Re: Disappearance

Carol wrote:

"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."

Doug here:
I think you're quite right that the rumors had nothing to do with Richard's,
eventually, hiding of his nephews' whereabouts. I'm still trying to decide
whether the rumors represented someone's intentions, however.
How about this for a timeline and, very rough, guesses (Ok, ok, wild
speculations!)at some reasons behind what we *do* know about the boys'
disappearance:
1. June to September 1483 - the two boys are in the Tower, basically as
residents. A watch is kept over them when they leave their apartments, but
not much else. This is also the period when EW is involved in efforts to
gather support to return E(V) to the throne, gets involved with MB and
possibly agrees to let her daughter marry HT in return for his, and his
mother's, support in that effort.
2. When an attempt is made to grab the boys, they're immediately placed in a
sort of "lockdown", and confined to their apartments. That confimement is
noticed by the person(s) working for Buck/MB/Morton and word is sent to -
someone. The only thing I can deduce about any possible informant is that
he/she probably *wasn't* a resident of the Tower, wasn't well-acquainted
with anyone who lived in the Tower community or didn't know them well enough
to mention the boys' disappearance without themselves being taken note of,
*but* still was someone with access to, at least, the "public" areas. Was
any work being done on the Tower at that time? Could the possible informant
have been a day-laborer? Oh, well...
3. At any rate, the boys' "disappearance", although only for a short time as
we have records of the boys *still* being seen in the Tower until Easter
1484, is then used to "confirm" a rumor targetted, as you pointed out, at
dissident Yorkists. Whether or not said rumor was just someone (Morton?)
taking advantage of circumstances or reflected what someone (guess who?) had
planned to have happened is something I still can't determine (I know, what
a shock!).
4. After the rebellion was put down, the boys were still under tighter guard
(that's the being seen "less and less" part), but remained in the Tower
until just before or after their mother and sisters left sanctuary in
Westminster. I agree with you that, even before the rebellion, Richard had
planned to move the boys elsewhere but may have delayed moving them while EW
remained in sanctuary. If I remember correctly, EW left sanctuary *before*
Easter of 1484, and it was after Easter that, I believe, the boys joined
their mother and sisters at Gipping Hall (that's their "disappearance").
5. Then, sometime during the late summer, or early autumn at the latest,
Edward is sent to a secure manor in the English countryside and Richard
overseas. Because of the weather conditions that can develop, I can't see
Richard being sent overseas any later than earlier autumn, as it would too
dangerous.
6. Thus, I believe, EW *knew* her sons were alive, at least until Bosworth,
although she most likely never knew *exactly* where the boys were. Whether
that was because Richard didn't trust her to not get involved with *another*
attempt to reinstate E(V) or whether it was because he, and quite possibly
she, felt the fewer people who knew, the safer the boys were, I can't say.
It may very well have been a bit of both
Anyway, all the above is just my interpretation, and speculation, but maybe
someone can get *something* from it. As this conversation has moved away
from the original subject, I retitled it, hope noone minds.
Doug

I've just read Bertram Fields book & am about 2/3 of the way through
Annette Carson's book. One or the other discusses the probability that
both boys were still alive in September 1483, but whichever one it was, as
far as I recall, is not willing to commit beyond September that there's
firm evidence that the boys were still alive. What have I missed that
supports a date as late as Easter 1484 for their still being seen in the
Tower precinct?

A J


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <
destama@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Carol wrote:
>
> "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."
>
> Doug here:
> I think you're quite right that the rumors had nothing to do with
> Richard's,
> eventually, hiding of his nephews' whereabouts. I'm still trying to decide
> whether the rumors represented someone's intentions, however.
> How about this for a timeline and, very rough, guesses (Ok, ok, wild
> speculations!)at some reasons behind what we *do* know about the boys'
> disappearance:
> 1. June to September 1483 - the two boys are in the Tower, basically as
> residents. A watch is kept over them when they leave their apartments, but
> not much else. This is also the period when EW is involved in efforts to
> gather support to return E(V) to the throne, gets involved with MB and
> possibly agrees to let her daughter marry HT in return for his, and his
> mother's, support in that effort.
> 2. When an attempt is made to grab the boys, they're immediately placed in
> a
> sort of "lockdown", and confined to their apartments. That confimement is
> noticed by the person(s) working for Buck/MB/Morton and word is sent to -
> someone. The only thing I can deduce about any possible informant is that
> he/she probably *wasn't* a resident of the Tower, wasn't well-acquainted
> with anyone who lived in the Tower community or didn't know them well
> enough
> to mention the boys' disappearance without themselves being taken note of,
> *but* still was someone with access to, at least, the "public" areas. Was
> any work being done on the Tower at that time? Could the possible
> informant
> have been a day-laborer? Oh, well...
> 3. At any rate, the boys' "disappearance", although only for a short time
> as
> we have records of the boys *still* being seen in the Tower until Easter
> 1484, is then used to "confirm" a rumor targetted, as you pointed out, at
> dissident Yorkists. Whether or not said rumor was just someone (Morton?)
> taking advantage of circumstances or reflected what someone (guess who?)
> had
> planned to have happened is something I still can't determine (I know,
> what
> a shock!).
> 4. After the rebellion was put down, the boys were still under tighter
> guard
> (that's the being seen "less and less" part), but remained in the Tower
> until just before or after their mother and sisters left sanctuary in
> Westminster. I agree with you that, even before the rebellion, Richard had
> planned to move the boys elsewhere but may have delayed moving them while
> EW
> remained in sanctuary. If I remember correctly, EW left sanctuary *before*
> Easter of 1484, and it was after Easter that, I believe, the boys joined
> their mother and sisters at Gipping Hall (that's their "disappearance").
> 5. Then, sometime during the late summer, or early autumn at the latest,
> Edward is sent to a secure manor in the English countryside and Richard
> overseas. Because of the weather conditions that can develop, I can't see
> Richard being sent overseas any later than earlier autumn, as it would too
> dangerous.
> 6. Thus, I believe, EW *knew* her sons were alive, at least until
> Bosworth,
> although she most likely never knew *exactly* where the boys were. Whether
> that was because Richard didn't trust her to not get involved with
> *another*
> attempt to reinstate E(V) or whether it was because he, and quite possibly
> she, felt the fewer people who knew, the safer the boys were, I can't say.
> It may very well have been a bit of both
> Anyway, all the above is just my interpretation, and speculation, but
> maybe
> someone can get *something* from it. As this conversation has moved away
> from the original subject, I retitled it, hope noone minds.
> Doug
>
>
>

A J Hibbard wrote

"I've just read Bertram Fields book & am about 2/3 of the way through
Annette Carson's book. One or the other discusses the probability that both
boys were still alive in September 1483, but whichever one it was, as far as
I recall, is not willing to commit beyond September that there's firm
evidence that the boys were still alive. What have I missed that supports a
date as late as Easter 1484 for their still being seen in the Tower
precinct?"

Doug here:
It's in Williamson's "The Mystery of the Princes", almost the very end of
Chapter 4.
She wrote:
"The Great Chronicle of London (written sometime before 1496), for instance,
states: 'But afftyr Estyrn much whyspering was among the people yt the King
hadd putt the childyr of King Edward to deth.'"
She then goes on to explain her reasons, which I support for believing the
"Estyrn" referred to was in 1484 and not 1483.
Doug

I just read that (somewhere), too, and as I recollect it was because in
Easter 1483 the plans were still going ahead for Edward V's coronation, and
as I recall there are witnesses who saw them later in the Summer of that
year as well.



Loyaulte,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Douglas Eugene
Stamate
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 2:24 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance






A J Hibbard wrote

"I've just read Bertram Fields book & am about 2/3 of the way through
Annette Carson's book. One or the other discusses the probability that both
boys were still alive in September 1483, but whichever one it was, as far as

I recall, is not willing to commit beyond September that there's firm
evidence that the boys were still alive. What have I missed that supports a
date as late as Easter 1484 for their still being seen in the Tower
precinct?"

Doug here:
It's in Williamson's "The Mystery of the Princes", almost the very end of
Chapter 4.
She wrote:
"The Great Chronicle of London (written sometime before 1496), for instance,

states: 'But afftyr Estyrn much whyspering was among the people yt the King
hadd putt the childyr of King Edward to deth.'"
She then goes on to explain her reasons, which I support for believing the
"Estyrn" referred to was in 1484 and not 1483.
Doug

Okay, thanks - one more item to add to my chase-down list.

A J


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I just read that (somewhere), too, and as I recollect it was because in
> Easter 1483 the plans were still going ahead for Edward V's coronation, and
> as I recall there are witnesses who saw them later in the Summer of that
> year as well.
>
> Loyaulte,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Douglas
> Eugene
> Stamate
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 2:24 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote
>
> "I've just read Bertram Fields book & am about 2/3 of the way through
> Annette Carson's book. One or the other discusses the probability that
> both
> boys were still alive in September 1483, but whichever one it was, as far
> as
>
> I recall, is not willing to commit beyond September that there's firm
> evidence that the boys were still alive. What have I missed that supports
> a
> date as late as Easter 1484 for their still being seen in the Tower
> precinct?"
>
> Doug here:
> It's in Williamson's "The Mystery of the Princes", almost the very end of
> Chapter 4.
> She wrote:
> "The Great Chronicle of London (written sometime before 1496), for
> instance,
>
> states: 'But afftyr Estyrn much whyspering was among the people yt the
> King
> hadd putt the childyr of King Edward to deth.'"
> She then goes on to explain her reasons, which I support for believing the
> "Estyrn" referred to was in 1484 and not 1483.
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>

I'm wondering if EW knew exactly where her sons were until after Bosworth. I'm wondering if, at that point, all her sources for information on them dried up of a necessity (if the guardians weren't killed outright at Bosworth). Because once the Tydder took over it would have been too risky to even attempt getting word to EW about either son.

Did EW participate in any way in the Simnel rebellion? When, exactly, was it that the Tydder shoved her into a nunnery for being too friendly-like with Richard, and was Henry dealing with anything to do with the endless pretenders and rebellions at that time?

I ran across someone who stated flat out that EW did participate in the Simnel rebellion, but I'd never heard that before, and you'd think Henry would have nunnified her specifically for that if she'd done it.

Then again, to admit in writing that the mother-in-law was fighting to put her son on the throne would have drawn attention to Tudor's lack of legitimate right to be there, that a true York prince was running about, and gee, Uncle Richard *had* still been acting as their Protector after he was crowned, and...oh, we can't have that.

Anyway, is there any record of EW supporting the rebellions against Henry?

~Weds

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:

<snipped for brevity: it's times like this I wish the forum had a regular discussion board with specific divisions and threads, like www.fountainpennetwork.com>
.
.
.
> 6. Thus, I believe, EW *knew* her sons were alive, at least until Bosworth, although she most likely never knew *exactly* where the boys were. Whether that was because Richard didn't trust her to not get involved with *another* attempt to reinstate E(V) or whether it was because he, and quite possibly she, felt the fewer people who knew, the safer the boys were, I can't say. It may very well have been a bit of both.

Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> I just read that (somewhere), too, and as I recollect it was because in> Easter 1483 the plans were still going ahead for Edward V's coronation, and
> as I recall there are witnesses who saw them later in the Summer of that
> year as well.

Carol responds:

Actually, the plans for E5's coronation weren't even afoot yet. Traditionalists to the contrary, the Great Chronicle passage *has* to refer to Easter 1484 (April 18) since Easter 1483 was March 30, at which time Edward IV was still alive, his elder son was still in Ludlow, and his younger son was with both parents at whichever palace they were then living in.

Carol

Hi, Carol -

I only repeated what I recalled reading (one of those cases where I can't
remember where I read it, which happens so often these days. That said, I'm
fairly sure that what I reported was fairly close to what the source said. I
wonder if it was Hancock's book . . .



TTFN J



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 12:30 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Disappearance







Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> I just read that (somewhere), too, and as I recollect it was because in>
Easter 1483 the plans were still going ahead for Edward V's coronation, and
> as I recall there are witnesses who saw them later in the Summer of that
> year as well.

