didn't occur until Mancini was back on the continent. Seems as
> if we really need a consolidated timeline that illuminates who said what
> when about what happened and when it was supposed to have occurred.
> > Once I finish this book, think I'll go back and try to extract a more
> exact sequence of events and what sources Fields used.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> That sounds like a good idea. Unfortunatly, Fields's book doesn't have
> footnotes (the publisher wanted it to appeal to a general audience, not a
> scholarly one), but the notes he would have included are online. I meant to
> go back and match them up to the text but never found the time.
>
> Mancini, too, doesn't name his sources--make that informants--except for
> Dr. Argentine. We need to find out more about *him* and his association
> with Cato (Mancini's patron) as well as his real political leanings. What
> was a Tudor supporter doing as "Edward V's" physician in the first place?
> Or was he yet another Edwardian Yorkist who opposed Richard as a "usurper"
> and believed or wanted to believe (and helped spread) the rumor that Edward
> (only--no mention of his brother Richard) was dead and became a Tudor
> supporter by default? But Argentine was also physician to Henry Tudor's son
> Arthur--who died in Ludlow. (Closet Edwardian Yorkist who poisoned "Prince"
> Arthur? Sorry, but if we consider poison in other unexplained or early
> deaths, why not that one?)
>
> Anyway, it does seem (only seem) that Mancini did *not* hear the rumors
> while he was in England but only on the continent--and from dissident
> Yorkists like Argentine who had fallen in with Tudor and had by this time
> arrived at the French court. No wonder Mancini claims that he hasn't yet
> had time to provide names and that he's been unable to verify rumors. He'd
> have been better off staying in England longer, away from those biased and
> uninformed "sources"!
>
> It's enough to make you cry, especially since so many people cling to
> Mancini as an "objective" source with no Lancastrian or anti-Richard bias!
> The very fact that he has "Prince" Richard arriving in London after his
> brother ought to cause us to examine what he says very closely. And where
> did he get the material for the detailed dialogue between Richard,
> Buckingham, and, later, "Edward V"? From Argentine, who could only have
> witnessed the part at Stony Stratford? That would be, at best, part of a
> conversation remembered by a biased witness and translated into a different
> language retranscribed as remembered by someone who never met Richard.
> Eyewitness testimony isn't quite as reliable as most people believe,
> especially months after the fact by a biased witness, and, of course, it's
> secondhand by the time Mancini reports it. Alternatively, as a humanist
> "historian," he could simply have invented the dialogue based on a much
> vaguer summary (from Argentine?) of the conversation.
>
> Anyway, yes, we need a timeline of Mancini's movements and his contacts
> with Argentine, et al. If he never met Argentine until *after* he left
> England, that would explain the more earlier portions of his report, which
> would come from a different source or sources.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> Just to be clear, the letter in question was the "untrue creature" one.

Carol responds:

Sorry, Judy. I think I'm the one who was unclear (after editing my sentence for conciseness!). I meant that there are actually two letters involved here, the one that you and Doug were referring to ("most untrue creature living") and the less well known but perhaps even more important one referring to "the fact of an enterprise," which *seems* to refer to an attempt to "rescue" the Princes. It's important that the first letter was written in late July, two and a half months before Richard found out that "the most untrue creature" was plotting against him. That letter (and therefore the "rescue" attempt) predates any rumors that the "princes" were killed.

I hope that my point is clear now.

Carol

> Carol earlier:
>
>  SNIP >Unfortunately, Fields's book doesn't have footnotes (the publisher wanted it to appeal to a general audience, not a scholarly one),
>  
> Liz replied:  I can't tell you how much that annoys me.  I don't think of myself as especially scholarly but I "do" want footnotes and surely those who don't, don't actually have to read them so why not put them in for the rest of us?

Carol again:

The footnotes are available from his publisher (address on the back of the half title where the copyright information is). I could have sworn that they were also available online and that I printed them out, intending to compare them to the text when time permitted, but now I can't find either the website or the printed notes. If I run across them, I'll post the URL.

