H7

The BBC has just announced a series of new documentaries about the
Tudors, just for a change.
What peeked my interest though was how Henry 7th was described, in very
unflattering terms as the 'creator of the monster we now call the Tudor
dynasty'.
Doesn't sound like it will be much in his favour. Can't wait!
Paul


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

From: Paul Trevor Bale
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:06 AM
Subject: H7


> The BBC has just announced a series of new documentaries about the
Tudors, just for a change.
What peeked my interest though was how Henry 7th was described, in very
unflattering terms as the 'creator of the monster we now call the Tudor
dynasty'.

When it was announced a few days ago they also used some phrase like
"unimagineably strange" to describe the Tudor court - so it sounds like it
will be an honest analysis rather than a hagiography.

I wonder what John Morton would have done, had he known that helping Henry of Richmond take the throne would lead directly to the creation of the Anglican heresy and the dissolution of the monasteries and the hospitals and other services for the poor.

Would it have bothered him at all or would he have assumed that he could have trimmed his own sails to the new order and not cared so long as he himself made out OK?

Tamara



-----Original Message-----
From: whitehound@...
To: <>
Sent: Mon, May 6, 2013 1:59 am
Subject: Re: H7



From: Paul Trevor Bale
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:06 AM
Subject: H7

> The BBC has just announced a series of new documentaries about the
Tudors, just for a change.
What peeked my interest though was how Henry 7th was described, in very
unflattering terms as the 'creator of the monster we now call the Tudor
dynasty'.

When it was announced a few days ago they also used some phrase like
"unimagineably strange" to describe the Tudor court - so it sounds like it
will be an honest analysis rather than a hagiography.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi khafara, don't forget Henry Tudor made him archbishop of Canterbury

--- In , khafara@... wrote:
>
> I wonder what John Morton would have done, had he known that helping Henry of Richmond take the throne would lead directly to the creation of the Anglican heresy and the dissolution of the monasteries and the hospitals and other services for the poor.
>
> Would it have bothered him at all or would he have assumed that he could have trimmed his own sails to the new order and not cared so long as he himself made out OK?
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: whitehound@...
> To: <>
> Sent: Mon, May 6, 2013 1:59 am
> Subject: Re: H7
>
>
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:06 AM
> Subject: H7
>
> > The BBC has just announced a series of new documentaries about the
> Tudors, just for a change.
> What peeked my interest though was how Henry 7th was described, in very
> unflattering terms as the 'creator of the monster we now call the Tudor
> dynasty'.
>
> When it was announced a few days ago they also used some phrase like
> "unimagineably strange" to describe the Tudor court - so it sounds like it
> will be an honest analysis rather than a hagiography.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, but Morton died in 1500, decades before the Dissolution was set in motion.

Would he have felt badly over all those monks who were tortured, hung, or even drawn and quartered for resisting? Or would he not mind so long as it happened after he was dead?



-----Original Message-----
From: christineholmes651@...
To: <>
Sent: Mon, May 6, 2013 4:21 am
Subject: Re: H7



Hi khafara, don't forget Henry Tudor made him archbishop of Canterbury

--- In , khafara@... wrote:
>
> I wonder what John Morton would have done, had he known that helping Henry of
Richmond take the throne would lead directly to the creation of the Anglican
heresy and the dissolution of the monasteries and the hospitals and other
services for the poor.
>
> Would it have bothered him at all or would he have assumed that he could have
trimmed his own sails to the new order and not cared so long as he himself made
out OK?
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: whitehound@...
> To: <>
> Sent: Mon, May 6, 2013 1:59 am
> Subject: Re: H7
>
>
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:06 AM
> Subject: H7
>
> > The BBC has just announced a series of new documentaries about the
> Tudors, just for a change.
> What peeked my interest though was how Henry 7th was described, in very
> unflattering terms as the 'creator of the monster we now call the Tudor
> dynasty'.
>
> When it was announced a few days ago they also used some phrase like
> "unimagineably strange" to describe the Tudor court - so it sounds like it
> will be an honest analysis rather than a hagiography.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: whitehound@...
To: <>
Sent: Mon, May 6, 2013 1:59 am
Subject: Re: H7


> When it was announced a few days ago they also used some phrase like
> "unimagineably strange" to describe the Tudor court - so it sounds like it
> will be an honest analysis rather than a hagiography.

Here we are - they've just repeated it. "Henry VII created one of the
strangest regimes in British history [cut] your next move could be your
last."

From: khafara@...
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: Re: H7


> Yes, but Morton died in 1500, decades before the Dissolution was set in
> motion.

> Would he have felt badly over all those monks who were tortured, hung, or
> even drawn and quartered for resisting? Or would he not mind so long as it
> happened after he was dead?

That's an interesting question. He seems not to have been a sicnere priest
since he (supposedly) broke the seal of the confessional, but that doesn't
preclude his having had affection for the institution of the Church, or for
his colleagues.

Yes, and Henry's view of the Churchmen he promoted was that they owed their allegiance firstly to him. He preferred civil lawyers and new men whose loyalty to Henry was paramount. On the other hand, theologians could have presented a threat in that their allegiance was primarily to the Pope and the Church. Also, he was not above utilising the system of vacancies within the Church by moving Bishops around in order to make money for the Crown. He also saw it as his right to appoint his own choice of men, which did not have the same consequences as it did for John who had running battles with the Pope over who should have the right to appoint positions within the clergy and led to John's excommunication. Because H7 was seen by the Pope as a "good" Catholic who ruled a Roman Catholic country, there was never the conflict between the Papacy and H7 and he was left to administer the country without interference from Rome.

Morton was a politician first and foremost. The Archbishopric could be seen as the ultimate reward of the highest office for services rendered.
Elaine

--- In , "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi khafara, don't forget Henry Tudor made him archbishop of Canterbury
>
> --- In , khafara@ wrote:
> >
> > I wonder what John Morton would have done, had he known that helping Henry of Richmond take the throne would lead directly to the creation of the Anglican heresy and the dissolution of the monasteries and the hospitals and other services for the poor.
> >
> > Would it have bothered him at all or would he have assumed that he could have trimmed his own sails to the new order and not cared so long as he himself made out OK?
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: whitehound@
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Mon, May 6, 2013 1:59 am
> > Subject: Re: H7
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:06 AM
> > Subject: H7
> >
> > > The BBC has just announced a series of new documentaries about the
> > Tudors, just for a change.
> > What peeked my interest though was how Henry 7th was described, in very
> > unflattering terms as the 'creator of the monster we now call the Tudor
> > dynasty'.
> >
> > When it was announced a few days ago they also used some phrase like
> > "unimagineably strange" to describe the Tudor court - so it sounds like it
> > will be an honest analysis rather than a hagiography.
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I wonder how many of those who schemed and betrayed so very much to be rid of Richard, soon wished they had left him where he was? On the throne, doing good things without screwing everyone. I know he did not pamper the nobility as his brother had, but I think they fared well enough. How many of them might have secretly whispered, Come back, Richard, all is forgiven? Except that he was the one who would have to do the forgiving. Just and lenient as he was, I doubt he'd go so far as to forgive Bosworth! Those who supported Henry got what they deserved, a tyrannical regime that ruled by dread and profited by extortion and usury. But the people suffered. For them, Good King Richard must have been a very, very fond memory.

Sandra

Indeed it must. And that's reflected by the number of people who continued to be called Richard. Not so Charles (after C1 lost his head) or even, dare I say, Henry.



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 6 May 2013, 15:22
Subject: Re: H7


 

I wonder how many of those who schemed and betrayed so very much to be rid of Richard, soon wished they had left him where he was? On the throne, doing good things without screwing everyone. I know he did not pamper the nobility as his brother had, but I think they fared well enough. How many of them might have secretly whispered, Come back, Richard, all is forgiven? Except that he was the one who would have to do the forgiving. Just and lenient as he was, I doubt he'd go so far as to forgive Bosworth! Those who supported Henry got what they deserved, a tyrannical regime that ruled by dread and profited by extortion and usury. But the people suffered. For them, Good King Richard must have been a very, very fond memory.

Sandra

Well said Sandra

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I wonder how many of those who schemed and betrayed so very much to be rid of Richard, soon wished they had left him where he was? On the throne, doing good things without screwing everyone. I know he did not pamper the nobility as his brother had, but I think they fared well enough. How many of them might have secretly whispered, “Come back, Richard, all is forgiven”? Except that he was the one who would have to do the forgiving. Just and lenient as he was, I doubt he’d go so far as to forgive Bosworth! Those who supported Henry got what they deserved, a tyrannical regime that ruled by dread and profited by extortion and usury. But the people suffered. For them, “Good King Richard” must have been a very, very fond memory.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>

I have Henry, and I joke, I am his fourth wife!