Carol responds:

Actually, the plans for E5's coronation weren't even afoot yet.
Traditionalists to the contrary, the Great Chronicle passage *has* to refer
to Easter 1484 (April 18) since Easter 1483 was March 30, at which time
Edward IV was still alive, his elder son was still in Ludlow, and his
younger son was with both parents at whichever palace they were then living
in.

Carol

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
> I only repeated what I recalled reading (one of those cases where I can't
> remember where I read it, which happens so often these days. That said, I'm
> fairly sure that what I reported was fairly close to what the source said. I
> wonder if it was Hancock's book . . .

Carol responds:

I think it was actually my post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/35451

At the time I wrote it, I hadn't looked up the date for Easter 1483, but the April 18 date for Easter 1484 was fresh in my head. Since Edward died April 9, I was thinking that the preparations for E 5's crowning would be going on at Easter. In fact, as I indicated in the other post, they could not have begun yet since E 4 was still alive. My point was that the traditionalist historians usually dismiss the idea that the Great Chronicle refers to Easter 1484, yet given the early date of Easter in 1483 (March 30), the reference *has* to be to Easter 1484. (Another thought I had that I didn't express in the earlier post was that one reason why the boys might not have been seen much if at all during the winter (setting aside keeping them out of sight to deter attempts to rescue them) might have been the English winters, perhaps especially bitter then since it was still the Little Ice Age.)

At any rate, I was arguing with the traditionalist chroniclers (and silently correcting my own earlier post), not disagreeing with you.

Carol

If that is the case, it gives new meaning to the phrase, "What goes around,
comes around," doesn't it, Carol?? Well, if that's the case, it would also
explain why I haven't been able to find it in one of the books I've been
reading. I'll take a quick look and see if I find anything elsewhere. If
not, I'll just fo-get about it! J



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 3:44 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Disappearance







--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
> I only repeated what I recalled reading (one of those cases where I can't
> remember where I read it, which happens so often these days. That said,
I'm
> fairly sure that what I reported was fairly close to what the source said.
I
> wonder if it was Hancock's book . . .

Carol responds:

I think it was actually my post:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/35451

At the time I wrote it, I hadn't looked up the date for Easter 1483, but the
April 18 date for Easter 1484 was fresh in my head. Since Edward died April
9, I was thinking that the preparations for E 5's crowning would be going on
at Easter. In fact, as I indicated in the other post, they could not have
begun yet since E 4 was still alive. My point was that the traditionalist
historians usually dismiss the idea that the Great Chronicle refers to
Easter 1484, yet given the early date of Easter in 1483 (March 30), the
reference *has* to be to Easter 1484. (Another thought I had that I didn't
express in the earlier post was that one reason why the boys might not have
been seen much if at all during the winter (setting aside keeping them out
of sight to deter attempts to rescue them) might have been the English
winters, perhaps especially bitter then since it was still the Little Ice
Age.)

At any rate, I was arguing with the traditionalist chroniclers (and silently
correcting my own earlier post), not disagreeing with you.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Disappearance


> (Another thought I had that I didn't express in the earlier post was that
> one reason why the boys might not have been seen much if at all during the
> winter (setting aside keeping them out of sight to deter attempts to
> rescue them) might have been the English winters, perhaps especially
> bitter then since it was still the Little Ice Age.)

Having worked in an office on the Isle of Dogs I can certainly say that
proximity to the Thames makes any extremes of weather especially unpleasant,
because the damp makes hot weather muggy and clinging, and cold weather
bitter and penetrating. The Tower is of course right on the water, and that
close to the river, it wouldn't need to be very cold in absolute terms to be
unpleasant enough for them to prefer to stay indoors by the fire playing
chess.

Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> If that is the case, it gives new meaning to the phrase, "What goes around, comes around," doesn't it, Carol?? Well, if that's the case, it would also explain why I haven't been able to find it in one of the books I've been reading. I'll take a quick look and see if I find anything elsewhere. If not, I'll just fo-get about it! J

Carol responds:

Hi, Johanne. I wonder if you're inadvertently mixing up two different references in the Great Chronicle, one to the boys shooting and playing in the Tower (which must have occurred sometime between June 16, 1483, when young Richard was released from sanctuary, and October 31, 1483, the end of the "mayor's year" referred to in the chronicle) and the "whispering" that the boys were dead, which occurred in around Easter of 1484 according to the same chronicle. As I said earlier, it can't refer to Easter 1483 since Edward IV was still alive at that time. (Kendall speculates that the whispering arose at that time because that's when Edward of Middleham died and his death might have seemed like divine retribution to the medieval mind. But why, if the boys had not been see since September 1483--when, according to the Croyland Chronicler, they were still in the Tower--the rumors did not arise earlier (aside from the rumors planted to divert B's rebellion) is not clear.

At any rate, despite the late date of the (London) rumor, traditionalist historians struggle to make these two statements fit the "fact" that the princes (or at least the older one) had disappeared from view by the time Mancini left London in June 1483. Alison Weir, for example, says that the reference to the boys shooting and playing "must relate to the period immediately after 16th June and before the second week in July *when Mancini says the boys had ceased to appear at the windows altogether*." Mancini, however, doesn't specify a time and may not have heard the tearful men expressing fears that Edward was dead until after he returned to the continent.

Even Weir dates the rumor mentioned in the Great Chronicle to 1484, but unlike Kendall, she doesn't try to figure out why there would be such a big gap between the supposed disappearance in July and the rumor the following April. (According to her, Tyrell killed the boys on Richard's orders in early September and *Richard* spread the rumor of their deaths in October, but why it would take six months for those rumors to reach London when the boys had been missing all that time she doesn't attempt to explain.)

Anyway, we have the attempted "rescue" in late July, by which time Mancini was already on the continent, Tyrell in London in late August, a reference to the boys as still in the Tower on September 8 (the day of Prince Edward's investiture) by the Croyland chronicler, the shooting and playing reference (which could date to any time between June 16 and October 31), the rumor spread before Buckingham's rebellion in November, the rumor in France at about the same time, and the rumor in London in April 1484, which seems to coincide with Edward of Middleham's death. The next rumors we hear, about a year later, of have nothing to do with the "Princes" and relate to EoY.

Anyway, all sources, even Weir, agree that the "after Easter" whispering dates to 1484. The problem is how to fit that rumor with the "shooting and playing" and the apparent disappearance.

On a side note, some sources purport to give a specific date for "Edward V's" death. For example,

July 29, 1483 http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_V_of_England

September 3, 1483 (Weir)

(possibly) July 6, 1483
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Edward_V_of_England.html

July 6, 1483 (no indication of uncertainty)
http://www.geni.com/people/Edward-V-of-England/6000000001544606896

I'm sure there are other examples, including some stating that the deaths of both "princes" predate Richard's accession or coronation. How good it must feel to be so well informed while the rest of us flounder in uncertainty. {Note sarcasm.)

None of these purported death (or disappearance) dates fits at all well with rumors surfacing around April 1484 or with Croyland's remark that the boys were in the Tower (alive, of course) on September 8 (after Tyrell had returned to York). Where Buckingham was is unclear.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: Disappearance


> Anyway, all sources, even Weir, agree that the "after Easter" whispering
> dates to 1484. The problem is how to fit that rumor with the "shooting and
> playing" and the apparent disappearance.

If all the statements about when they were seen and when the rumours started
are true, it sounds to me like they were moved out of London in summer 1483
and everybody assumed they'd just been taken somewhere more congenial to get
away from the muggy heat, and it was only after they didn't appear the
following spring that anybody started to wonder.

When did Edward's daughters start appearing at court? If they appeared at
sevices or celebrations that Easter maybe people wondered why their brothers
weren't with them.

Something occurred to me this morning which I'd never thought of before,
which is that perhaps Richard couldn't produce the boys for the same reason
Henry couldn't declare them dead, i.e. because he didn't actually know where
they were - and that this might have been because they had absconded under
their own steam, possibly from Gipping Hall.

You might thing that sounds far-fetched - but 163 years later the
14-year-old future James II/VII did just that. He got the people who were
meant to be guarding him to play hide-and-seek with him until they got used
to not seeing him for a couple of hours at a time, and then one day he just
put on girl's clothes and walked out, leaving them cheerfully looking for
him in cupboards.

The two ex-princes would probably have heard the story of Aunt Anne and the
Cook-Shop, after all - and they must have had plenty of jewelled brooches
and fancy books and boots that were theirs and which they could take with
them and sell in exchange for passage to wherever they wanted to go.

An intriguing possibility, Claire. But where might they have gone? To whom? If they'd taken themselves to Burgundy, surely Richard would have been told? I can't imagine two princes would be content to live obscure lives, as apprentices or whatever. And which noble might be prepared to take them in and keep them hidden? A Woodville? Thank you for such a decent puzzler, it will keep my grey cells busy for a while. And, I'm sure, a lot of other Forum brains as well.

From: Claire M Jordan
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 11:54 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance


Something occurred to me this morning which I'd never thought of before,
which is that perhaps Richard couldn't produce the boys for the same reason
Henry couldn't declare them dead, i.e. because he didn't actually know where
they were - and that this might have been because they had absconded under
their own steam, possibly from Gipping Hall.

You might thing that sounds far-fetched - but 163 years later the
14-year-old future James II/VII did just that. He got the people who were
meant to be guarding him to play hide-and-seek with him until they got used
to not seeing him for a couple of hours at a time, and then one day he just
put on girl's clothes and walked out, leaving them cheerfully looking for
him in cupboards.

The two ex-princes would probably have heard the story of Aunt Anne and the
Cook-Shop, after all - and they must have had plenty of jewelled brooches
and fancy books and boots that were theirs and which they could take with
them and sell in exchange for passage to wherever they wanted to go.

Hi, Carol -

No, you are imparting a far more sophisticated (though mistaken) level of
reasoning to me than was in my mind when I wrote earlier. I was simply
indicating that I recall reading recently - and I don't believe it was your
email - a discussion, I think in one of the books on my kindle - of whether
the rumour of the boys being missing, which was said to have circulated
around "Easter (last?)" referred to Easter of 1483 or 1484. The conclusion
the author reached, for the reason that I stated, was that it applied to
Easter 1484.



I know (or at least keep separate in my mind) that the anecdote about the
boys being seen playing at butts in the Tower yard refers to the period
roughly during the Summer of 1483, and I was not referring to that episode.



However, I have skimmed back through Hancock's book, *RIII and the Murder in
the Tower* and I haven't come across the discussion, up to this point. I
will follow this up if I succeed in finding the reference, but other than
that, I am quite prepared to defer to your greater degree of research on the
matter, that Edward IV actually died shortly after Easter, which I did not
realize.



Thass all for now. <smiley>



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Disappearance






Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> If that is the case, it gives new meaning to the phrase, "What goes
around, comes around," doesn't it, Carol?? Well, if that's the case, it
would also explain why I haven't been able to find it in one of the books
I've been reading. I'll take a quick look and see if I find anything
elsewhere. If not, I'll just fo-get about it! J

Carol responds:

Hi, Johanne. I wonder if you're inadvertently mixing up two different
references in the Great Chronicle, one to the boys shooting and playing in
the Tower (which must have occurred sometime between June 16, 1483, when
young Richard was released from sanctuary, and October 31, 1483, the end of
the "mayor's year" referred to in the chronicle) and the "whispering" that
the boys were dead, which occurred in around Easter of 1484 according to the
same chronicle. As I said earlier, it can't refer to Easter 1483 since
Edward IV was still alive at that time. (Kendall speculates that the
whispering arose at that time because that's when Edward of Middleham died
and his death might have seemed like divine retribution to the medieval
mind. But why, if the boys had not been see since September 1483--when,
according to the Croyland Chronicler, they were still in the Tower--the
rumors did not arise earlier (aside from the rumors planted to divert B's
rebellion) is not clear.

At any rate, despite the late date of the (London) rumor, traditionalist
historians struggle to make these two statements fit the "fact" that the
princes (or at least the older one) had disappeared from view by the time
Mancini left London in June 1483. Alison Weir, for example, says that the
reference to the boys shooting and playing "must relate to the period
immediately after 16th June and before the second week in July *when Mancini
says the boys had ceased to appear at the windows altogether*." Mancini,
however, doesn't specify a time and may not have heard the tearful men
expressing fears that Edward was dead until after he returned to the
continent.