Carol

Carol wrote:

//snip//
"Two letters from Richard to Bishop Russell are involved here, both sent
while Richard was on progress. The first, dated July 29, 1483, and referring
mysteriously to "the fact of an enterprise" which the chancellor knows
about, seems, based on the identity of the conspirators (as Wednesday noted)
to refer to an attempt to "rescue" the "Princes" from the Tower. I agree
with her that given the involvement of Tudor elements, it is most unlikely
that the boys would have survived the attempt. The second is the "most
untrue creature living" letter, written two and a half months later on
October 12, by which time Richard knew the depth of Buckingham's
involvement. Kendall quotes the second letter but I couldn't find the first
in his book. It's quoted in full in Hammond and Sutton's "The Road to
Bosworth Field" (p. 125) and in whole or in part in various sources
partially available through Boogle Gooks--er, Google Books. the search URL
is impossibly long, but if you search for the quoted phrase "taken upon them
the fact of an enterprise," you'll find them.
I disagree with Wednesday (sorry, Weds!) about Buckingham being the person
who spread the rumor. Yes, the rumor coincides with his involvement, but the
chronicler carefully uses the passive voice. Clearly, the rumor was spread
by Tudor elements to deflect the dissident Yorkists to their cause (along
with the promise that Tudor would marry EoY, presented as E4's heir after
the supposed deaths of her brothers), but there's no implication that B.
himself spread the rumor. I'm not saying that he didn't, and I wouldn't put
it past him, but I suspect that it originated with Morton and/or MB. The
easily manipulated Buckingham wasn't smart enough to come up with it on his
own, IMO. Possibly Morton suggested it as a semi-plausible "reason" for
Buckingham's defection. We don't have enough information to know what really
happened.
While I do believe that Richard moved Edward's sons to safety at some point
after the July conspiracy (we should perhaps check the date that he sent Sir
James Tyrell to London in this connection), I don't think that the presence
of the other heirs on his progress had anything to do with it. They had been
with him from the beginning of the progress--before the "enterprise" to
rescue the "Princes" (if that's indeed what the thwarted conspiracy
involved). I suspect that he had intended to leave them in the North since
little Warwick was a Neville heir and people would be loyal to him and the
Earl of Lincoln was his trusted lieutenant who could run the council of the
North despite his youth. (He was about twenty.) However, the decision to
send his own son Edward home with his mother to Middleham could well have
been related to his safety in relation to the conspiracy (or just his health
and emotional well-being--Richard had never called him to live at
Westminster or London presumably because of the poisoned atmosphere of
conspiracy and intrigue endemic to life at court).
Anyway, Kendall's timeline is not altogether trustworthy because he relies
in part on Vergil and More. The Croyland chronicler says nothing about
Richard and Buckingham meeting while Richard was on progress."

Doug here:
Well, if that first letter *is* about an attempt to grab the boys, and it
certainly looks suspiciously as if it is, could Richard's outburst against
Buckingham as the "most untrue creature living" then be explained Richard
connecting Buckingham with the failed attempt?
If Russell was referring to the "enterprise" on July 29, then allowance has
to be made for the plot to be discovered, not to mention originated. Which
would probably put its beginnings back towards the beginning of July. Just
when Richard had loaded Buckingham with lands and honors...
While that alone would have been enough to elicit Richard's response but,
and this *is* conjecture, when did the rumors about the boys being dead come
to Richard's ears?
Because if those rumors arrived concurrently with Richard's being told about
the rebellion, couldn't Richard have connected the failed "rescue" attempt
with the rebellion *and* the rumors and all of them to Buckingham?
It's just because the most Buckingham could expect from a "restoration"
would have been what he already had from Richard, that I put "rescue" in
quotes. Why would Buckingham rebel if he *wan't* aiming for the throne? What
had he to gain *unless* he replaced Richard? And nothing I've read about
Harry Stafford inclines me to believe his actions were altruistic!
How Morton out-manouvered Buckingham is something else again...
Doug

Thanks!