On May 6, 2013, at 9:26 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Indeed it must. And that's reflected by the number of people who continued to be called Richard. Not so Charles (after C1 lost his head) or even, dare I say, Henry.

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 6 May 2013, 15:22
Subject: Re: H7




I wonder how many of those who schemed and betrayed so very much to be rid of Richard, soon wished they had left him where he was? On the throne, doing good things without screwing everyone. I know he did not pamper the nobility as his brother had, but I think they fared well enough. How many of them might have secretly whispered, ýCome back, Richard, all is forgivený? Except that he was the one who would have to do the forgiving. Just and lenient as he was, I doubt heýd go so far as to forgive Bosworth! Those who supported Henry got what they deserved, a tyrannical regime that ruled by dread and profited by extortion and usury. But the people suffered. For them, ýGood King Richardý must have been a very, very fond memory.

Sandra

--- In , khafara@... wrote:
>
> Yes, but Morton died in 1500, decades before the Dissolution was set in motion.
>
> Would he have felt badly over all those monks who were tortured, hung, or even drawn and quartered for resisting? Or would he not mind so long as it happened after he was dead?
>

Morton of Morton's fork doesn't strike me as a person of empathy and compassion, I doubt he would have cared even if he were alive. I imagine him making a perfect "logical" reason why he should get a good share of the loot of land and treasure from the monks.

Knowing he became a Cardinal of Rome and Archbishop of Canterbury, also
very rich, all before he died, I doubt he would have been too troubled
about what happened after he'd gone!
Paul

On 06/05/2013 13:25, khafara@... wrote:
> I wonder what John Morton would have done, had he known that helping Henry of Richmond take the throne would lead directly to the creation of the Anglican heresy and the dissolution of the monasteries and the hospitals and other services for the poor.
>
> Would it have bothered him at all or would he have assumed that he could have trimmed his own sails to the new order and not cared so long as he himself made out OK?
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: whitehound@...
> To: <>
> Sent: Mon, May 6, 2013 1:59 am
> Subject: Re: H7
>
>
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:06 AM
> Subject: H7
>
>> The BBC has just announced a series of new documentaries about the
> Tudors, just for a change.
> What peeked my interest though was how Henry 7th was described, in very
> unflattering terms as the 'creator of the monster we now call the Tudor
> dynasty'.
>
> When it was announced a few days ago they also used some phrase like
> "unimagineably strange" to describe the Tudor court - so it sounds like it
> will be an honest analysis rather than a hagiography.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Are well there are some precious ones still around!



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Monday, 6 May 2013, 15:47
Subject: Re: H7


I have Henry, and I joke, I am his fourth wife!

On May 6, 2013, at 9:26 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Indeed it must. And that's reflected by the number of people who continued to be called Richard. Not so Charles (after C1 lost his head) or even, dare I say, Henry.

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 6 May 2013, 15:22
Subject: Re: H7




I wonder how many of those who schemed and betrayed so very much to be rid of Richard, soon wished they had left him where he was? On the throne, doing good things without screwing everyone. I know he did not pamper the nobility as his brother had, but I think they fared well enough. How many of them might have secretly whispered, Come back, Richard, all is forgiven? Except that he was the one who would have to do the forgiving. Just and lenient as he was, I doubt he'd go so far as to forgive Bosworth! Those who supported Henry got what they deserved, a tyrannical regime that ruled by dread and profited by extortion and usury. But the people suffered. For them, Good King Richard must have been a very, very fond memory.

Sandra













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

Yahoo! Groups Links

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> [snip] That's an interesting question. He seems not to have been a sicnere priest since he (supposedly) broke the seal of the confessional, but that doesn't preclude his having had affection for the institution of the Church, or for his colleagues.

Carol responds:

My impression is that Morton's interests were primarily political (though self-interest and self-preservation played a role). Is there any evidence that he ever played an active role in religious matters? (Even Rotherham signed the petition by influential and respectable churchmen asking Richard to help them reform the Church after Richard's Parliament. Would Morton have signed it had he been free to do so? Of course, he might have declined to sign anything referring to Richard's "blessed disposition," but that aside, did he really care about Church reform--as the clergymen who signed that petition clearly did--or about the welfare of poor monks? If so, where is the evidence?

I think that if overthrowing the Pope's authority in England helped to further the Tudor dynasty he (Morton) had been instrumental in establishing (as it did or seemed to do at the time) and if dissolving the monasteries enriched the royal coffers (as it must have done), Morton would have encouraged such a move. He might even have suggested it.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: H7


> did he really care about Church reform--as the clergymen who signed that
> petition clearly did--or about the welfare of poor monks? If so, where is
> the evidence?

I've never heard any - but then I can't think of any evidence that he
didn't, either, so it may be a question nobody has asked. According to Tey
(can't remember her source) he was very unpopular with the ordinary people -
unsurprisingly - but do we have anything on how other prelates thought of
him? What about the Croyland chronicler - does he have an opinion on
Morton?

[And for any new members who don't already know it, Morton was unpopular
with the common people for inventing a bit of financial sharp practice
called Morton's Fork, which basically went "If you're spending a lot you
must be wealthy so pay this enormous tax bill"/"If you're not spending a lot
you must have savings so pay this enormous tax bill".]

> I think that if overthrowing the Pope's authority in England helped to
> further the Tudor dynasty he (Morton) had been instrumental in
> establishing (as it did or seemed to do at the time) and if dissolving the
> monasteries enriched the royal coffers (as it must have done), Morton
> would have encouraged such a move. He might even have suggested it.

Very possibly.

I think Morton was a career politician whose devotion to God was nil. Being in the church was a way he could be the medieval equivalent of a civil servant and climb the political ladder. I doubt he would have cared who his heavenly or earthly "boss" was, or who/what they hurt, as long as he got to manipulate people and circumstances and profited by same.

That said, I've always wondered about his seeming devotion to Margaret Beaufort's cause, and his steering Buckingham so well toward same. Why her?

~Weds


--- In , khafara@... wrote:
>
> I wonder what John Morton would have done, had he known that helping Henry of Richmond take the throne would lead directly to the creation of the Anglican heresy and the dissolution of the monasteries and the hospitals and other services for the poor.
>
> Would it have bothered him at all or would he have assumed that he could have trimmed his own sails to the new order and not cared so long as he himself made out OK?
>
> Tamara

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: H7


> That said, I've always wondered about his seeming devotion to Margaret
> Beaufort's cause, and his steering Buckingham so well toward same. Why
> her?

Maybe he was the reason she had to re-take her vows of chastity....

I doubt very much that the Richard after Bosworth would have been as magnanimous as the Richard before Bosworth. I suspect he would have learned his lesson very well: discard ruling by merit, and rule by power -- and that would have changed him.

So while Good King Richard would have remained for those who had supported him, and for the downtrodden, I doubt he would have been so easygoing with the nobility in the future -- especially with the ones who hadn't bothered to show up at Leicester after he'd summoned them. "Eh, you can handle it, I'll just stay home."

~Weds

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I wonder how many of those who schemed and betrayed so very much to be rid of Richard, soon wished they had left him where he was? On the throne, doing good things without screwing everyone. I know he did not pamper the nobility as his brother had, but I think they fared well enough. How many of them might have secretly whispered, “Come back, Richard, all is forgiven”? Except that he was the one who would have to do the forgiving. Just and lenient as he was, I doubt he’d go so far as to forgive Bosworth! Those who supported Henry got what they deserved, a tyrannical regime that ruled by dread and profited by extortion and usury. But the people suffered. For them, “Good King Richard” must have been a very, very fond memory.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
umstances and profited by same.
>
> That said, I've always wondered about his seeming devotion to Margaret Beaufort's cause, and his steering Buckingham so well toward same. Why her?
>
> ~Weds
>
>

That devotion can be explained by the French pension he got. Henry Tudor was supported by the French. So he was doing it out of self interest and at the behest of his French pay masters.

Oh...ickle. I've always wondered about her and Reginald Bray, too. What the heck did he get out of serving her so well for so long before her son won?


--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: wednesday_mc
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 7:31 PM
> Subject: Re: H7
>
>
> > That said, I've always wondered about his seeming devotion to Margaret
> > Beaufort's cause, and his steering Buckingham so well toward same. Why
> > her?
>
> Maybe he was the reason she had to re-take her vows of chastity....
>

So! The BBC is going to "Richardize" Henry? Good! Maire.