Even Weir dates the rumor mentioned in the Great Chronicle to 1484, but
unlike Kendall, she doesn't try to figure out why there would be such a big
gap between the supposed disappearance in July and the rumor the following
April. (According to her, Tyrell killed the boys on Richard's orders in
early September and *Richard* spread the rumor of their deaths in October,
but why it would take six months for those rumors to reach London when the
boys had been missing all that time she doesn't attempt to explain.)

Anyway, we have the attempted "rescue" in late July, by which time Mancini
was already on the continent, Tyrell in London in late August, a reference
to the boys as still in the Tower on September 8 (the day of Prince Edward's
investiture) by the Croyland chronicler, the shooting and playing reference
(which could date to any time between June 16 and October 31), the rumor
spread before Buckingham's rebellion in November, the rumor in France at
about the same time, and the rumor in London in April 1484, which seems to
coincide with Edward of Middleham's death. The next rumors we hear, about a
year later, of have nothing to do with the "Princes" and relate to EoY.

Anyway, all sources, even Weir, agree that the "after Easter" whispering
dates to 1484. The problem is how to fit that rumor with the "shooting and
playing" and the apparent disappearance.

On a side note, some sources purport to give a specific date for "Edward
V's" death. For example,

July 29, 1483 http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_V_of_England

September 3, 1483 (Weir)

(possibly) July 6, 1483
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Edward_V_of_England.htm
l

July 6, 1483 (no indication of uncertainty)
http://www.geni.com/people/Edward-V-of-England/6000000001544606896

I'm sure there are other examples, including some stating that the deaths of
both "princes" predate Richard's accession or coronation. How good it must
feel to be so well informed while the rest of us flounder in uncertainty.
{Note sarcasm.)

None of these purported death (or disappearance) dates fits at all well with
rumors surfacing around April 1484 or with Croyland's remark that the boys
were in the Tower (alive, of course) on September 8 (after Tyrell had
returned to York). Where Buckingham was is unclear.

Carol

Looking on-line for when was Easter in 1483, I came across this website.

http://edwardv1483.com/index.php?p=1_15_The-Fate-of-the-Princes

From glancing at a few pages, it appears to be exactly what it claims to be
"a traditionalist view." It does quote lots of sources, however, & agrees
that Easter 1483 was March 30.

Didn't look fully for the proprietor, but it wasn't stated up front.

A J


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
> No, you are imparting a far more sophisticated (though mistaken) level of
> reasoning to me than was in my mind when I wrote earlier. I was simply
> indicating that I recall reading recently - and I don't believe it was your
> email - a discussion, I think in one of the books on my kindle - of whether
> the rumour of the boys being missing, which was said to have circulated
> around "Easter (last?)" referred to Easter of 1483 or 1484. The conclusion
> the author reached, for the reason that I stated, was that it applied to
> Easter 1484.
>
> I know (or at least keep separate in my mind) that the anecdote about the
> boys being seen playing at butts in the Tower yard refers to the period
> roughly during the Summer of 1483, and I was not referring to that
> episode.
>
> However, I have skimmed back through Hancock's book, *RIII and the Murder
> in
> the Tower* and I haven't come across the discussion, up to this point. I
> will follow this up if I succeed in finding the reference, but other than
> that, I am quite prepared to defer to your greater degree of research on
> the
> matter, that Edward IV actually died shortly after Easter, which I did not
> realize.
>
> Thass all for now. <smiley>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:21 PM
>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Disappearance
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > If that is the case, it gives new meaning to the phrase, "What goes
> around, comes around," doesn't it, Carol?? Well, if that's the case, it
> would also explain why I haven't been able to find it in one of the books
> I've been reading. I'll take a quick look and see if I find anything
> elsewhere. If not, I'll just fo-get about it! J
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Johanne. I wonder if you're inadvertently mixing up two different
> references in the Great Chronicle, one to the boys shooting and playing in
> the Tower (which must have occurred sometime between June 16, 1483, when
> young Richard was released from sanctuary, and October 31, 1483, the end of
> the "mayor's year" referred to in the chronicle) and the "whispering" that
> the boys were dead, which occurred in around Easter of 1484 according to
> the
> same chronicle. As I said earlier, it can't refer to Easter 1483 since
> Edward IV was still alive at that time. (Kendall speculates that the
> whispering arose at that time because that's when Edward of Middleham died
> and his death might have seemed like divine retribution to the medieval
> mind. But why, if the boys had not been see since September 1483--when,
> according to the Croyland Chronicler, they were still in the Tower--the
> rumors did not arise earlier (aside from the rumors planted to divert B's
> rebellion) is not clear.
>
> At any rate, despite the late date of the (London) rumor, traditionalist
> historians struggle to make these two statements fit the "fact" that the
> princes (or at least the older one) had disappeared from view by the time
> Mancini left London in June 1483. Alison Weir, for example, says that the
> reference to the boys shooting and playing "must relate to the period
> immediately after 16th June and before the second week in July *when
> Mancini
> says the boys had ceased to appear at the windows altogether*." Mancini,
> however, doesn't specify a time and may not have heard the tearful men
> expressing fears that Edward was dead until after he returned to the
> continent.
>
> Even Weir dates the rumor mentioned in the Great Chronicle to 1484, but
> unlike Kendall, she doesn't try to figure out why there would be such a big
> gap between the supposed disappearance in July and the rumor the following
> April. (According to her, Tyrell killed the boys on Richard's orders in
> early September and *Richard* spread the rumor of their deaths in October,
> but why it would take six months for those rumors to reach London when the
> boys had been missing all that time she doesn't attempt to explain.)
>
> Anyway, we have the attempted "rescue" in late July, by which time Mancini
> was already on the continent, Tyrell in London in late August, a reference
> to the boys as still in the Tower on September 8 (the day of Prince
> Edward's
> investiture) by the Croyland chronicler, the shooting and playing reference
> (which could date to any time between June 16 and October 31), the rumor
> spread before Buckingham's rebellion in November, the rumor in France at
> about the same time, and the rumor in London in April 1484, which seems to
> coincide with Edward of Middleham's death. The next rumors we hear, about a
> year later, of have nothing to do with the "Princes" and relate to EoY.
>
> Anyway, all sources, even Weir, agree that the "after Easter" whispering
> dates to 1484. The problem is how to fit that rumor with the "shooting and
> playing" and the apparent disappearance.
>
> On a side note, some sources purport to give a specific date for "Edward
> V's" death. For example,
>
> July 29, 1483 http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_V_of_England
>
> September 3, 1483 (Weir)
>
> (possibly) July 6, 1483
>
> http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Edward_V_of_England.htm
> l
>
> July 6, 1483 (no indication of uncertainty)
> http://www.geni.com/people/Edward-V-of-England/6000000001544606896
>
> I'm sure there are other examples, including some stating that the deaths
> of
> both "princes" predate Richard's accession or coronation. How good it must
> feel to be so well informed while the rest of us flounder in uncertainty.
> {Note sarcasm.)
>
> None of these purported death (or disappearance) dates fits at all well
> with
> rumors surfacing around April 1484 or with Croyland's remark that the boys
> were in the Tower (alive, of course) on September 8 (after Tyrell had
> returned to York). Where Buckingham was is unclear.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>

I trust M/s Weir cited some evidence that James Tyrrell killed the Princes in early September 1483?

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > If that is the case, it gives new meaning to the phrase, "What goes around, comes around," doesn't it, Carol?? Well, if that's the case, it would also explain why I haven't been able to find it in one of the books I've been reading. I'll take a quick look and see if I find anything elsewhere. If not, I'll just fo-get about it! J
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Johanne. I wonder if you're inadvertently mixing up two different references in the Great Chronicle, one to the boys shooting and playing in the Tower (which must have occurred sometime between June 16, 1483, when young Richard was released from sanctuary, and October 31, 1483, the end of the "mayor's year" referred to in the chronicle) and the "whispering" that the boys were dead, which occurred in around Easter of 1484 according to the same chronicle. As I said earlier, it can't refer to Easter 1483 since Edward IV was still alive at that time. (Kendall speculates that the whispering arose at that time because that's when Edward of Middleham died and his death might have seemed like divine retribution to the medieval mind. But why, if the boys had not been see since September 1483--when, according to the Croyland Chronicler, they were still in the Tower--the rumors did not arise earlier (aside from the rumors planted to divert B's rebellion) is not clear.
>
> At any rate, despite the late date of the (London) rumor, traditionalist historians struggle to make these two statements fit the "fact" that the princes (or at least the older one) had disappeared from view by the time Mancini left London in June 1483. Alison Weir, for example, says that the reference to the boys shooting and playing "must relate to the period immediately after 16th June and before the second week in July *when Mancini says the boys had ceased to appear at the windows altogether*." Mancini, however, doesn't specify a time and may not have heard the tearful men expressing fears that Edward was dead until after he returned to the continent.
>
> Even Weir dates the rumor mentioned in the Great Chronicle to 1484, but unlike Kendall, she doesn't try to figure out why there would be such a big gap between the supposed disappearance in July and the rumor the following April. (According to her, Tyrell killed the boys on Richard's orders in early September and *Richard* spread the rumor of their deaths in October, but why it would take six months for those rumors to reach London when the boys had been missing all that time she doesn't attempt to explain.)
>
> Anyway, we have the attempted "rescue" in late July, by which time Mancini was already on the continent, Tyrell in London in late August, a reference to the boys as still in the Tower on September 8 (the day of Prince Edward's investiture) by the Croyland chronicler, the shooting and playing reference (which could date to any time between June 16 and October 31), the rumor spread before Buckingham's rebellion in November, the rumor in France at about the same time, and the rumor in London in April 1484, which seems to coincide with Edward of Middleham's death. The next rumors we hear, about a year later, of have nothing to do with the "Princes" and relate to EoY.
>
> Anyway, all sources, even Weir, agree that the "after Easter" whispering dates to 1484. The problem is how to fit that rumor with the "shooting and playing" and the apparent disappearance.
>
> On a side note, some sources purport to give a specific date for "Edward V's" death. For example,
>
> July 29, 1483 http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_V_of_England
>
> September 3, 1483 (Weir)
>
> (possibly) July 6, 1483
> http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Edward_V_of_England.html
>
> July 6, 1483 (no indication of uncertainty)
> http://www.geni.com/people/Edward-V-of-England/6000000001544606896
>
> I'm sure there are other examples, including some stating that the deaths of both "princes" predate Richard's accession or coronation. How good it must feel to be so well informed while the rest of us flounder in uncertainty. {Note sarcasm.)
>
> None of these purported death (or disappearance) dates fits at all well with rumors surfacing around April 1484 or with Croyland's remark that the boys were in the Tower (alive, of course) on September 8 (after Tyrell had returned to York). Where Buckingham was is unclear.
>
> Carol
>

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance


> An intriguing possibility, Claire. But where might they have gone? To
> whom? If they'd taken themselves to Burgundy, surely Richard would have
> been told? I can't imagine two princes would be content to live obscure
> lives, as apprentices or whatever.

Yes, but they, unlike Henry Tudor, had presumably been fully educated by the
best tutors and masters at arms, and had skills to sell, and goods to sell
for enough money to set themselves up. I don't think we know enough about
their characters to know whether they regarded being removed from the
succession as a disaster, or as an opportunity to do something else they'd
always wanted to do. Either or both of them might have always had a burning
desire to jon the church, or to become a sea-captain, or a physician, or a
sculptor, and now suddenly they could do it.

If Warbeck really was the younger boy, that might mean that they both
escaped to the continent and then Edward either died or preferred to keep
out of the way and do something else, whilst young Richard decided after a
few years that he *did* want to be king, or at least to lever Henry off the
throne.

I'm not really promoting this idea - because of the apparent absence of
Brampton from Bosworth my preferred option is that Brampton took both boys
abroad on Richard's orders - but I think it is at least possible that the
boys just absconded. We tend I think to view them just as pawns being moved
about the board, but Edward at least was old enough to have a well-formed
personal agenda: we just don't know what it was.

> And which noble might be prepared to take them in and keep them hidden? A
> Woodville?