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 1:27
Subject: Re: Rumors Was: More Tudors

 

> Carol earlier:
>
>  SNIP >Unfortunately, Fields's book doesn't have footnotes (the publisher wanted it to appeal to a general audience, not a scholarly one),
>  
> Liz replied:  I can't tell you how much that annoys me.  I don't think of myself as especially scholarly but I "do" want footnotes and surely those who don't, don't actually have to read them so why not put them in for the rest of us?

Carol again:

The footnotes are available from his publisher (address on the back of the half title where the copyright information is). I could have sworn that they were also available online and that I printed them out, intending to compare them to the text when time permitted, but now I can't find either the website or the printed notes. If I run across them, I'll post the URL.

Carol

From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:42 AM
Subject: More Tudors


> So off again to carry on reading. Sun is shining and I live near the
beach, so can't wait, rushing through the story knowing I can go
straight onto Bring UP The Bodies when I finish it.
How could I have been so wrong about the book last year?
Paul

I haven't tackled Wolf Hall yet, but Mantel is a terrific writer. Early on
she wrote a strange little theological fantasy called Fludd which is one of
my all-time favourite books.

Have you tried Eight Months on Gazzah Street?
I think I spelled that correctly.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 16 May 2013, at 13:38, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:42 AM
> Subject: More Tudors
>
> > So off again to carry on reading. Sun is shining and I live near the
> beach, so can't wait, rushing through the story knowing I can go
> straight onto Bring UP The Bodies when I finish it.
> How could I have been so wrong about the book last year?
> Paul
>
> I haven't tackled Wolf Hall yet, but Mantel is a terrific writer. Early on
> she wrote a strange little theological fantasy called Fludd which is one of
> my all-time favourite books.
>
>

Oh me too.....which is why I read "Wolf Hall". Some days you just are not quite ready.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 16, 2013, at 8:12 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: Paul Trevor Bale
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:42 AM
Subject: More Tudors

> So off again to carry on reading. Sun is shining and I live near the
beach, so can't wait, rushing through the story knowing I can go
straight onto Bring UP The Bodies when I finish it.
How could I have been so wrong about the book last year?
Paul

I haven't tackled Wolf Hall yet, but Mantel is a terrific writer. Early on
she wrote a strange little theological fantasy called Fludd which is one of
my all-time favourite books.

I thougt was brilliant when I read it a couple of years ago.  I've only read one other book by her, a weird thing called Beyond Black about the afterlife.  I want to read the sequel obviously but also her book about the French Revolution which is supposed to be very good.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 13:38
Subject: Re: More Tudors

 
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:42 AM
Subject: More Tudors

> So off again to carry on reading. Sun is shining and I live near the
beach, so can't wait, rushing through the story knowing I can go
straight onto Bring UP The Bodies when I finish it.
How could I have been so wrong about the book last year?
Paul

I haven't tackled Wolf Hall yet, but Mantel is a terrific writer. Early on
she wrote a strange little theological fantasy called Fludd which is one of
my all-time favourite books.

 A Place of Greater Safety. It is indeed and was my intro to her years' ago.



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 17 May 2013, 22:10
Subject: Re: More Tudors


 

I thougt was brilliant when I read it a couple of years ago.  I've only read one other book by her, a weird thing called Beyond Black about the afterlife.  I want to read the sequel obviously but also her book about the French Revolution which is supposed to be very good.

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 13:38
Subject: Re: More Tudors

 
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:42 AM
Subject: More Tudors

> So off again to carry on reading. Sun is shining and I live near the
beach, so can't wait, rushing through the story knowing I can go
straight onto Bring UP The Bodies when I finish it.
How could I have been so wrong about the book last year?
Paul

I haven't tackled Wolf Hall yet, but Mantel is a terrific writer. Early on
she wrote a strange little theological fantasy called Fludd which is one of
my all-time favourite books.