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> The BBC has just announced a series of new documentaries about the
> Tudors, just for a change.
> What peeked my interest though was how Henry 7th was described, in very
> unflattering terms as the 'creator of the monster we now call the Tudor
> dynasty'.
> Doesn't sound like it will be much in his favour. Can't wait!
> Paul
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

As we say in Texas, I would like to think he kicked ass and took names!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 1:42 PM
To:
Subject: Re: H7



I doubt very much that the Richard after Bosworth would have been as magnanimous as the Richard before Bosworth. I suspect he would have learned his lesson very well: discard ruling by merit, and rule by power -- and that would have changed him.

So while Good King Richard would have remained for those who had supported him, and for the downtrodden, I doubt he would have been so easygoing with the nobility in the future -- especially with the ones who hadn't bothered to show up at Leicester after he'd summoned them. "Eh, you can handle it, I'll just stay home."

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin@...>> wrote:
>
> I wonder how many of those who schemed and betrayed so very much to be rid of Richard, soon wished they had left him where he was? On the throne, doing good things without screwing everyone. I know he did not pamper the nobility as his brother had, but I think they fared well enough. How many of them might have secretly whispered, â¬SCome back, Richard, all is forgiven⬝? Except that he was the one who would have to do the forgiving. Just and lenient as he was, I doubt heâ¬"d go so far as to forgive Bosworth! Those who supported Henry got what they deserved, a tyrannical regime that ruled by dread and profited by extortion and usury. But the people suffered. For them, â¬SGood King Richard⬝ must have been a very, very fond memory.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> What about the Croyland chronicler - does he have an opinion on
Morton?

Carol responds:

That's easy enough to check. Just go here:

http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/?page_id=494

(Suggestion to new members: You may want to bookmark the online library here. It's extremely useful, some sources more than others.)

From there, you can check More and Vergil to see how they compare. (They would not have read the chronicler and so would not be influenced by his views). Mancini is harder to check since he doesn't seem to be online and can only, as far as I know, be accessed indirectly through sources who quote him. I'm not willing to spend a fortune on the book until a new edition comes out with "assumption" rather than "usurpation" in the title!). I'm almost certain that Mancini speaks with approval of Morton as an inveterate intriguer. Probably, he had personal contact with him before his arrest.

Here's what Bacon (not in the American branch's online library) says about Morton: "He was a wise man, and an eloquent, but in his nature harsh and haughty, much accepted by the King [Henry], but envied of the nobles and hated of the people. . . . He was not without inveterate malice against the House of York . . . ." Bacon attributes Henry's subterfuges to Morton but thinks that Morton somehow tempered Henry's tendency toward extortion by catering to it (no, I don't follow Bacon's logic, especially given Morton's Fork). Bacon also thinks that, whatever the character of the man, England owes him gratitude as the chief agent in the uniting of the roses. (No comment!)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q2W1AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA238&dq=Bacon+Henry+VII+Morton&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7yyIUY7SD6eoiAKLh4Aw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Morton&f=false

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: H7

> That's easy enough to check. Just go here:

> http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/?page_id=494

Thanks - I'll have to leave it till Wednesday night as I have nearly 200
pages of object-oriented programming to get through by Wednesday morning,
and my connection is slow (too far from the nearest exchange), so it'll take
ages to load this lot :( Great resource, anyway.

> I'm not willing to spend a fortune on the book until a new edition comes
> out with "assumption" rather than "usurpation" in the title!).

Is the original in Latin, or Italian? If in Italian I have an Italian
teacher friend who might be able to check what the original language says,
allowing for the fact that it's in Olde.

How long is Mancini? If he's not hugely long she and I might even be able
to do our own translation some time - I habitually edit her writings into
plain English for her anyway.

> Here's what Bacon (not in the American branch's online library) says about
> Morton: "He was a wise man, and an eloquent, but in his nature harsh and
> haughty,

So he wasn't even a particularly suave covert villain but an obvious one.

> He was not without inveterate malice against the House of York . . . ."

Ugh. If even Bacon, who generally thought the Tudors were a Good Thing,
thought that Morton was motivated by malice against against Richard rather
than loyalty to MB it's probably true. Poor Richard.

> Bacon attributes Henry's subterfuges to Morton but thinks that Morton
> somehow tempered Henry's tendency toward extortion by catering to it (no,
> I don't follow Bacon's logic, especially given Morton's Fork).

Hum. Could mean maybe that he diverted Henry away from extorting money from
the nobility and onto screwing the peasants, but if so that's not a good
thing.

> Bacon also thinks that, whatever the character of the man, England owes
> him gratitude as the chief agent in the uniting of the roses. (No
> comment!)

Ooh, may I comment? But... Richard was going to unite the roses anyway,
only with a lot less mess and aggro, unitl Morton stuck a spanner in the
works....

Wednesday wrote:
>
> I doubt very much that the Richard after Bosworth would have been as magnanimous as the Richard before Bosworth. I suspect he would have learned his lesson very well: discard ruling by merit, and rule by power -- and that would have changed him.
>
> So while Good King Richard would have remained for those who had supported him, and for the downtrodden, I doubt he would have been so easygoing with the nobility in the future -- especially with the ones who hadn't bothered to show up at Leicester after he'd summoned them. "Eh, you can handle it, I'll just stay home."

Carol responds:

I don't know. I think that he would have felt free to be himself and rule as he thought fit (that is, justly and fairly in the interests of all classes) once he had disposed of the traitors. But, yes, once Henry's head was off, there would be swift justice for Morton and MB (both imprisoned for life with no escape or pardon though Richard would not have treated MB as severely as I would have done). He'd have executions with a cursory trial for Bray, Jasper Tudor, Oxford, Sir Gilbrt Talbot, Rhys ap Thomas, William Stanley, and anyone else of name, and the French and Welsh would be hurried out of England, Richard making sure that there was no pillaging along the way. And then the business of burying the dead and arranging for a chapel for those who could not be identified and sent home. Once he was back in London, he would, of course, have to get through the marriage negotiations, have a splendid wedding, and produce an heir as quickly as possible to stabilize his reign.

He would not fear further treason, having proven the justice of his cause by his victory (Henry made the same claim--though I'm not sure he really believed it as Richard surely would have). He would have time to show his worth before anyone attempted to rebel in favor of his nephews, whom he would keep well hidden and away from anyone who could train them in recruitment or warfare.

What he would do with Northumberland and Stanley would depend on why they didn't participate. I think that Stanley, with his wife out of his reach and silenced by the death of her son (a la Margaret of Anjou) would probably capitulate as he did with Henry out of pure self-interest and Northumberland, after perhaps a brief stint in the Tower if he deserved one, would go back to the North mindful that he could be replaced by the Earl of Lincoln if he stepped out of line.

I would hope that Richard would have learned his lesson--not so much to stop trusting but to trust only those he knew to be loyal to him, not any Johnny-come-latelys like Buckingham, and not to give any one man too much power. Few overmighty subjects would continue to serve the king as steadfastly as he had served Edward. Delegate authority and develop a system of alliances within England as well as abroad. He already had Spain, Portugal, and Burgundy as allies, a peace treaty with Scotland, and parts of Wales under his control. He even had a treaty with Britanny (which, unfortunately, resulted in Tudor fleeing for France). What he would have done with France, I don't know--possibly allied himself with the Duke of Bourbon to overthrow the Charles VIII regency. Quite possibly, by treating him as an enemy, they would have made him into one. Maybe he could hold them responsible for the treasure that Edward Woodville stole from the Tower--pay up

But I can't see Richard changing his essential character or violating his principles just because (in is view) God granted him a victory. Quite the contrary. I think we do him a disservice by assuming that he would have become something like the tyrant he's charged with being. Certainly, he would not have changed toward York or any city or county that had been loyal to him or toward the common people and women who, with the exception of MB, had nothing to do with Bosworth.

Regarding nobility who didn't show up at Bosworth, I don't think any were summoned who didn't show up (as opposed to showing up and not participating or, in William Stanley's case, showing up and fighting for the wrong side).

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Is the original [of Mancini's work] in Latin, or Italian?

Carol responds:

It's in Latin. The original title is "De Occupatione Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium" (The Occupation of the Throne of England by Richard III), but CAJ Armstrong translated Occupatione as "usurpation" so now the book is called "The Usurpation of Richard III"--high time we had a new translation since, as I understand it, that's not the only important error. (That's what happens when traditionalists translate works relating to Richard and their assumptions find their way into the translation, which passes as the original for most readers.)

Price of the book on Amazon.com (U.S.) $537.70 new, $100.89 used. No thank you. If I were motivated, I could copy excerpts from other sources as I encounter them, but there has to be a better way!

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: H7


> It's in Latin.