Yes. Or anybody who was specifically loyal to Edward IV or personally fond
of the boys and didn't care too much about the legitimacy of kings. They
might not even have been planning an uprising - the boys might just have
felt they were potentially in danger either from Richard or from one of the
other factions, and that they would be better off out of it until things had
settled down and they were a bit older. Then when they saw Henry on the
throne - and with a not very firm grip on it - young Richard thought "Better
York's bastard than Lancaster's" and decided to have a pop at him.

Evidence? Weir?
----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: Disappearance



I trust M/s Weir cited some evidence that James Tyrrell killed the Princes in early September 1483?

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > If that is the case, it gives new meaning to the phrase, "What goes around, comes around," doesn't it, Carol?? Well, if that's the case, it would also explain why I haven't been able to find it in one of the books I've been reading. I'll take a quick look and see if I find anything elsewhere. If not, I'll just fo-get about it! J
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Johanne. I wonder if you're inadvertently mixing up two different references in the Great Chronicle, one to the boys shooting and playing in the Tower (which must have occurred sometime between June 16, 1483, when young Richard was released from sanctuary, and October 31, 1483, the end of the "mayor's year" referred to in the chronicle) and the "whispering" that the boys were dead, which occurred in around Easter of 1484 according to the same chronicle. As I said earlier, it can't refer to Easter 1483 since Edward IV was still alive at that time. (Kendall speculates that the whispering arose at that time because that's when Edward of Middleham died and his death might have seemed like divine retribution to the medieval mind. But why, if the boys had not been see since September 1483--when, according to the Croyland Chronicler, they were still in the Tower--the rumors did not arise earlier (aside from the rumors planted to divert B's rebellion) is not clear.
>
> At any rate, despite the late date of the (London) rumor, traditionalist historians struggle to make these two statements fit the "fact" that the princes (or at least the older one) had disappeared from view by the time Mancini left London in June 1483. Alison Weir, for example, says that the reference to the boys shooting and playing "must relate to the period immediately after 16th June and before the second week in July *when Mancini says the boys had ceased to appear at the windows altogether*." Mancini, however, doesn't specify a time and may not have heard the tearful men expressing fears that Edward was dead until after he returned to the continent.
>
> Even Weir dates the rumor mentioned in the Great Chronicle to 1484, but unlike Kendall, she doesn't try to figure out why there would be such a big gap between the supposed disappearance in July and the rumor the following April. (According to her, Tyrell killed the boys on Richard's orders in early September and *Richard* spread the rumor of their deaths in October, but why it would take six months for those rumors to reach London when the boys had been missing all that time she doesn't attempt to explain.)
>
> Anyway, we have the attempted "rescue" in late July, by which time Mancini was already on the continent, Tyrell in London in late August, a reference to the boys as still in the Tower on September 8 (the day of Prince Edward's investiture) by the Croyland chronicler, the shooting and playing reference (which could date to any time between June 16 and October 31), the rumor spread before Buckingham's rebellion in November, the rumor in France at about the same time, and the rumor in London in April 1484, which seems to coincide with Edward of Middleham's death. The next rumors we hear, about a year later, of have nothing to do with the "Princes" and relate to EoY.
>
> Anyway, all sources, even Weir, agree that the "after Easter" whispering dates to 1484. The problem is how to fit that rumor with the "shooting and playing" and the apparent disappearance.
>
> On a side note, some sources purport to give a specific date for "Edward V's" death. For example,
>
> July 29, 1483 http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_V_of_England
>
> September 3, 1483 (Weir)
>
> (possibly) July 6, 1483
> http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Edward_V_of_England.html
>
> July 6, 1483 (no indication of uncertainty)
> http://www.geni.com/people/Edward-V-of-England/6000000001544606896
>
> I'm sure there are other examples, including some stating that the deaths of both "princes" predate Richard's accession or coronation. How good it must feel to be so well informed while the rest of us flounder in uncertainty. {Note sarcasm.)
>
> None of these purported death (or disappearance) dates fits at all well with rumors surfacing around April 1484 or with Croyland's remark that the boys were in the Tower (alive, of course) on September 8 (after Tyrell had returned to York). Where Buckingham was is unclear.
>
> Carol
>

So many fascinating possibilities, Claire. As there are with everything surrounding Richard III. It drives me mad sometimes. I really want to know, but no one can tell me. Or any of us, come to that. A few handy diaries would be just the ticket. Or a nice big cobwebbed chest in that old dark corner, containing countless interesting and immensely informative documents from 1483-1485. Including signed confessions from the real culprits. Oh, pipe dreams.

I'm writing this as I think of it.Do you think the boys may---a hesitant may---have been shown proof of their father's pre-contract? Binding evidence that could not be discounted? Surely Richard was shown something that really convinced him beyond all doubt, even if we no longer know exactly what it was? Might he not have seen to it that Edward V, at least, was shown the same evidence and therefore enlightened him to exactly why he would not have the throne? The boy was old enough and certainly should have been taken into full account. Well, it seems to me, he should, but I'm viewing it from the present, not back then. If Richard regarded his nephews as illegitimate, which clearly he did, then the boys' introduction to the true facts might not have warranted consideration. But their illegitimacy would surely not mean he withheld held his affection from them? They remained his nephews, whichever side of the blanket they were from. Richard seems the sort of man who would honour his responsibilities to all his brother's children, not just his nieces, and explain things to them. I know Edward V was all but a Woodville, but the truth would not have hurt. We all think Richard kept them safe and intended them to grow into men, so better to have them fully acquainted with the absolute, undeniable facts, rather than listening to trumped up stuff from Woodvilles and passing Lancastrians with axes to grind. But if---shock! horror!---Richard intended to do away with them anyway, clearly he wouldn't bother telling them anything. I don't believe that last point at all, but prefer the Richard we feel sure he was, or am I crediting him with modern attitudes that would not have had any place in a man of the 15th century?

Sandra

From: Claire M Jordan
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 1:58 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance

From: SandraMachin
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance

> An intriguing possibility, Claire. But where might they have gone? To
> whom? If they'd taken themselves to Burgundy, surely Richard would have
> been told? I can't imagine two princes would be content to live obscure
> lives, as apprentices or whatever.

Yes, but they, unlike Henry Tudor, had presumably been fully educated by the
best tutors and masters at arms, and had skills to sell, and goods to sell
for enough money to set themselves up. I don't think we know enough about
their characters to know whether they regarded being removed from the
succession as a disaster, or as an opportunity to do something else they'd
always wanted to do. Either or both of them might have always had a burning
desire to jon the church, or to become a sea-captain, or a physician, or a
sculptor, and now suddenly they could do it.

If Warbeck really was the younger boy, that might mean that they both
escaped to the continent and then Edward either died or preferred to keep
out of the way and do something else, whilst young Richard decided after a
few years that he *did* want to be king, or at least to lever Henry off the
throne.

I'm not really promoting this idea - because of the apparent absence of
Brampton from Bosworth my preferred option is that Brampton took both boys
abroad on Richard's orders - but I think it is at least possible that the
boys just absconded. We tend I think to view them just as pawns being moved
about the board, but Edward at least was old enough to have a well-formed
personal agenda: we just don't know what it was.

> And which noble might be prepared to take them in and keep them hidden? A
> Woodville?

Yes. Or anybody who was specifically loyal to Edward IV or personally fond
of the boys and didn't care too much about the legitimacy of kings. They
might not even have been planning an uprising - the boys might just have
felt they were potentially in danger either from Richard or from one of the
other factions, and that they would be better off out of it until things had
settled down and they were a bit older. Then when they saw Henry on the
throne - and with a not very firm grip on it - young Richard thought "Better
York's bastard than Lancaster's" and decided to have a pop at him.

Claire M Jordan wrote"

//snip//
"Yes. Or anybody who was specifically loyal to Edward IV or personally fond
of the boys and didn't care too much about the legitimacy of kings. They
might not even have been planning an uprising - the boys might just have
felt they were potentially in danger either from Richard or from one of the
other factions, and that they would be better off out of it until things had
settled down and they were a bit older. Then when they saw Henry on the
throne - and with a not very firm grip on it - young Richard thought "Better
York's bastard than Lancaster's" and decided to have a pop at him."

Doug here:
Certainly it's a possibility, especially as what we actually *know* about
the two boys is so limited. A really good novelist could have a lot of fun
with it.

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance


> So many fascinating possibilities, Claire. As there are with everything
> surrounding Richard III. It drives me mad sometimes. I really want to
> know, but no one can tell me. Or any of us, come to that. A few handy
> diaries would be just the ticket. Or a nice big cobwebbed chest in that
> old dark corner, containing countless interesting and immensely
> informative documents from 1483-1485. Including signed confessions from
> the real culprits. Oh, pipe dreams.

Mmm - but it may not be too much to hope that the odd letter might turn up,
tucked into the binding of an old Bible or similar.

> I'm writing this as I think of it.Do you think the boys may---a hesitant
> may---have been shown proof of their father's pre-contract? Binding
> evidence that could not be discounted? Surely Richard was shown something
> that really convinced him beyond all doubt, even if we no longer know
> exactly what it was? Might he not have seen to it that Edward V, at least,
> was shown the same evidence and therefore enlightened him to exactly why
> he would not have the throne?

I don't know whether there *was* binding evidence, or whether Parliament
just decided the pre-contract story was true on balance of probability, but
I would certainly think that, yes, at least the older boy would have been
told about/shown whatever evidence had convinced Parliament. And the boys
presumably knew the story of how their parents met, so they would know that
marrying someone in secret to get her into bed was in character for their
father.

> Well, it seems to me, he should, but I'm viewing it from the present, not
> back then. If Richard regarded his nephews as illegitimate, which clearly
> he did, then the boys' introduction to the true facts might not have
> warranted consideration. But their illegitimacy would surely not mean he
> withheld held his affection from them?

Surely not - he referred to young John as "our dear bastard" and showered
him with honour, so clearly he didn't regard bastards as lesser beings - it
was all just about rights of inheritance.

> They remained his nephews, whichever side of the blanket they were from.
> Richard seems the sort of man who would honour his responsibilities to all
> his brother's children, not just his nieces, and explain things to them.

He instructed his neices' future husbands to take good care of them "as my
kinswomen", so clearly he still regarded them as his brother's children and
his close kin.

> I don't believe that last point at all, but prefer the Richard we feel
> sure he was, or am I crediting him with modern attitudes that would not
> have had any place in a man of the 15th century?

Well - the fact that rumours that he might have done in his nephews were
seen as shocking shows it wouldn't have been a normal thing to do, so even
on that basis we can say he prtobably wouldn't have done it. And Richard
seems to be, if not quite modern, at least two or three hundred years ahead
of his time. He invented an idea of military discipline and not molesting
civilians which wasn't reinvented until Tom Fairfax. He showed a very
modern concern for common soldiers as well as the nobility. His concern for
the rights of the poor again seems to belong to the 17th or 18th C. He
had - for the time - an advanced interest in the rights of women.
Altogether I think it's reasonable to expect fairly modern thinking from him
in many if perhaps not *all* situations.

"ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I trust M/s Weir cited some evidence that James Tyrrell killed the Princes in early September 1483?

Carol responds:

Her "evidence" is More, but More is "wrong" about the date and Croyland is "wrong" that the "Princes" were alive on September 8 because they "must" have been killed while Tyrell was in town. "The likeliest date that he was in London was 3rd September, {therefore] that was the night when the murders almost certainly took place" (157).

More's account, including Tyrell's imaginary confession, plus Richard's supposed motive, plus Tyrell's trip to London related to the investiture of EoM as Prince of Wales, plus the necessity for Tyrell to return to York before September 8, plus the bones found under the staircase equals murder on the night of September 3. She thinks she has a solid case. Needless to say, she's mistaken.

It's entirely possible, however, that James Tyrell delivered a message to Brackenbury from Richard related to the safety of the boys and they may have been moved deeper into the Tower for security reasons at that point, especially if Richard knew that a rebellion was afoot (though obviously he didn't know at that point that Buckingham was or would become involved).

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> If all the statements about when they were seen and when the rumours started are true, it sounds to me like they were moved out of London in summer 1483 and everybody assumed they'd just been taken somewhere more congenial to get away from the muggy heat, and it was only after they didn't appear the following spring that anybody started to wonder.
>
> When did Edward's daughters start appearing at court? If they appeared at sevices or celebrations that Easter maybe people wondered why their brothers weren't with them.

Carol responds:

The Croyland chronicler has the boys in the Tower on the date of Prince Edward's investiture (September 8) and doesn't mention them again except with regard to the rumor spread in October or November to divert away from their attempts at rescue toward supporting Tudor (as they never would have done otherwise). The Great Chronicle has them shooting and playing in the Tower between June 16, when Richard was taken from sanctuary, and October 28, the end of mayor Shaa's "mayoral year." But the whispering (setting aside those deliberately spread rumors in the southern counties) doesn't seem to occur until the following April.

Rather than removing them from the muggy heat (which would presumably be near its end by September), they might have disappeared from sight during the winter, when they would be unlikely to be "shotying and playing" in the Tower garden. I suspect that the townspeople expected to see them emerge with the warmer weather and when they didn't, the townspeople began to whisper. But the whispers clearly didn't indicate any general discontent among the people of London and may have been less widespread than the chronicler indicates.

EW and her daughters came out of sanctuary on March 1, 1484, but since Edward had never been with them and Richard had left sanctuary the previous June, I'm not sure that their emergence had anything to do with the whispers, especially since according to the Great Chronicle, they didn't begin until more than a month and a half later (after Easter, that is, after April 18). It's unclear where EW went though her younger daughters must have been with her. EoY was certainly with Richard and Anne at Christmas and Cecily may have been with her. I don't have a date for her marriage to Ralph Scrope. The next round of rumors, related to Anne's death and Richard's supposed intentions to marry EoY, didn't begin until the spring of 1485.

I would think, personally, that EoY's conspicuous appearance during Richard's Christmas celebrations would suggest to everyone who saw her that she didn't think her uncle had harmed, much less killed, her younger brothers, just as EW's willinghess to come out of sanctuary and trust her daughters to his keeping indicates the same thing. (A man who murdered children would think nothing of violating an oath.) But obviously, the Tudor chroniclers and historians influenced by them see things differently.

Carol

Entirely possible being the operative words, apparently they don't appear in M/s Weir's dictionary. I wonder if she ever tried to look for evidence of an actual confession from James Tyrrel!!

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > I trust M/s Weir cited some evidence that James Tyrrell killed the Princes in early September 1483?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Her "evidence" is More, but More is "wrong" about the date and Croyland is "wrong" that the "Princes" were alive on September 8 because they "must" have been killed while Tyrell was in town. "The likeliest date that he was in London was 3rd September, {therefore] that was the night when the murders almost certainly took place" (157).
>
> More's account, including Tyrell's imaginary confession, plus Richard's supposed motive, plus Tyrell's trip to London related to the investiture of EoM as Prince of Wales, plus the necessity for Tyrell to return to York before September 8, plus the bones found under the staircase equals murder on the night of September 3. She thinks she has a solid case. Needless to say, she's mistaken.
>
> It's entirely possible, however, that James Tyrell delivered a message to Brackenbury from Richard related to the safety of the boys and they may have been moved deeper into the Tower for security reasons at that point, especially if Richard knew that a rebellion was afoot (though obviously he didn't know at that point that Buckingham was or would become involved).
>
> Carol
>

LOL, guys!



Far be it from me to try to haul water for Ms. Weir, an author for whom I
have little regard. But as it happens, in looking for the source of the
"Easter 1483" vs. "Easter 1484" discussion, I picked up *The Maligned King,*
and there I found the following:



". . . in the Crowland Chronicle we have the last reliable sighting of the
princes. Having outlined Richard's post-coronation progress from London, the
chronicler records his arrival in York in September and the lavish
ceremonies which accompanied the investiture of his son Edward as Prince of
Wales.



"'In the meantime and while these things were happening,' he continues, 'the
two sons of King Edward remained in the Tower of London with a specially
appointed guard,' a fact which he was in a position to know from personal
observation.



"The Crowland chronicler's words are not chosen by accident, and the
translation into English is exact; he was a doctor of law and almost
certainly a government administrator, so he knew to use words accurately. .
. . We know the king spent three weeks there [in York], with the investiture
taking place on 8 September, so this is a clear indication that at least on
this last-mentioned date the chronicler knew that the princes were still
resident in the Tower.



"We also have confirmation in two sources that September was the month in
which the rumour arose that they were dead. From Polydore Vergil we hear as
in Crowland, that they were alive in the Tower when Richard reached York.
The story he heard was that Richard sent Tyrell from York to murder them,
then within a few days 'permyttyd the rumor of ther death to go abrode'.
Vergil's concord with the Crowland chronicler suggests that people who had a
close interest in the whereabouts of the princes (and the means to find out)
remembered their disappearance occurring after the lavish investiture
celebrations.



"The Crowland chronicler, who was in London at the time, expresses no belief
in their murder, but agrees that a rumour of their death was spread in
September (see chapter 11). Logically, therefore, this is when they
disappeared." (pgs. 146-47)



Thus from Ms. Carson's line of reasoning from Vergil and the Chronicler, it
would appear that the death or disappearance of the Princes occurred
sometime after the investiture of Richard's son Edward as Prince of Wales on
8 September 1483.



Does anyone know off-hand how that chronology fits with Buckingham's being
in London? Was that during the earlier part of Richard's progress (i.e.
before Richard arrived at York) or afterward?



Also btw, the only reason I can think that Richard would have allowed
rumours of the boys' death to be spread is if in fact he had smuggled them
out of the country. If they were dead, and he was responsible, I am sure
that he would have displayed the bodies, which would have been in his
interest. If on the other hand, the dirty deed was committed by Buckingham,
I think it would have been in Buckingham's interest to create as much
uncertainty about what had happened as possible, and then blame Richard,
which would naturally have tended to cause people to desert Richard's cause.
(Assuming, of course, that people would have been shocked at child murder at
that time, which it appears they were.)



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 10:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance





Evidence? Weir?
----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: Disappearance

I trust M/s Weir cited some evidence that James Tyrrell killed the Princes
in early September 1483?

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Yes, but they, unlike Henry Tudor, had presumably been fully educated by the best tutors and masters at arms, and had skills to sell, and goods to sell for enough money to set themselves up. [snip]

Carol responds:

Except for the "shotying and playing" reference, we don't have any indication that either of them had an education similar to Richard's, which involved knightly training. The younger one seemed to have spent most of his time with his mother and sisters (whose education, to judge from EoY, does not seem to have been particularly rigorous). The older one was tutored by the scholarly (but perhaps vain and ambitious) Anthony Woodville and seems, from the little we know about him, to have been of a similar temperament and taste to that uncle.

I can't see either of them escaping and offering their skills for sale. (Actually, I imagine Richard continuing to shoot and play and Edward sulking!) However, since Tyrell was Master of Henchmen as well as Master of the Horse, he could have taken them almost anywhere disguised as pages. How far from the coast is Gipping, and how easy would it be to cross the channel to Guisnes, where Tyrell was in charge under Richard from January to August 1485 (and reappointed by Henry Tudor in 1486)? From there, it would be easy enough to get to Burgundy via the Low Countries--and very easy to get to Flanders (Perkin Warbeck was supposedly Flemish).

Speaking of a knightly education (and Henry's lack of it), does anyone know if the education of noblemen changed after Tudor took over? Henry VIII learned to joust as a boy or young man, but I don't think he was expected to apply those skills in battle, only in tournaments. (I could be wrong; I'm no authority on the Tudors.)

Carol

Speaking of "the Great Chronicle of London" does anyone have access to this
book, to see what it actually says?

A J


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:42 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> > Yes, but they, unlike Henry Tudor, had presumably been fully educated by
> the best tutors and masters at arms, and had skills to sell, and goods to
> sell for enough money to set themselves up. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Except for the "shotying and playing" reference, we don't have any
> indication that either of them had an education similar to Richard's, which
> involved knightly training. The younger one seemed to have spent most of
> his time with his mother and sisters (whose education, to judge from EoY,
> does not seem to have been particularly rigorous). The older one was
> tutored by the scholarly (but perhaps vain and ambitious) Anthony Woodville
> and seems, from the little we know about him, to have been of a similar
> temperament and taste to that uncle.
>
> I can't see either of them escaping and offering their skills for sale.
> (Actually, I imagine Richard continuing to shoot and play and Edward
> sulking!) However, since Tyrell was Master of Henchmen as well as Master of
> the Horse, he could have taken them almost anywhere disguised as pages. How
> far from the coast is Gipping, and how easy would it be to cross the
> channel to Guisnes, where Tyrell was in charge under Richard from January
> to August 1485 (and reappointed by Henry Tudor in 1486)? From there, it
> would be easy enough to get to Burgundy via the Low Countries--and very
> easy to get to Flanders (Perkin Warbeck was supposedly Flemish).
>
> Speaking of a knightly education (and Henry's lack of it), does anyone
> know if the education of noblemen changed after Tudor took over? Henry VIII
> learned to joust as a boy or young man, but I don't think he was expected
> to apply those skills in battle, only in tournaments. (I could be wrong;
> I'm no authority on the Tudors.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>

AJ is this of any help..
.http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27027

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Speaking of "the Great Chronicle of London" does anyone have access to this
> book, to see what it actually says?
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:42 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, but they, unlike Henry Tudor, had presumably been fully educated by
> > the best tutors and masters at arms, and had skills to sell, and goods to
> > sell for enough money to set themselves up. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Except for the "shotying and playing" reference, we don't have any
> > indication that either of them had an education similar to Richard's, which
> > involved knightly training. The younger one seemed to have spent most of
> > his time with his mother and sisters (whose education, to judge from EoY,
> > does not seem to have been particularly rigorous). The older one was
> > tutored by the scholarly (but perhaps vain and ambitious) Anthony Woodville
> > and seems, from the little we know about him, to have been of a similar
> > temperament and taste to that uncle.
> >
> > I can't see either of them escaping and offering their skills for sale.
> > (Actually, I imagine Richard continuing to shoot and play and Edward
> > sulking!) However, since Tyrell was Master of Henchmen as well as Master of
> > the Horse, he could have taken them almost anywhere disguised as pages. How
> > far from the coast is Gipping, and how easy would it be to cross the
> > channel to Guisnes, where Tyrell was in charge under Richard from January
> > to August 1485 (and reappointed by Henry Tudor in 1486)? From there, it
> > would be easy enough to get to Burgundy via the Low Countries--and very
> > easy to get to Flanders (Perkin Warbeck was supposedly Flemish).
> >
> > Speaking of a knightly education (and Henry's lack of it), does anyone
> > know if the education of noblemen changed after Tudor took over? Henry VIII
> > learned to joust as a boy or young man, but I don't think he was expected
> > to apply those skills in battle, only in tournaments. (I could be wrong;
> > I'm no authority on the Tudors.)
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think it is. We also might know the
Great Chronicle as one of Fabyan's works. There was a newer edition in
1938 by A H Thomas & I D Thornley. I haven't been able to find it on-line,
& all the available copies of the 1938 edition are going for < $700 (500
copies only produced, all numbered). It's possible that the earlier
edition from the 1500's by Fabyan is available as part of EBBO, but I can
never remember how to log on to my university library system from home,
shall have to wait until tomorrow. For the few number of lines that might
be relevant to Richard's reign, the asking price for the above is way out
of proportion (I'm not a rare book collector, although it sure seems that
way sometimes!).