Pity - I don't think Stella's Latin is good enough and mine certainly isn't,
although I learned "Gallia est omnes divisa in partes tres" at school.

> The original title is "De Occupatione Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium"
> (The Occupation of the Throne of England by Richard III), but CAJ
> Armstrong translated Occupatione as "usurpation"

Yes - they've interpreted "occupation" in an oppressive way like "occupied
territories", but it just means "moved into".

> so now the book is called "The Usurpation of Richard III"--high time we
> had a new translation since, as I understand it, that's not the only
> important error.

Stella might know somebody whose Latin is good even if hers isn't, and I
have many years' experience of converting Italian English into English
English...

> Price of the book on Amazon.com (U.S.) $537.70 new, $100.89 used.

There's one copy on abebooks at the mo., and it's $16.04 plus $13.33 postage
from the UK - still not exactly cheap but a lot better than $100. Or if
it's still there in two weeks maybe *I'll* buy it and then scan it, but I
can't afford it right now as I have the vet to pay.

I agree with you about Richard after Bosworth btw - I think the bit is
business with Lord Strange indicates that even if he *thought* he was going
to be a new and more brutal Richard, his heart just wasn't in it. He was
too intrinsically thoughtful and fair-minded ever to stay tyrannical for
longer than it took to catch his breath and calm down from an urgent
crisis - 20 minutes, maybe.

Let me know if you still can't find anyone -- I have an online friend who knows Latin and Greek and is teaching himself Arabic; I can see if he'd be interested. How long is the text again? ( <---- me, too lazy to scroll to the start of the thread)

Tamara





-----Original Message-----
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To: <>
Sent: Mon, May 6, 2013 8:15 pm
Subject: Re: H7


From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: H7


> It's in Latin.

Pity - I don't think Stella's Latin is good enough and mine certainly isn't,
although I learned "Gallia est omnes divisa in partes tres" at school.

> The original title is "De Occupatione Regni Anglie per Riccardum Tercium"
> (The Occupation of the Throne of England by Richard III), but CAJ
> Armstrong translated Occupatione as "usurpation"

Yes - they've interpreted "occupation" in an oppressive way like "occupied
territories", but it just means "moved into".

> so now the book is called "The Usurpation of Richard III"--high time we
> had a new translation since, as I understand it, that's not the only
> important error.

Stella might know somebody whose Latin is good even if hers isn't, and I
have many years' experience of converting Italian English into English
English...

> Price of the book on Amazon.com (U.S.) $537.70 new, $100.89 used.

There's one copy on abebooks at the mo., and it's $16.04 plus $13.33 postage
from the UK - still not exactly cheap but a lot better than $100. Or if
it's still there in two weeks maybe *I'll* buy it and then scan it, but I
can't afford it right now as I have the vet to pay.

I agree with you about Richard after Bosworth btw - I think the bit is
business with Lord Strange indicates that even if he *thought* he was going
to be a new and more brutal Richard, his heart just wasn't in it. He was
too intrinsically thoughtful and fair-minded ever to stay tyrannical for
longer than it took to catch his breath and calm down from an urgent
crisis - 20 minutes, maybe.



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Tamara wrote:
>
>
> Let me know if you still can't find anyone -- I have an online friend who knows Latin and Greek and is teaching himself Arabic; I can see if he'd be interested. How long is the text again? ( <---- me, too lazy to scroll to the start of the thread)

Carol responds:

We didn't say. The C.A.J. Armstrong translation (with the objectionable title) is 168 pages and is under copyright. I don't know if it includes the original Latin or where, outside a library, we could find that.

Here are the book details (such as they are) from Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Usurpation-Richard-History-prehistory-Medieval/dp/0862991358/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367890478&sr=1-1

Here's a note on the (un)reliability of Mancini:

http://www.richard111.com/Dominic%20Mancini.htm

For anyone unfamiliar with Mancini or his account, the Wikipedia article is reasonably accurate and objective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Mancini

I should mention that the work is in medieval Latin, not classical Lation. What we really need, of course, is a professional translation by a scholar familiar with Richard and the period and not influenced by More or other traditionalists (along with a professional analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of this ostensibly unbiased source).

Carol

JA-H?
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 2:50 AM
Subject: Re: H7



Tamara wrote:
>
>
> Let me know if you still can't find anyone -- I have an online friend who knows Latin and Greek and is teaching himself Arabic; I can see if he'd be interested. How long is the text again? ( <---- me, too lazy to scroll to the start of the thread)

Carol responds:

We didn't say. The C.A.J. Armstrong translation (with the objectionable title) is 168 pages and is under copyright. I don't know if it includes the original Latin or where, outside a library, we could find that.

Here are the book details (such as they are) from Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Usurpation-Richard-History-prehistory-Medieval/dp/0862991358/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367890478&sr=1-1

Here's a note on the (un)reliability of Mancini:

http://www.richard111.com/Dominic%20Mancini.htm

For anyone unfamiliar with Mancini or his account, the Wikipedia article is reasonably accurate and objective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Mancini

I should mention that the work is in medieval Latin, not classical Lation. What we really need, of course, is a professional translation by a scholar familiar with Richard and the period and not influenced by More or other traditionalists (along with a professional analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of this ostensibly unbiased source).

Carol

Assuming he's not too busy buried up to his eyeballs in Butt-o'-Malmsey research, yeah.







-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To: <>
Sent: Mon, May 6, 2013 9:42 pm
Subject: Re: H7


JA-H?
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 2:50 AM
Subject: Re: H7



Tamara wrote:
>
>
> Let me know if you still can't find anyone -- I have an online friend who
knows Latin and Greek and is teaching himself Arabic; I can see if he'd be
interested. How long is the text again? ( <---- me, too lazy to scroll to the
start of the thread)

Carol responds:

We didn't say. The C.A.J. Armstrong translation (with the objectionable title)
is 168 pages and is under copyright. I don't know if it includes the original
Latin or where, outside a library, we could find that.

Here are the book details (such as they are) from Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Usurpation-Richard-History-prehistory-Medieval/dp/0862991358/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367890478&sr=1-1

Here's a note on the (un)reliability of Mancini:

http://www.richard111.com/Dominic%20Mancini.htm

For anyone unfamiliar with Mancini or his account, the Wikipedia article is
reasonably accurate and objective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Mancini

I should mention that the work is in medieval Latin, not classical Lation.
What we really need, of course, is a professional translation by a scholar
familiar with Richard and the period and not influenced by More or other
traditionalists (along with a professional analysis of the strengths and
weaknesses of this ostensibly unbiased source).

Carol









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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: H7



> > He was not without inveterate malice against the House of York . . . ."

> Ugh. If even Bacon, who generally thought the Tudors were a Good Thing,
thought that Morton was motivated by malice against against Richard rather
than loyalty to MB it's probably true. Poor Richard.

I've been thinking about this in bed. If Bacon was right that Morton was
motivated by spite against his enemies rather than loyalty to his own side,
he might be the cause of the whole mess - because if he in fact had no
loyalty to or concern for MB he may have persuaded her that making peace
with Richard wasn't possible and that invasion was her and her son's only
sensible course of action, just because that suited his malice against
Richard and regardless of whether it was really the best thing for her or
not. With the disrupted life she'd had she might well have been open to
being persuaded by what seemed like a clever supportive father-figure with
wide experience at court.

Clever though she was herself, she might even have been naive and Catholic
enough to think "He's a bishop, he must be telling me the truth". I mean,
my mother's fairly bright, but the first time she heard a story about an
abusive priest - during WWII - she assumed the other woman must be making it
up because "a priest just wouldn't do that".

...Morton the Kingmaker...? And why *would* he have such a spite against
the House of York, if it was free-standing malice and not the result of
loyalty to the other side? What had Edward or his family done to put
Morton's nose out of joint?

From what I understand it was malice largely against Richard and possibly Richard's father, both of whom were very straitlaced when it came to ethics and morals - Edward was more tolerant of corruption but while Richard could forgive many things Morton's behavior wasn't one of them.



-----Original Message-----
From: whitehound@...
To: <>
Sent: Tue, May 7, 2013 3:33 am
Subject: Re: H7



From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: H7

> > He was not without inveterate malice against the House of York . . . ."

> Ugh. If even Bacon, who generally thought the Tudors were a Good Thing,
thought that Morton was motivated by malice against against Richard rather
than loyalty to MB it's probably true. Poor Richard.

I've been thinking about this in bed. If Bacon was right that Morton was
motivated by spite against his enemies rather than loyalty to his own side,
he might be the cause of the whole mess - because if he in fact had no
loyalty to or concern for MB he may have persuaded her that making peace
with Richard wasn't possible and that invasion was her and her son's only
sensible course of action, just because that suited his malice against
Richard and regardless of whether it was really the best thing for her or
not. With the disrupted life she'd had she might well have been open to
being persuaded by what seemed like a clever supportive father-figure with
wide experience at court.