A J


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 1:29 PM, EileenB
<cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> AJ is this of any help..
> .http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27027
>
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of "the Great Chronicle of London" does anyone have access to
> this
> > book, to see what it actually says?
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:42 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, but they, unlike Henry Tudor, had presumably been fully
> educated by
> > > the best tutors and masters at arms, and had skills to sell, and goods
> to
> > > sell for enough money to set themselves up. [snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Except for the "shotying and playing" reference, we don't have any
> > > indication that either of them had an education similar to Richard's,
> which
> > > involved knightly training. The younger one seemed to have spent most
> of
> > > his time with his mother and sisters (whose education, to judge from
> EoY,
> > > does not seem to have been particularly rigorous). The older one was
> > > tutored by the scholarly (but perhaps vain and ambitious) Anthony
> Woodville
> > > and seems, from the little we know about him, to have been of a similar
> > > temperament and taste to that uncle.
> > >
> > > I can't see either of them escaping and offering their skills for sale.
> > > (Actually, I imagine Richard continuing to shoot and play and Edward
> > > sulking!) However, since Tyrell was Master of Henchmen as well as
> Master of
> > > the Horse, he could have taken them almost anywhere disguised as
> pages. How
> > > far from the coast is Gipping, and how easy would it be to cross the
> > > channel to Guisnes, where Tyrell was in charge under Richard from
> January
> > > to August 1485 (and reappointed by Henry Tudor in 1486)? From there, it
> > > would be easy enough to get to Burgundy via the Low Countries--and very
> > > easy to get to Flanders (Perkin Warbeck was supposedly Flemish).
> > >
> > > Speaking of a knightly education (and Henry's lack of it), does anyone
> > > know if the education of noblemen changed after Tudor took over? Henry
> VIII
> > > learned to joust as a boy or young man, but I don't think he was
> expected
> > > to apply those skills in battle, only in tournaments. (I could be
> wrong;
> > > I'm no authority on the Tudors.)
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Doh....never minds..:0)..eileen

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think it is. We also might know the
> Great Chronicle as one of Fabyan's works. There was a newer edition in
> 1938 by A H Thomas & I D Thornley. I haven't been able to find it on-line,
> & all the available copies of the 1938 edition are going for < $700 (500
> copies only produced, all numbered). It's possible that the earlier
> edition from the 1500's by Fabyan is available as part of EBBO, but I can
> never remember how to log on to my university library system from home,
> shall have to wait until tomorrow. For the few number of lines that might
> be relevant to Richard's reign, the asking price for the above is way out
> of proportion (I'm not a rare book collector, although it sure seems that
> way sometimes!).
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 1:29 PM, EileenB
> <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > AJ is this of any help..
> > .http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27027
> >
> >
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Speaking of "the Great Chronicle of London" does anyone have access to
> > this
> > > book, to see what it actually says?
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:42 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, but they, unlike Henry Tudor, had presumably been fully
> > educated by
> > > > the best tutors and masters at arms, and had skills to sell, and goods
> > to
> > > > sell for enough money to set themselves up. [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Except for the "shotying and playing" reference, we don't have any
> > > > indication that either of them had an education similar to Richard's,
> > which
> > > > involved knightly training. The younger one seemed to have spent most
> > of
> > > > his time with his mother and sisters (whose education, to judge from
> > EoY,
> > > > does not seem to have been particularly rigorous). The older one was
> > > > tutored by the scholarly (but perhaps vain and ambitious) Anthony
> > Woodville
> > > > and seems, from the little we know about him, to have been of a similar
> > > > temperament and taste to that uncle.
> > > >
> > > > I can't see either of them escaping and offering their skills for sale.
> > > > (Actually, I imagine Richard continuing to shoot and play and Edward
> > > > sulking!) However, since Tyrell was Master of Henchmen as well as
> > Master of
> > > > the Horse, he could have taken them almost anywhere disguised as
> > pages. How
> > > > far from the coast is Gipping, and how easy would it be to cross the
> > > > channel to Guisnes, where Tyrell was in charge under Richard from
> > January
> > > > to August 1485 (and reappointed by Henry Tudor in 1486)? From there, it
> > > > would be easy enough to get to Burgundy via the Low Countries--and very
> > > > easy to get to Flanders (Perkin Warbeck was supposedly Flemish).
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of a knightly education (and Henry's lack of it), does anyone
> > > > know if the education of noblemen changed after Tudor took over? Henry
> > VIII
> > > > learned to joust as a boy or young man, but I don't think he was
> > expected
> > > > to apply those skills in battle, only in tournaments. (I could be
> > wrong;
> > > > I'm no authority on the Tudors.)
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Now don't do that to yourself - we all have "doh" moments. It took me
quite a bit of surfing to figure out what I posted in the last e-mail!

A J




On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 1:54 PM, EileenB
<cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Doh....never minds..:0)..eileen
>
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think it is. We also might know
> the
> > Great Chronicle as one of Fabyan's works. There was a newer edition in
> > 1938 by A H Thomas & I D Thornley. I haven't been able to find it
> on-line,
> > & all the available copies of the 1938 edition are going for < $700 (500
> > copies only produced, all numbered). It's possible that the earlier
> > edition from the 1500's by Fabyan is available as part of EBBO, but I can
> > never remember how to log on to my university library system from home,
> > shall have to wait until tomorrow. For the few number of lines that might
> > be relevant to Richard's reign, the asking price for the above is way out
> > of proportion (I'm not a rare book collector, although it sure seems that
> > way sometimes!).
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 1:29 PM, EileenB
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > AJ is this of any help..
> > > .http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27027
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of "the Great Chronicle of London" does anyone have access
> to
> > > this
> > > > book, to see what it actually says?
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:42 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, but they, unlike Henry Tudor, had presumably been fully
> > > educated by
> > > > > the best tutors and masters at arms, and had skills to sell, and
> goods
> > > to
> > > > > sell for enough money to set themselves up. [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > Except for the "shotying and playing" reference, we don't have any
> > > > > indication that either of them had an education similar to
> Richard's,
> > > which
> > > > > involved knightly training. The younger one seemed to have spent
> most
> > > of
> > > > > his time with his mother and sisters (whose education, to judge
> from
> > > EoY,
> > > > > does not seem to have been particularly rigorous). The older one
> was
> > > > > tutored by the scholarly (but perhaps vain and ambitious) Anthony
> > > Woodville
> > > > > and seems, from the little we know about him, to have been of a
> similar
> > > > > temperament and taste to that uncle.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't see either of them escaping and offering their skills for
> sale.
> > > > > (Actually, I imagine Richard continuing to shoot and play and
> Edward
> > > > > sulking!) However, since Tyrell was Master of Henchmen as well as
> > > Master of
> > > > > the Horse, he could have taken them almost anywhere disguised as
> > > pages. How
> > > > > far from the coast is Gipping, and how easy would it be to cross
> the
> > > > > channel to Guisnes, where Tyrell was in charge under Richard from
> > > January
> > > > > to August 1485 (and reappointed by Henry Tudor in 1486)? From
> there, it
> > > > > would be easy enough to get to Burgundy via the Low Countries--and
> very
> > > > > easy to get to Flanders (Perkin Warbeck was supposedly Flemish).
> > > > >
> > > > > Speaking of a knightly education (and Henry's lack of it), does
> anyone
> > > > > know if the education of noblemen changed after Tudor took over?
> Henry
> > > VIII
> > > > > learned to joust as a boy or young man, but I don't think he was
> > > expected
> > > > > to apply those skills in battle, only in tournaments. (I could be
> > > wrong;
> > > > > I'm no authority on the Tudors.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

You asked when Buckingham was in London in relation to Richard's progress. Kendall has Buckingham "apparently" remaining behind in London (perhaps to make arrangements for Morton's transport with him to Brecon?) when Richard left Windsor to begin his progress.

Richard saw Buckingham for the last time in Gloucester (this is before the King's arrival in York) when the Duke was "riding home to Brecon by the main road." This is the last time they saw each other. (Anybody have a date for this?)

On August 20, Richard was in Nottingham. He entered York either on Saturday, August 30 or the day before.

From what I can tell (someone correct me if these dates don't line up, as I don't have access to "The Itinerary of RIII"), Richard and Anne parted a bit after mid-September, after their stay at Sheriff Hutton. Richard didn't learn of Buckingham's betrayal until October 11 when Richard reached Lincoln, though he did know of the rebellion itself before then.

We really need solid dates, don't we?

Would it be of any value (or even possible) to trace the movements of Richard's officials having access to the Tower once Richard had left London/Windsor? I'm also looking sideways at Margaret Beaufort who apparently was also in London after Richard had left (per Kendall). Her husband, however, was on progress with Richard. Did she have access to the princes?

Who would have had official access to the princes after they were declared bastards, and do we know where they were when Richard was on his progress?

~Weds

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
.
.
.
> Thus from Ms. Carson's line of reasoning from Vergil and the Chronicler, it would appear that the death or disappearance of the Princes occurred sometime after the investiture of Richard's son Edward as Prince of Wales on 8 September 1483.
>
> Does anyone know off-hand how that chronology fits with Buckingham's being in London? Was that during the earlier part of Richard's progress (i.e. before Richard arrived at York) or afterward?

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: Disappearance


> Except for the "shotying and playing" reference, we don't have any
> indication that either of them had an education similar to Richard's,
> which involved knightly training. The younger one seemed to have spent
> most of his time with his mother and sisters (whose education, to judge
> from EoY, does not seem to have been particularly rigorous). The older one
> was tutored by the scholarly (but perhaps vain and ambitious) Anthony
> Woodville and seems, from the little we know about him, to have been of a
> similar temperament and taste to that uncle.

Yes - and Anthony Woodville was a famous jouster! So if the boy modelled
himself on his uncle he'd probably have learned to ride well and to fight,
at least within the limits of the sort of fighting that was done as a sport.

> I can't see either of them escaping and offering their skills for sale.
> (Actually, I imagine Richard continuing to shoot and play and Edward
> sulking!)

Very likely.

> However, since Tyrell was Master of Henchmen as well as Master of the
> Horse, he could have taken them almost anywhere disguised as pages. How
> far from the coast is Gipping,

About 20 miles - and there's a string of ports along that coast.

> and how easy would it be to cross the channel to Guisnes, where Tyrell was
> in charge under Richard from January to August 1485

From there you would land at The Hague or Bruges, and then go along the
coast - it's about 65 miles from Bruges to Guisnes.

> (Perkin Warbeck was supposedly Flemish).

I'm a tiny bit Flemish myself - some of my distant ancestors were (probably)
Walloons called Jourdaine.

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: Disappearance



> Richard saw Buckingham for the last time in Gloucester (this is before the
> King's arrival in York) when the Duke was "riding home to Brecon by the
> main road." This is the last time they saw each other. (Anybody have a
> date for this?)

To within four days, if that helps. The girders' intinerary has Richard
arriving in Gloucester on 4th August (Ricardian 54 p. 22) and in Warwick on
or by 8th August (Ricardian 53 p. 18).

Getting off the casting stuff, please.... and back to Richard's history
with Weds.

I recall that it is on record that Richard and Buckingham argued at
Gloucester. But I can't find where. The duke then went to Brecon where
his "prisoner" Morton was waiting to turn him even further against his
cousin.

Who you ask had access to the sons of Edward at the Tower?
Without a royal warrant I imagine not even their other uncle Buckingham,
via Brackenbury who was in charge of the Tower and all its numerous
personnel.
Nothing that happened inside the Tower could have happened without
Brackenbury knowing. What did he do in 1485? Pulled together as many men
as he could, as fast as he could, and galloped to join his king at
Bosworth, where he lay down his life for him. Just the sort of thing
someone outraged by a child killer would do, eh?

But that is by the by. Nobody would get past Brackenbury to the boys
without a royal warrant.

And I mean no-one. Not Buckingham, certainly not Margaret Beaufort, who
was supposedly under house arrest with her husband, who had, in my mind
unbelievably, been made Constable by Richard. However, with Stanley
returned to royal favour, why was his wife, one of the Anne's ladies in
waiting, also returned to favour, joining the progress so that Richard
could keep his eye on her?

And herein lies our problem.
This intensely loyal man would have done nothing without knowing it was
what Richard wanted.
So we come straight back to the big question, what did Richard want
doing with his nephews?

And I still come down to removing them from the Tower to somewhere safe
and secure.