Clever though she was herself, she might even have been naive and Catholic
enough to think "He's a bishop, he must be telling me the truth". I mean,
my mother's fairly bright, but the first time she heard a story about an
abusive priest - during WWII - she assumed the other woman must be making it
up because "a priest just wouldn't do that".

...Morton the Kingmaker...? And why *would* he have such a spite against
the House of York, if it was free-standing malice and not the result of
loyalty to the other side? What had Edward or his family done to put
Morton's nose out of joint?

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> JA-H?

Carol responds:

Or Rosemary Horrox (BA, MA, PhD, FRHistS):

http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/directory/reh37@...

http://www.fitz.cam.ac.uk/about/people/fellows-information/college-officers/profile/312/dr_rosemary_horrox

She's written numerous books on Richard (admittedly a bit too scholarly for the general public) and the current DNB article on him (which I assume is somewhere between objective and generally favorable, certainly an improvement on the old one by Gairdner, but I don't have access to it). But her credentials are impeccable, and her work would be respected. Better still, historians and biographers could stop citing "The Usurpation of Richard III" as a source and call the book by its properly translated title. Armstrong's version in itself reinforces the traditional view of Richard every time it appears in print.

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> [snip] ...Morton the Kingmaker...? And why *would* he have such a spite against the House of York, if it was free-standing malice and not the result of loyalty to the other side? What had Edward or his family done to put Morton's nose out of joint?

Carol responds:

Besides deposing Henry, taking the crown, winning Barnet and Tewkesbury, in which Edward of Lancaster was killed, executing Henry (unless he really died of melancholy, which Morton wouldn't believe), and remaining in power until he (Edward) died? In essence, he had the same grudges against Edward and the House of York as any diehard Lancastrian. He had been with Margaret of Anjou, advising and supporting her (and presumably her son) until Tewkesbury. True, Morton had come to terms with Edward and worked within his administration, but he may well have worked against him as well. It occurs to me (and I don't know whether I'm right or wrong) that he might have advised Edward to negotiate for a pension rather than fight at Picquigny (Morton himself received a French pension). That could have been the start of a mutual distrust between him and Richard. He must have regarded Henry Tudor as a long shot, but he was the only male with (some!) English blood who could possibly claim to be a descendant of John of Gaunt (other than an illegitimate son of one of the Beauforts) around whom dissident Lancastrians could be convinced to rally. Members of the Spanish and Portuguese royal houses were presumably out of the question. And I suspect that, once Edward of Lancaster was dead, Margaret Beaufort was thinking along similar lines. At some point, they would have realized that they had a common cause and put their wily heads together. But only when Edward died, destabilizing the Yorkist regime, did they see their chance to start plotting in earnest.

Please note that I'm merely thinking as I type and speculating about what might have happened. I do know, though, that Morton had been a strong supporter of the Lancastrians and would therefore be (like the Earl of Oxford) an inveterate enemy of the House of York. He would also have had strong French connections from at least the time of Margaret of Anjou's French exile (he was involved in the negotiations that led to the improbable alliance of Warwick with Margaret of Anjou). And that French connection in itself would make him dangerous to Richard once Morton became seriously involved in supporting Tudor's pretensions.

My only comfort is that Morton was buried in a shallow grave and posthumously beheaded!

http://www.isoldemartyn.com/index.php/news-media/item/55-the-case-of-the-missing-head

Carol

As someone who does not know the law, only what I've seen in dramas, the only thing I can say about Leicester and the possibility of identifying Richard as a child-murderer, is that at worst it is a 50-50 case. If they say he is Bad Richard, they have no proof and no sound basis. If they say he is Good Richard, they can't prove that either. So to plump for Bad Richard is arbitrary, and m'Lud might have to have stern words. Would Leicester dare accuse Richard if he were still alive? What then? If he were a prisoner, brought before today's court (and the CPS would be very jumpy and unsure, but were bullied by Leicester University) what could the prosecution actually say about him that would pin him with the murder of his nephews? If we still had the death penalty, how could they clinch such a sentence being passed on him? It's all circumstantial at the best of times. Did anyone see the boys die? Did anyone know if they were actually still in the Tower? Are there bodies? Did he write a confession? Has he broken down and sobbed the whole sorry tale? Can any of his men bear first-hand witness against him? Or produce his hand-written orders? No hearsay allowed. The bones in the Tower remain contentious, not least because we are not allowed to test them with modern science. To my mind they are inadmissible evidence. More hearsay, so to speak, and the jury should be directed to discount them. A pile of bones could belong to anyone, and even if by some miracle of a miscarriage of justice, DNA evidence was wangled to prove the bones to be those of Richard's close relatives, or even if there were labels tied to their toes with their names on, there remains no proof at all that he killed them and had them buried there. Even his writing on the labels wouldn't prove anything other than he wrote the labels. Maybe said labels were intended to tie to Christmas presents!

Leicester would think a great deal before blackening his name if he was still around to sue the a-se off them. At the very least I think they have to be even-handed. They cannot say he is Bad Richard without having to also say he might well be Good Richard. After all, there are a number of other possible culprits with more motive. Isn't our law supposedly based around someone being innocent until proven guilty? And do Leicester really want to have a wicked attraction in their cathedral? I thought cathedrals were more likely to seek saints. And if they intend to put up a gleaming brass plate that says he might be good or might be very bad indeed, perhaps they should be even-handed and do the same for everyone else buried there? After all, any one of them MIGHT have committed a murder. In this politically correct age, such things have to be taken into account. If wicked is the profitable/preferable option, they had better discover which car park Gilles de Rais was buried under, and sneak him back across the Channel. He certainly murdered children, and not just two. At least, that is what we are told. No doubt he has his supporters who say it was all a dastardly frame-up.

I even wonder if a jury could be found to hear the evidence' against Richard. Just how many good men (and women) and true can there be who have not heard the Tudor-inspired story of the princes in the Tower'? So getting a fair trial for him would be not be simple. I think his defence lawyer could easily get him off the charge. With no stain on his character. At which point he could successfully sue, write a book for a HUGE advance (dishing the dirt on all the things we've wondered about, including all three pre-contracts, because there are two that no one even knew about, the trouble he had keeping the sex-obsessed EofY out of his hose, and his suspicion that someone small and female, very close to Henry Tudor' actually poisoned Anne). He'd talk to the newspapers, be on TV, deny all the kiss-and-tells, have half the world following him on Twitter, be the top dinner guest for all society hostesses in every country, publicly turn down an invitation to a State Dinner at Buck House, and generally become a dazzling celebrity. The House of Windsor. would be quaking, for fear the House of York might demand its throne back. Great. I'd buy ten copies of the book, and try to get him to sign them all. Can you imagine him in the book shop, almost lost in the piles of books and excited purchasers. His right wrist would be bandaged because of RSI, he'd be in his kingly robes and natty black velvet hat, twiddling with his rings before laboriously writing his signature with a quill? To Sandra, Ricardus Rex. Lovely image. I wonder if I'd be able to persuade him to add one very large X?

And no, this isn't meant to be serious. Just a smile because it's a lovely sunny day here in Gloucester.

Claire M Jordan wrote:

"I've been thinking about this in bed. If Bacon was right that Morton was
motivated by spite against his enemies rather than loyalty to his own side,
he might be the cause of the whole mess - because if he in fact had no
loyalty to or concern for MB he may have persuaded her that making peace
with Richard wasn't possible and that invasion was her and her son's only
sensible course of action, just because that suited his malice against
Richard and regardless of whether it was really the best thing for her or
not. With the disrupted life she'd had she might well have been open to
being persuaded by what seemed like a clever supportive father-figure with
wide experience at court.
Clever though she was herself, she might even have been naive and Catholic
enough to think "He's a bishop, he must be telling me the truth". I mean,
my mother's fairly bright, but the first time she heard a story about an
abusive priest - during WWII - she assumed the other woman must be making it
up because "a priest just wouldn't do that".
...Morton the Kingmaker...? And why *would* he have such a spite against
the House of York, if it was free-standing malice and not the result of
loyalty to the other side? What had Edward or his family done to put
Morton's nose out of joint?"

Doug here:
A very interesting post! I can think of two possibilities, with neither
excluding the other:

First, could Morton's "inveterate malice" have been due to the Yorkists just
*not* seeing Morton in the same light as he saw himself: basically
omnicompetent? We know Morton wasn't trusted by Edward IV and Richard
(possibly even their father?) and was kept to minor roles by them. *If*
Morton also knew, or even was flatly told, that, for whatever the reason(s),
he was going to be kept out of any major role, could sheer frustration, and
an oversized ego, have led him to "show" them just how capable he was? By
overthrowing them? Which he did.
Of course, if it's that Morton was a well-known, dyed-in-the-wool
Lancastrian, that alone might explain both Yorkist both distrust *and*
Morton's actions: Yorkists didn't trust Morton, Morton used that distrust to
justify his actions as a Lancastrian, his actions then further increased the
Yorkist distrust of him...
Were there other well-known Lancastrian supporters who *were* employed, at
high government levels, because I don't really know? *If* there were, then
why not him? What had Morton done, if anything, as a supporter of the House
of Lancaster, that prevented him from being reconciled to the Yorkists
ruling England?
So which is it:
Morton's support for (use of?) Henry Tudor was because Tudor was the *only*
available *non-Yorkist* who had even a hint of a possible claim to the
throne, if one didn't look too closely, and Morton needed someone, anyone,
to be his front-man? Or,
Morton supported Henry Tudor because Henry was the only *available*
"Lancastrian" candidate for the throne?
As I said, it could very well be, and most likely is, a combination of the
two.
Doug

"SandraMachin" wrote:
>
> As someone who does not know the law, only what I’ve seen in dramas, the only thing I can say about Leicester and the possibility of identifying Richard as a child-murderer, is that at worst it is a 50-50 case. [snip]
>
> I even wonder if a jury could be found to hear the ‘evidence’ against Richard. [snip]

Carol responds:

Richard has actually been tried and found not guilty by a famous U.S. Supreme Court Justice, William Rehnquist (he and one other justice voted to exonerate Richard; the third went with the traditionalists):

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/23781.html (Skip to the third article and ignore the second one about Richard's bones partially confirming Shakespeare's depiction of Richard.) The article contains a link to the televised version of this trial.

Rehnquist wrote a book about this trial, "The Trial of Richard III: The Honorable William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States, Presiding," edited by Maurer School of Law professors Fred H. Cate and David C. Williams.

There's also the British "Trial of Richard III," which you can watch on You Tube and which gives you exactly what you're looking for, a jury (as opposed to American Supreme Court justices) examining the evidence for and against Richard. The first segment is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-kQoKt2Kf4

You can find the rest of the segments from there. The selection of witnesses could be better, but it's entertaining to watch A.J. Pollard in his cocky (relative) youth contrasted with that other nemesis of Richard, the Tudor historian David Starkey, who reminds me of an angry mouse.

And Bertram Fields, a lawyer, argues in his book, "Royal Blood," that the odds are 75/25 in favor of Richard's innocence. (I forget how he calculated the odds, but you can read a snippet of his book online at Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Royal-Blood-Richard-Mystery-Princes/dp/0060987383

There are also numerous articles and book chapters on the inadequacy of the original investigation of the bones in the urn, all of which conclude that the bones prove exactly nothing.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: H7

> Besides deposing Henry, taking the crown, winning Barnet and Tewkesbury,
> in which Edward of Lancaster was killed, executing Henry (unless he really
> died of melancholy, which Morton wouldn't believe), and remaining in power
> until he (Edward) died?

Mm, but Bacon's interpretation suggests that loyalty to Lancaster wasn't his
motivation, so would he actually *care* about any of that?

Carol earlier:

> > [What did Morton have against Edward] Besides deposing Henry, taking the crown, winning Barnet and Tewkesbury, in which Edward of Lancaster was killed, executing Henry (unless he really died of melancholy, which Morton wouldn't believe), and remaining in power until he (Edward) died?

Claire comments:
> Mm, but Bacon's interpretation suggests that loyalty to Lancaster wasn't his motivation, so would he actually *care* about any of that?
>
Carol responds:

I don't follow you. Bacon says that Morton was "not without inveterate malice against *the House of York*," not Richard specifically, so I would say that, yes, all that does matter, and his original grudge was against Edward (who attainted him twice--I left out the attainder after Towton. The second was, of course, after Tewkesbury).

I think that Morton had been loyal to Margaret of Anjou and the Lancastrian cause. He only accommodated himself to Edward after his second pardon (granted, almost certainly, because Edward knew how to put an enemy's talents to use without letting him get too powerful and also because Edward thought that the Lancastrian cause was well and truly lost) out of self-preservation--and possibly a chance to know his enemy. That put him exactly where he needed to be when Edward died--a chance to undermine the House of York from within while secretly plotting with MB to aid Henry Tudor.

Again, this is just my opinion, but it fits beautifully with "inveterate malice against the House of York." He must have known that a rebellion in favor of Henry Tudor would have no chance while Edward was king, but the moment Edward died, the situation became so unstable that he seized the opportunity, sowing seeds of discontent among members of the council and doing whatever he could to undermine the Protector to prevent a stable government from forming. Or, at least, that's how it looks to me. No inveterate malice against Richard, per se, aside from his Yorkist blood, but perhaps a fear that if Richard gained power and popularity, Tudor would have no chance. And, of course, once Morton got to France, he stirred up fears that Richard would attack France and convinced them to back Tudor, who would owe them a debt if he succeeded against Richard and consequently would not press the English claim to the French throne as his predecessors had done.

Carol

Wasn't Morton part of Edward's council as well as a Bishop? He was doing just fine under the Yorkist rule, I would say. IF Edward or Richard made him a Cardinal, could he have been brought over to the white rose side?! I wonder........

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 6, 2013, at 1:59 PM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:

>
> Claire M Jordan wrote:
>
> "I've been thinking about this in bed. If Bacon was right that Morton was
> motivated by spite against his enemies rather than loyalty to his own side,
> he might be the cause of the whole mess - because if he in fact had no
> loyalty to or concern for MB he may have persuaded her that making peace
> with Richard wasn't possible and that invasion was her and her son's only
> sensible course of action, just because that suited his malice against
> Richard and regardless of whether it was really the best thing for her or
> not. With the disrupted life she'd had she might well have been open to
> being persuaded by what seemed like a clever supportive father-figure with
> wide experience at court.
> Clever though she was herself, she might even have been naive and Catholic
> enough to think "He's a bishop, he must be telling me the truth". I mean,
> my mother's fairly bright, but the first time she heard a story about an
> abusive priest - during WWII - she assumed the other woman must be making it
> up because "a priest just wouldn't do that".
> ...Morton the Kingmaker...? And why *would* he have such a spite against
> the House of York, if it was free-standing malice and not the result of
> loyalty to the other side? What had Edward or his family done to put
> Morton's nose out of joint?"
>
> Doug here:
> A very interesting post! I can think of two possibilities, with neither
> excluding the other:
>
> First, could Morton's "inveterate malice" have been due to the Yorkists just
> *not* seeing Morton in the same light as he saw himself: basically
> omnicompetent? We know Morton wasn't trusted by Edward IV and Richard
> (possibly even their father?) and was kept to minor roles by them. *If*
> Morton also knew, or even was flatly told, that, for whatever the reason(s),
> he was going to be kept out of any major role, could sheer frustration, and
> an oversized ego, have led him to "show" them just how capable he was? By
> overthrowing them? Which he did.
> Of course, if it's that Morton was a well-known, dyed-in-the-wool
> Lancastrian, that alone might explain both Yorkist both distrust *and*
> Morton's actions: Yorkists didn't trust Morton, Morton used that distrust to
> justify his actions as a Lancastrian, his actions then further increased the
> Yorkist distrust of him...
> Were there other well-known Lancastrian supporters who *were* employed, at
> high government levels, because I don't really know? *If* there were, then
> why not him? What had Morton done, if anything, as a supporter of the House
> of Lancaster, that prevented him from being reconciled to the Yorkists
> ruling England?
> So which is it:
> Morton's support for (use of?) Henry Tudor was because Tudor was the *only*
> available *non-Yorkist* who had even a hint of a possible claim to the
> throne, if one didn't look too closely, and Morton needed someone, anyone,
> to be his front-man? Or,
> Morton supported Henry Tudor because Henry was the only *available*
> "Lancastrian" candidate for the throne?
> As I said, it could very well be, and most likely is, a combination of the
> two.
> Doug
>
>

From my meanderings in Stillington (which are continuing) it's pretty clear that Morton lacked the family connections of a Stillington. Stillington seems to have had high family connections both in the South West and in the North - his nephew (by marriage) was a squire of the body to Richard. His connections to the high and mighty (and to the less mighty like the Catesbys) stretch out like tentacles. Stillington also seems to have held considerable properties around London (how and why I'm still looking into).
 