Why for example did Richard stay at Sheriff Hutton during his progress?
Why there in particular? Why not Middleham or Barnard Castle, his two
favourite residences? Or in the castle at York? Perhaps because the
daughters of Edward IV were going to be moved to live there at some
stage in the future, which of course they were, to be with their
brothers perhaps, who Richard and Anne were settling in there?
After that stay the king and queen moved on to Nottingham, then Lincoln,
while their son went back to Middleham and the fresh air and safety of
the moors!
Then the mist descends again for all of us trying to see what happened
to our leading characters and why.
Paul



On 12/05/2013 20:36, wednesday_mc wrote:
> You asked when Buckingham was in London in relation to Richard's progress. Kendall has Buckingham "apparently" remaining behind in London (perhaps to make arrangements for Morton's transport with him to Brecon?) when Richard left Windsor to begin his progress.
>
> Richard saw Buckingham for the last time in Gloucester (this is before the King's arrival in York) when the Duke was "riding home to Brecon by the main road." This is the last time they saw each other. (Anybody have a date for this?)
>
> On August 20, Richard was in Nottingham. He entered York either on Saturday, August 30 or the day before.
>
> >From what I can tell (someone correct me if these dates don't line up, as I don't have access to "The Itinerary of RIII"), Richard and Anne parted a bit after mid-September, after their stay at Sheriff Hutton. Richard didn't learn of Buckingham's betrayal until October 11 when Richard reached Lincoln, though he did know of the rebellion itself before then.
>
> We really need solid dates, don't we?
>
> Would it be of any value (or even possible) to trace the movements of Richard's officials having access to the Tower once Richard had left London/Windsor? I'm also looking sideways at Margaret Beaufort who apparently was also in London after Richard had left (per Kendall). Her husband, however, was on progress with Richard. Did she have access to the princes?
>
> Who would have had official access to the princes after they were declared bastards, and do we know where they were when Richard was on his progress?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> .
> .
> .
>> Thus from Ms. Carson's line of reasoning from Vergil and the Chronicler, it would appear that the death or disappearance of the Princes occurred sometime after the investiture of Richard's son Edward as Prince of Wales on 8 September 1483.
>>
>> Does anyone know off-hand how that chronology fits with Buckingham's being in London? Was that during the earlier part of Richard's progress (i.e. before Richard arrived at York) or afterward?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Well, I agree with you. However, were there people who could have gained
access but been "invisible" - like servants or priests or? Although that
leads us back to the other unanswerable point - someone would have known if
the boys were suddenly found dead, and we haven't come up with a convincing
reason to cover that up.

A J


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Getting off the casting stuff, please.... and back to Richard's history
> with Weds.
>
> I recall that it is on record that Richard and Buckingham argued at
> Gloucester. But I can't find where. The duke then went to Brecon where
> his "prisoner" Morton was waiting to turn him even further against his
> cousin.
>
> Who you ask had access to the sons of Edward at the Tower?
> Without a royal warrant I imagine not even their other uncle Buckingham,
> via Brackenbury who was in charge of the Tower and all its numerous
> personnel.
> Nothing that happened inside the Tower could have happened without
> Brackenbury knowing. What did he do in 1485? Pulled together as many men
> as he could, as fast as he could, and galloped to join his king at
> Bosworth, where he lay down his life for him. Just the sort of thing
> someone outraged by a child killer would do, eh?
>
> But that is by the by. Nobody would get past Brackenbury to the boys
> without a royal warrant.
>
> And I mean no-one. Not Buckingham, certainly not Margaret Beaufort, who
> was supposedly under house arrest with her husband, who had, in my mind
> unbelievably, been made Constable by Richard. However, with Stanley
> returned to royal favour, why was his wife, one of the Anne's ladies in
> waiting, also returned to favour, joining the progress so that Richard
> could keep his eye on her?
>
> And herein lies our problem.
> This intensely loyal man would have done nothing without knowing it was
> what Richard wanted.
> So we come straight back to the big question, what did Richard want
> doing with his nephews?
>
> And I still come down to removing them from the Tower to somewhere safe
> and secure.
>
> Why for example did Richard stay at Sheriff Hutton during his progress?
> Why there in particular? Why not Middleham or Barnard Castle, his two
> favourite residences? Or in the castle at York? Perhaps because the
> daughters of Edward IV were going to be moved to live there at some
> stage in the future, which of course they were, to be with their
> brothers perhaps, who Richard and Anne were settling in there?
> After that stay the king and queen moved on to Nottingham, then Lincoln,
> while their son went back to Middleham and the fresh air and safety of
> the moors!
> Then the mist descends again for all of us trying to see what happened
> to our leading characters and why.
> Paul
>
>
> On 12/05/2013 20:36, wednesday_mc wrote:
> > You asked when Buckingham was in London in relation to Richard's
> progress. Kendall has Buckingham "apparently" remaining behind in London
> (perhaps to make arrangements for Morton's transport with him to Brecon?)
> when Richard left Windsor to begin his progress.
> >
> > Richard saw Buckingham for the last time in Gloucester (this is before
> the King's arrival in York) when the Duke was "riding home to Brecon by the
> main road." This is the last time they saw each other. (Anybody have a date
> for this?)
> >
> > On August 20, Richard was in Nottingham. He entered York either on
> Saturday, August 30 or the day before.
> >
> > >From what I can tell (someone correct me if these dates don't line up,
> as I don't have access to "The Itinerary of RIII"), Richard and Anne parted
> a bit after mid-September, after their stay at Sheriff Hutton. Richard
> didn't learn of Buckingham's betrayal until October 11 when Richard reached
> Lincoln, though he did know of the rebellion itself before then.
> >
> > We really need solid dates, don't we?
> >
> > Would it be of any value (or even possible) to trace the movements of
> Richard's officials having access to the Tower once Richard had left
> London/Windsor? I'm also looking sideways at Margaret Beaufort who
> apparently was also in London after Richard had left (per Kendall). Her
> husband, however, was on progress with Richard. Did she have access to the
> princes?
> >
> > Who would have had official access to the princes after they were
> declared bastards, and do we know where they were when Richard was on his
> progress?
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> > .
> > .
> > .
> >> Thus from Ms. Carson's line of reasoning from Vergil and the
> Chronicler, it would appear that the death or disappearance of the Princes
> occurred sometime after the investiture of Richard's son Edward as Prince
> of Wales on 8 September 1483.
> >>
> >> Does anyone know off-hand how that chronology fits with Buckingham's
> being in London? Was that during the earlier part of Richard's progress
> (i.e. before Richard arrived at York) or afterward?
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>

Carol wrote:

//snip//
"It's entirely possible, however, that James Tyrell delivered a message to
Brackenbury from Richard related to the safety of the boys and they may have
been moved deeper into the Tower for security reasons at that point,
especially if Richard knew that a rebellion was afoot (though obviously he
didn't know at that point that Buckingham was or would become involved)."

Doug here:
Rather than Tyrell seeing to increased security because of a rebellion,
could the increased security have been due to Richard having just been
informed by Russell about the "rescue" attempt? And it was *then*, sometime
in September 1483, that the boys were moved - to Gipping? Or, at the very
least, that was when Tyrell made the arrangements?
I would think moving the boys anytime during a stretch of bad weather would
increase the chances of them not being recognized, bundled up and all among
a group of "henchmen"..
And then, as someone pointed out (you? Claire?), *not* seeing the boys
outside wouldn't be that unusual if the weather was bad *and* they had been
kept inside and out of sight for a while before bad weather set in and they
were smuggled out, but *would* be noticed when the weather improved - after
Easter 1484.
Or am I pushing too hard?
Doug

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 12 May 2013, 18:42
Subject: Re: Disappearance


"Speaking of a knightly education (and Henry's lack of it), does anyone
know if the education of noblemen changed after Tudor took over? Henry
VIII learned to joust as a boy or young man, but I don't think he was
expected to apply those skills in battle, only in tournaments."


He certainly wanted to fight at the Battle of Spurs.  Jones make the interesting point that his senior commanders not only *strongly* dissuaded him from doing so, but advised him to place himself about a mile back from the forward lines and safe within a  division of pikemen.  He suggests that was because memories of Bosworth and how things went so catastrophically wrong for a king with numerical superiority were still alarmingly potent.

Jonathan



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 12 May 2013, 18:42
Subject: Re: Disappearance



 

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Yes, but they, unlike Henry Tudor, had presumably been fully educated by the best tutors and masters at arms, and had skills to sell, and goods to sell for enough money to set themselves up. [snip]

Carol responds:

Except for the "shotying and playing" reference, we don't have any indication that either of them had an education similar to Richard's, which involved knightly training. The younger one seemed to have spent most of his time with his mother and sisters (whose education, to judge from EoY, does not seem to have been particularly rigorous). The older one was tutored by the scholarly (but perhaps vain and ambitious) Anthony Woodville and seems, from the little we know about him, to have been of a similar temperament and taste to that uncle.

I can't see either of them escaping and offering their skills for sale. (Actually, I imagine Richard continuing to shoot and play and Edward sulking!) However, since Tyrell was Master of Henchmen as well as Master of the Horse, he could have taken them almost anywhere disguised as pages. How far from the coast is Gipping, and how easy would it be to cross the channel to Guisnes, where Tyrell was in charge under Richard from January to August 1485 (and reappointed by Henry Tudor in 1486)? From there, it would be easy enough to get to Burgundy via the Low Countries--and very easy to get to Flanders (Perkin Warbeck was supposedly Flemish).

Speaking of a knightly education (and Henry's lack of it), does anyone know if the education of noblemen changed after Tudor took over? Henry VIII learned to joust as a boy or young man, but I don't think he was expected to apply those skills in battle, only in tournaments. (I could be wrong; I'm no authority on the Tudors.)

Carol

And go on another hundred years to the Civil War when Charles I was present at Edgehill and Naseby (and led a charge with his Lifeguard at Naseby), albeit not leading the front line (but his nephew Prince Rupert was) or to William III, whose career was as a soldier and George II who was the last king to lead his troups into battle at Dettingen. Even now the traditional career for our monarchy is the army or the navy. But as Jonathan says, they have learned from Bosworth to keep away from the front line (though Prince Harry might not agree). 



________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013, 15:00
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance

 

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 12 May 2013, 18:42
Subject: Re: Disappearance

"Speaking of a knightly education (and Henry's lack of it), does anyone
know if the education of noblemen changed after Tudor took over? Henry
VIII learned to joust as a boy or young man, but I don't think he was
expected to apply those skills in battle, only in tournaments."

He certainly wanted to fight at the Battle of Spurs.  Jones make the interesting point that his senior commanders not only *strongly* dissuaded him from doing so, but advised him to place himself about a mile back from the forward lines and safe within a  division of pikemen.  He suggests that was because memories of Bosworth and how things went so catastrophically wrong for a king with numerical superiority were still alarmingly potent.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 12 May 2013, 18:42
Subject: Re: Disappearance


 

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Yes, but they, unlike Henry Tudor, had presumably been fully educated by the best tutors and masters at arms, and had skills to sell, and goods to sell for enough money to set themselves up. [snip]

Carol responds:

Except for the "shotying and playing" reference, we don't have any indication that either of them had an education similar to Richard's, which involved knightly training. The younger one seemed to have spent most of his time with his mother and sisters (whose education, to judge from EoY, does not seem to have been particularly rigorous). The older one was tutored by the scholarly (but perhaps vain and ambitious) Anthony Woodville and seems, from the little we know about him, to have been of a similar temperament and taste to that uncle.

I can't see either of them escaping and offering their skills for sale. (Actually, I imagine Richard continuing to shoot and play and Edward sulking!) However, since Tyrell was Master of Henchmen as well as Master of the Horse, he could have taken them almost anywhere disguised as pages. How far from the coast is Gipping, and how easy would it be to cross the channel to Guisnes, where Tyrell was in charge under Richard from January to August 1485 (and reappointed by Henry Tudor in 1486)? From there, it would be easy enough to get to Burgundy via the Low Countries--and very easy to get to Flanders (Perkin Warbeck was supposedly Flemish).

Speaking of a knightly education (and Henry's lack of it), does anyone know if the education of noblemen changed after Tudor took over? Henry VIII learned to joust as a boy or young man, but I don't think he was expected to apply those skills in battle, only in tournaments. (I could be wrong; I'm no authority on the Tudors.)