Morton's high family connections seem to be distinctly lacking.  His learning is well recorded at both Oxford and Cambridge and he seems to have risen by his own intelligence and by backing the right side some of the time. (That could be why Henry felt he had an affinity to him; they were both to a degree self-made). He certainly didn't back the right side when he was exiled in France with Margaret for several years but he would have learned Louis XI's style of government. BTW Sir Robert Morton is listed as one of the hearers of appeals in Richard's Parliament. John Morton was also there and played a prominent role in Edward's in the 1470s.
 
I doubt Richard or Edward thought they had to win him over (until Buckingham's rebellion); he'd been well rewarded after 1471. They probably had no idea his other ambitions were lurking in the shadows (can ambitions lurk?). What needs further exploration I find is how/why he transferred his loyalties from one Margaret to another and the role another lurker, Reggie Bray, played in all this. He appears again when the Stillingtons are trying to claim the Bish's Middlesex properties.


________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 May 2013, 4:52
Subject: Re: H7


 

Wasn't Morton part of Edward's council as well as a Bishop? He was doing just fine under the Yorkist rule, I would say. IF Edward or Richard made him a Cardinal, could he have been brought over to the white rose side?! I wonder........

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 6, 2013, at 1:59 PM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <mailto:destama%40kconline.com> wrote:

>
> Claire M Jordan wrote:
>
> "I've been thinking about this in bed. If Bacon was right that Morton was
> motivated by spite against his enemies rather than loyalty to his own side,
> he might be the cause of the whole mess - because if he in fact had no
> loyalty to or concern for MB he may have persuaded her that making peace
> with Richard wasn't possible and that invasion was her and her son's only
> sensible course of action, just because that suited his malice against
> Richard and regardless of whether it was really the best thing for her or
> not. With the disrupted life she'd had she might well have been open to
> being persuaded by what seemed like a clever supportive father-figure with
> wide experience at court.
> Clever though she was herself, she might even have been naive and Catholic
> enough to think "He's a bishop, he must be telling me the truth". I mean,
> my mother's fairly bright, but the first time she heard a story about an
> abusive priest - during WWII - she assumed the other woman must be making it
> up because "a priest just wouldn't do that".
> ...Morton the Kingmaker...? And why *would* he have such a spite against
> the House of York, if it was free-standing malice and not the result of
> loyalty to the other side? What had Edward or his family done to put
> Morton's nose out of joint?"
>
> Doug here:
> A very interesting post! I can think of two possibilities, with neither
> excluding the other:
>
> First, could Morton's "inveterate malice" have been due to the Yorkists just
> *not* seeing Morton in the same light as he saw himself: basically
> omnicompetent? We know Morton wasn't trusted by Edward IV and Richard
> (possibly even their father?) and was kept to minor roles by them. *If*
> Morton also knew, or even was flatly told, that, for whatever the reason(s),
> he was going to be kept out of any major role, could sheer frustration, and
> an oversized ego, have led him to "show" them just how capable he was? By
> overthrowing them? Which he did.
> Of course, if it's that Morton was a well-known, dyed-in-the-wool
> Lancastrian, that alone might explain both Yorkist both distrust *and*
> Morton's actions: Yorkists didn't trust Morton, Morton used that distrust to
> justify his actions as a Lancastrian, his actions then further increased the
> Yorkist distrust of him...
> Were there other well-known Lancastrian supporters who *were* employed, at
> high government levels, because I don't really know? *If* there were, then
> why not him? What had Morton done, if anything, as a supporter of the House
> of Lancaster, that prevented him from being reconciled to the Yorkists
> ruling England?
> So which is it:
> Morton's support for (use of?) Henry Tudor was because Tudor was the *only*
> available *non-Yorkist* who had even a hint of a possible claim to the
> throne, if one didn't look too closely, and Morton needed someone, anyone,
> to be his front-man? Or,
> Morton supported Henry Tudor because Henry was the only *available*
> "Lancastrian" candidate for the throne?
> As I said, it could very well be, and most likely is, a combination of the
> two.
> Doug
>
>

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Wasn't Morton part of Edward's council as well as a Bishop? He was doing just fine under the Yorkist rule, I would say. IF Edward or Richard made him a Cardinal, could he have been brought over to the white rose side?! I wonder........

Carol responds:

I'd say no. Unlike Lord Stanley, he doesn't seem to have been motivated by self-interest. He had supported the Lancastrian side at least as far back as Towton (1461) when Richard was just eight and a half and was still supporting it at Tewkesbury. Coming to terms with an enemy government doesn't mean that you support it. (Richard's nephew, the Earl of Lincoln, came to terms with Henry--but later escaped to Burgundy to join--or lead--the conspiracy against him. Even in modern politics, you can have a Republican working in the administration of a Democratic president, or vice versa, only to campaign against him in the next election.)

Morton must have had ties with the collateral branches of the Lancastrian "family," the Beauforts and the Tudors, all staunchly Lancastrian themselves, before the deaths of Edward of Lancaster and Henry VI, and he must have maintained them after Edward IV pardoned him and admitted him into his administration. (Why would Morton turn down the chance to learn the workings of Edward's government and, as far as possible, his mind? It was the perfect opportunity to know thine enemy and even to advise him. Was Morton's hand at work at Picquigny?) We need, if possible, to explore the MB/Morton connection and determine how far back it goes--also his connections with the male Beauforts, the last of whom died at Tewkesbury not counting an illegitmate son, and with Jasper Tudor and perhaps his brother Edmund before his capture and death in 1455-56.

At any rate, all sources indicate that Morton was an inveterate intriguer with, as Bacon says, longstanding malice against the House of York (which predates Richard's active participation in Yorkist affairs by many years). Rather than resembling the self-interested Stanley, who worked for (or ignored the wishes of) a particular king as it suited him, Morton was IMO his total opposite, working for or with a Yorkist king or protector only to undermine him. Edward IV's policies became harsher after Morton joined his council. Coincidence? I wonder.

His goal in his dealings with the Yorkists seems always to have been to create divisions and set the House of York and its allies against itself/each other. He worked with Louis XI to persuade Warwick, former supporter of Edward IV, to join forces with Margaret of Anjou, Edward's (and Warwick's) longtime enemy. He later seems to have encouraged divisions among Richard's council, such as Hastings vs. Budkingham, when Richard was protector. He (Morton) certainly encouraged Buckingham to rebel against Richard (for whatever reason). I suspect that he had similarly nurtured divisions among Edward's followers, such as Hastings and Dorset, when Edward was king--all out of animosity toward the House of York, particularly Edward, and the seemingly forlorn hope of restoring if not the House of Lancaster then a collateral branch that had been loyal to Henry VI and his French queen, Margaret of Anjou.

Thinking with my fingers again and just speculating.

Carol

That fits with what I read some years ago. That ever after Tewkebury MB thought of Henry as the Lancastrian heir. I thought it was in Charles Oman's" Warwick " but I have checked that and I can't find it. However, if that were true who better to help her than the arch schemer Morton. It would probably have been impossible for them to overthrow Edward, but when he died ( however he died, by natural causes or by poison) their chance came. They may well have not contemplated the fact that Richard would be asked to take the throne. Their aim being to overthrow an underage King whose maternal family were not popular. However, they probably were planning to get rid of anyone who stood in their way i.e. anyone who had a better claim to the throne than Henry.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Wasn't Morton part of Edward's council as well as a Bishop? He was doing just fine under the Yorkist rule, I would say. IF Edward or Richard made him a Cardinal, could he have been brought over to the white rose side?! I wonder........
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'd say no. Unlike Lord Stanley, he doesn't seem to have been motivated by self-interest. He had supported the Lancastrian side at least as far back as Towton (1461) when Richard was just eight and a half and was still supporting it at Tewkesbury. Coming to terms with an enemy government doesn't mean that you support it. (Richard's nephew, the Earl of Lincoln, came to terms with Henry--but later escaped to Burgundy to join--or lead--the conspiracy against him. Even in modern politics, you can have a Republican working in the administration of a Democratic president, or vice versa, only to campaign against him in the next election.)
>
> Morton must have had ties with the collateral branches of the Lancastrian "family," the Beauforts and the Tudors, all staunchly Lancastrian themselves, before the deaths of Edward of Lancaster and Henry VI, and he must have maintained them after Edward IV pardoned him and admitted him into his administration. (Why would Morton turn down the chance to learn the workings of Edward's government and, as far as possible, his mind? It was the perfect opportunity to know thine enemy and even to advise him. Was Morton's hand at work at Picquigny?) We need, if possible, to explore the MB/Morton connection and determine how far back it goes--also his connections with the male Beauforts, the last of whom died at Tewkesbury not counting an illegitmate son, and with Jasper Tudor and perhaps his brother Edmund before his capture and death in 1455-56.
>
> At any rate, all sources indicate that Morton was an inveterate intriguer with, as Bacon says, longstanding malice against the House of York (which predates Richard's active participation in Yorkist affairs by many years). Rather than resembling the self-interested Stanley, who worked for (or ignored the wishes of) a particular king as it suited him, Morton was IMO his total opposite, working for or with a Yorkist king or protector only to undermine him. Edward IV's policies became harsher after Morton joined his council. Coincidence? I wonder.
>
> His goal in his dealings with the Yorkists seems always to have been to create divisions and set the House of York and its allies against itself/each other. He worked with Louis XI to persuade Warwick, former supporter of Edward IV, to join forces with Margaret of Anjou, Edward's (and Warwick's) longtime enemy. He later seems to have encouraged divisions among Richard's council, such as Hastings vs. Budkingham, when Richard was protector. He (Morton) certainly encouraged Buckingham to rebel against Richard (for whatever reason). I suspect that he had similarly nurtured divisions among Edward's followers, such as Hastings and Dorset, when Edward was king--all out of animosity toward the House of York, particularly Edward, and the seemingly forlorn hope of restoring if not the House of Lancaster then a collateral branch that had been loyal to Henry VI and his French queen, Margaret of Anjou.
>
> Thinking with my fingers again and just speculating.
>
> Carol
>

"He worked with Louis XI to persuade Warwick, former supporter of Edward IV, to join forces with Margaret of Anjou, Edward's (and Warwick's) longtime enemy"

Morton was involved in that too? I did not know he had any dealing with Warwick. I always assumed t is the Spider King who brokered the deal between Warwick and MoA.....I do know he was in exile with the queen but did not know he had that much influence in those events.
If he indeed was a schemer at the Louis's court, I would be persuaded that he indeed worked with him to get Ed to agree with the treaty of Picquigny. He is pretty scary!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 8, 2013, at 2:33 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Wasn't Morton part of Edward's council as well as a Bishop? He was doing just fine under the Yorkist rule, I would say. IF Edward or Richard made him a Cardinal, could he have been brought over to the white rose side?! I wonder........
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'd say no. Unlike Lord Stanley, he doesn't seem to have been motivated by self-interest. He had supported the Lancastrian side at least as far back as Towton (1461) when Richard was just eight and a half and was still supporting it at Tewkesbury. Coming to terms with an enemy government doesn't mean that you support it. (Richard's nephew, the Earl of Lincoln, came to terms with Henry--but later escaped to Burgundy to join--or lead--the conspiracy against him. Even in modern politics, you can have a Republican working in the administration of a Democratic president, or vice versa, only to campaign against him in the next election.)
>
> Morton must have had ties with the collateral branches of the Lancastrian "family," the Beauforts and the Tudors, all staunchly Lancastrian themselves, before the deaths of Edward of Lancaster and Henry VI, and he must have maintained them after Edward IV pardoned him and admitted him into his administration. (Why would Morton turn down the chance to learn the workings of Edward's government and, as far as possible, his mind? It was the perfect opportunity to know thine enemy and even to advise him. Was Morton's hand at work at Picquigny?) We need, if possible, to explore the MB/Morton connection and determine how far back it goes--also his connections with the male Beauforts, the last of whom died at Tewkesbury not counting an illegitmate son, and with Jasper Tudor and perhaps his brother Edmund before his capture and death in 1455-56.
>
> At any rate, all sources indicate that Morton was an inveterate intriguer with, as Bacon says, longstanding malice against the House of York (which predates Richard's active participation in Yorkist affairs by many years). Rather than resembling the self-interested Stanley, who worked for (or ignored the wishes of) a particular king as it suited him, Morton was IMO his total opposite, working for or with a Yorkist king or protector only to undermine him. Edward IV's policies became harsher after Morton joined his council. Coincidence? I wonder.
>
> His goal in his dealings with the Yorkists seems always to have been to create divisions and set the House of York and its allies against itself/each other. He worked with Louis XI to persuade Warwick, former supporter of Edward IV, to join forces with Margaret of Anjou, Edward's (and Warwick's) longtime enemy. He later seems to have encouraged divisions among Richard's council, such as Hastings vs. Budkingham, when Richard was protector. He (Morton) certainly encouraged Buckingham to rebel against Richard (for whatever reason). I suspect that he had similarly nurtured divisions among Edward's followers, such as Hastings and Dorset, when Edward was king--all out of animosity toward the House of York, particularly Edward, and the seemingly forlorn hope of restoring if not the House of Lancaster then a collateral branch that had been loyal to Henry VI and his French queen, Margaret of Anjou.
>
> Thinking with my fingers again and just speculating.
>
> Carol
>
>

Morton was in exile with Margaret of Anjou and was with her and Jasper Tudor when they planned the return with Warwick (after Louis XI had brokered the reconciliation). After Tewkesbury Morton made his peace with Edward and rose rapidly because of his intellect. Yes we do need to explore the early MB Morton realtionship more, though he was exposed to Jasper Tudor for some time. All the key players (and some of the bit parts) need further examination. Quite a bit of it seems to go back to MB's Stafford marriage, which is where she came by Reggie Bray (who incidentally also has ties with Eleanor Butler). 



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 0:30
Subject: Re: H7


 

"He worked with Louis XI to persuade Warwick, former supporter of Edward IV, to join forces with Margaret of Anjou, Edward's (and Warwick's) longtime enemy"

Morton was involved in that too? I did not know he had any dealing with Warwick. I always assumed t is the Spider King who brokered the deal between Warwick and MoA.....I do know he was in exile with the queen but did not know he had that much influence in those events.
If he indeed was a schemer at the Louis's court, I would be persuaded that he indeed worked with him to get Ed to agree with the treaty of Picquigny. He is pretty scary!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 8, 2013, at 2:33 PM, "justcarol67" <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Wasn't Morton part of Edward's council as well as a Bishop? He was doing just fine under the Yorkist rule, I would say. IF Edward or Richard made him a Cardinal, could he have been brought over to the white rose side?! I wonder........
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'd say no. Unlike Lord Stanley, he doesn't seem to have been motivated by self-interest. He had supported the Lancastrian side at least as far back as Towton (1461) when Richard was just eight and a half and was still supporting it at Tewkesbury. Coming to terms with an enemy government doesn't mean that you support it. (Richard's nephew, the Earl of Lincoln, came to terms with Henry--but later escaped to Burgundy to join--or lead--the conspiracy against him. Even in modern politics, you can have a Republican working in the administration of a Democratic president, or vice versa, only to campaign against him in the next election.)
>
> Morton must have had ties with the collateral branches of the Lancastrian "family," the Beauforts and the Tudors, all staunchly Lancastrian themselves, before the deaths of Edward of Lancaster and Henry VI, and he must have maintained them after Edward IV pardoned him and admitted him into his administration. (Why would Morton turn down the chance to learn the workings of Edward's government and, as far as possible, his mind? It was the perfect opportunity to know thine enemy and even to advise him. Was Morton's hand at work at Picquigny?) We need, if possible, to explore the MB/Morton connection and determine how far back it goes--also his connections with the male Beauforts, the last of whom died at Tewkesbury not counting an illegitmate son, and with Jasper Tudor and perhaps his brother Edmund before his capture and death in 1455-56.
>
> At any rate, all sources indicate that Morton was an inveterate intriguer with, as Bacon says, longstanding malice against the House of York (which predates Richard's active participation in Yorkist affairs by many years). Rather than resembling the self-interested Stanley, who worked for (or ignored the wishes of) a particular king as it suited him, Morton was IMO his total opposite, working for or with a Yorkist king or protector only to undermine him. Edward IV's policies became harsher after Morton joined his council. Coincidence? I wonder.
>
> His goal in his dealings with the Yorkists seems always to have been to create divisions and set the House of York and its allies against itself/each other. He worked with Louis XI to persuade Warwick, former supporter of Edward IV, to join forces with Margaret of Anjou, Edward's (and Warwick's) longtime enemy. He later seems to have encouraged divisions among Richard's council, such as Hastings vs. Budkingham, when Richard was protector. He (Morton) certainly encouraged Buckingham to rebel against Richard (for whatever reason). I suspect that he had similarly nurtured divisions among Edward's followers, such as Hastings and Dorset, when Edward was king--all out of animosity toward the House of York, particularly Edward, and the seemingly forlorn hope of restoring if not the House of Lancaster then a collateral branch that had been loyal to Henry VI and his French queen, Margaret of Anjou.
>
> Thinking with my fingers again and just speculating.
>
> Carol
>
>