Carol

You are so right, Hilary! Of course, Harry is the spare, and if he were the heir he might not have been so fortunate (from his point of view). Although William is a rescue helicopter pilot, is he not? That doesn't seem like it's a career without risk. J



Anyway, Jonathan mentions Henry VIII being advised to stay about a mile back behind a wall of pikemen. That sounds like not only the disastrous result for Richard but also the successful tactic used by H7 was well remembered among the surviving nobles.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne







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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance





And go on another hundred years to the Civil War when Charles I was present at Edgehill and Naseby (and led a charge with his Lifeguard at Naseby), albeit not leading the front line (but his nephew Prince Rupert was) or to William III, whose career was as a soldier and George II who was the last king to lead his troups into battle at Dettingen. Even now the traditional career for our monarchy is the army or the navy. But as Jonathan says, they have learned from Bosworth to keep away from the front line (though Prince Harry might not agree).

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@... <mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013, 15:00
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance



From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 12 May 2013, 18:42
Subject: Re: Disappearance

"Speaking of a knightly education (and Henry's lack of it), does anyone
know if the education of noblemen changed after Tudor took over? Henry
VIII learned to joust as a boy or young man, but I don't think he was
expected to apply those skills in battle, only in tournaments."

He certainly wanted to fight at the Battle of Spurs. Jones make the interesting point that his senior commanders not only *strongly* dissuaded him from doing so, but advised him to place himself about a mile back from the forward lines and safe within a division of pikemen. He suggests that was because memories of Bosworth and how things went so catastrophically wrong for a king with numerical superiority were still alarmingly potent.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 12 May 2013, 18:42
Subject: Re: Disappearance



"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Yes, but they, unlike Henry Tudor, had presumably been fully educated by the best tutors and masters at arms, and had skills to sell, and goods to sell for enough money to set themselves up. [snip]

Carol responds:

Except for the "shotying and playing" reference, we don't have any indication that either of them had an education similar to Richard's, which involved knightly training. The younger one seemed to have spent most of his time with his mother and sisters (whose education, to judge from EoY, does not seem to have been particularly rigorous). The older one was tutored by the scholarly (but perhaps vain and ambitious) Anthony Woodville and seems, from the little we know about him, to have been of a similar temperament and taste to that uncle.

I can't see either of them escaping and offering their skills for sale. (Actually, I imagine Richard continuing to shoot and play and Edward sulking!) However, since Tyrell was Master of Henchmen as well as Master of the Horse, he could have taken them almost anywhere disguised as pages. How far from the coast is Gipping, and how easy would it be to cross the channel to Guisnes, where Tyrell was in charge under Richard from January to August 1485 (and reappointed by Henry Tudor in 1486)? From there, it would be easy enough to get to Burgundy via the Low Countries--and very easy to get to Flanders (Perkin Warbeck was supposedly Flemish).

Speaking of a knightly education (and Henry's lack of it), does anyone know if the education of noblemen changed after Tudor took over? Henry VIII learned to joust as a boy or young man, but I don't think he was expected to apply those skills in battle, only in tournaments. (I could be wrong; I'm no authority on the Tudors.)

Carol

I think your last sentence says it all with regards to Hanry VIII. As for our current Prince W, perhaps the royal family are well aware how few older sons have actually succeeded, but as you say, that's not without risks. 



________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013, 15:31
Subject: RE: Re: Disappearance

 

You are so right, Hilary! Of course, Harry is the spare, and if he were the heir he might not have been so fortunate (from his point of view). Although William is a rescue helicopter pilot, is he not? That doesn't seem like it's a career without risk. J

Anyway, Jonathan mentions Henry VIII being advised to stay about a mile back behind a wall of pikemen. That sounds like not only the disastrous result for Richard but also the successful tactic used by H7 was well remembered among the surviving nobles.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance

And go on another hundred years to the Civil War when Charles I was present at Edgehill and Naseby (and led a charge with his Lifeguard at Naseby), albeit not leading the front line (but his nephew Prince Rupert was) or to William III, whose career was as a soldier and George II who was the last king to lead his troups into battle at Dettingen. Even now the traditional career for our monarchy is the army or the navy. But as Jonathan says, they have learned from Bosworth to keep away from the front line (though Prince Harry might not agree).

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@... <mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013, 15:00
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 12 May 2013, 18:42
Subject: Re: Disappearance

"Speaking of a knightly education (and Henry's lack of it), does anyone
know if the education of noblemen changed after Tudor took over? Henry
VIII learned to joust as a boy or young man, but I don't think he was
expected to apply those skills in battle, only in tournaments."

He certainly wanted to fight at the Battle of Spurs. Jones make the interesting point that his senior commanders not only *strongly* dissuaded him from doing so, but advised him to place himself about a mile back from the forward lines and safe within a division of pikemen. He suggests that was because memories of Bosworth and how things went so catastrophically wrong for a king with numerical superiority were still alarmingly potent.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 12 May 2013, 18:42
Subject: Re: Disappearance

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Yes, but they, unlike Henry Tudor, had presumably been fully educated by the best tutors and masters at arms, and had skills to sell, and goods to sell for enough money to set themselves up. [snip]

Carol responds:

Except for the "shotying and playing" reference, we don't have any indication that either of them had an education similar to Richard's, which involved knightly training. The younger one seemed to have spent most of his time with his mother and sisters (whose education, to judge from EoY, does not seem to have been particularly rigorous). The older one was tutored by the scholarly (but perhaps vain and ambitious) Anthony Woodville and seems, from the little we know about him, to have been of a similar temperament and taste to that uncle.

I can't see either of them escaping and offering their skills for sale. (Actually, I imagine Richard continuing to shoot and play and Edward sulking!) However, since Tyrell was Master of Henchmen as well as Master of the Horse, he could have taken them almost anywhere disguised as pages. How far from the coast is Gipping, and how easy would it be to cross the channel to Guisnes, where Tyrell was in charge under Richard from January to August 1485 (and reappointed by Henry Tudor in 1486)? From there, it would be easy enough to get to Burgundy via the Low Countries--and very easy to get to Flanders (Perkin Warbeck was supposedly Flemish).

Speaking of a knightly education (and Henry's lack of it), does anyone know if the education of noblemen changed after Tudor took over? Henry VIII learned to joust as a boy or young man, but I don't think he was expected to apply those skills in battle, only in tournaments. (I could be wrong; I'm no authority on the Tudors.)

Carol

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance


> And then, as someone pointed out (you? Claire?), *not* seeing the boys
outside wouldn't be that unusual if the weather was bad *and* they had been
kept inside and out of sight for a while before bad weather set in and they
were smuggled out, but *would* be noticed when the weather improved - after
Easter 1484.

Carol suggested they might have been, or been assumed to have been, kept
indoors because of a cold winter. I suggested they might have been, or been
assumed to have been, moved out of London to somewhere in the fresh air
because of a muggy, unhealthy autumn. Either way, rumours of their deaths
might have turned up after Easter because people were surprised that they
weren't back in London/outside to join in the Easter ceremonies. You can
imagine the sort of conversations people would be having -

"Maybe they were sent somewhere up north."
"Yeah, 'n' maybe they was sent six feet under."

I tried to find tree-ring data on what the weather was like in 1483/84, but
I drew a blank.

I apologise for the lack of sources in the following notes regarding the weather here in Gloucestershire in the autumn of 1483, but I set them aside for possible use. The sources do not really matter, I suppose, because the general consensus is that October 1483 was a pig of a month for anyone near the Severn or the Wye. I don't know if this sort of thing applied all over the country:-

October 1483. An extraordinary flood of the Severn (near Worcester) in October prevents the Duke of Buckingham from crossing to attack Richard III, the duke's army disperses, and he is taken and beheaded.

1483
John Paul, the former Vicar of Almondsbury, described briefly
'a wonderful flood and inundation in the river Severn which did unspeakable spoil as old records in Bristol report.'
October 1483 flood: 'In the second year of Richard III in the month of October 1483, as the Duke of Buckingham was advancing by long marches through the Forest of Dean to Gloucester, where he designed to pass with his army over the Severn, there was so great an inundation of water that men were drowned in their beds, houses were overturned, children were carried about the fields swimming in cradles, beasts were drowned on the hills. Which rage of water lasted for ten days and nights, and it is to this day in the counties thereabout called The Great Water' or The Duke of Buckingham's Water'' (Gloucester Journal, November 1770).

1483 A year noted for its continual monsoon-like rains. The river Wye in Herefordshire and the Severn in Worcestershire rose rapidly&

Sandra

Must add that in 1484 in Tewkesbury: &there was a remarkable high flood in consequence of the waters overflowing the banks of the Severn. Don't know the month, but usually it's winter for the Severn, not always though, as was shown a few years back. But whether it's likely to be Winter 1483-4 or 1484-5, I cannot say without looking into it more.

Sandra


From: SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 4:16 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance


I apologise for the lack of sources in the following notes regarding the weather here in Gloucestershire in the autumn of 1483, but I set them aside for possible use. The sources do not really matter, I suppose, because the general consensus is that October 1483 was a pig of a month for anyone near the Severn or the Wye. I don't know if this sort of thing applied all over the country:-

October 1483. An extraordinary flood of the Severn (near Worcester) in October prevents the Duke of Buckingham from crossing to attack Richard III, the duke's army disperses, and he is taken and beheaded.

1483
John Paul, the former Vicar of Almondsbury, described briefly
'a wonderful flood and inundation in the river Severn which did unspeakable spoil as old records in Bristol report.'
October 1483 flood: 'In the second year of Richard III in the month of October 1483, as the Duke of Buckingham was advancing by long marches through the Forest of Dean to Gloucester, where he designed to pass with his army over the Severn, there was so great an inundation of water that men were drowned in their beds, houses were overturned, children were carried about the fields swimming in cradles, beasts were drowned on the hills. Which rage of water lasted for ten days and nights, and it is to this day in the counties thereabout called The Great Water' or The Duke of Buckingham's Water'' (Gloucester Journal, November 1770).

1483 A year noted for its continual monsoon-like rains. The river Wye in Herefordshire and the Severn in Worcestershire rose rapidly&

Sandra

Johanne Tournier wrote:

> Far be it from me to try to haul water for Ms. Weir, an author for whom I have little regard. But as it happens, in looking for the source of the "Easter 1483" vs. "Easter 1484" discussion, I picked up *The Maligned King,* and there I found the following: [snip]

> Thus from Ms. Carson's line of reasoning from Vergil and the Chronicler, it would appear that the death or disappearance of the Princes occurred sometime after the investiture of Richard's son Edward as Prince of Wales on 8 September 1483.

> Does anyone know off-hand how that chronology fits with Buckingham's being in London? Was that during the earlier part of Richard's progress (i.e. before Richard arrived at York) or afterward? [snip]

Carol responds:

First, Johanne, don't worry. You're undermining Weir, not supporting her. She's saying that the Croyland chronicler must be *wrong* in saying that the boys were alive at the time of EoM's investiture (September 8) because Tyrell (who *must* have killed them because More says so) was already back in York by that time and must have left London several days earlier to be there in time. So, in Weir's view, he *must* have killed Richard's nephews on September 3. (She depicts Richard walking hand in hand with his little son at his investiture in the sure knowledge that his nephews were dead--"wicked uncle" indeed.)

We do know that Tyrell went to London before the investiture, which is probably why his name was ultimately associated with the "murders" by Vergil and others, but the Croyland chronicler's dating, if accurate, exonerates him (which is why, for Weir, the chronicler must be "wrong"). (If you've read our earlier threads on Tyrrell, you know that the question of Tyrrell's association with the "Princes" is actually much more complicated than this and that there was no confession, but what really happened or may have happened is irrelevant to Weir, who believes that More's story reflects a real confession by Tyrrell. She has no clue that More invented the whole thing, confession and all.)

As for the rumors that were spread after the failed "rescue" attempt, they seem to coincide with Buckingham's joining of the rebellion, but IMO that could have as much to do with Morton (now free) as with Buckingham. I suspect that B. knew about the bodyguard that the chronicler mentions, and it's quite possible that the boys *had* been moved deeper into the Tower for their own safety. Buckingham could have reported these new arrangements to Morton, who could have suggested using them as the basis for a rumor ("The boys have disappeared--they must have been killed") and let the rumor grow and develop on its own among the target population, the dissident Yorkists who wanted to depose Richard and put EV on the throne.

Regarding Buckingham in London, keep reading. Annette doesn't think that Buckingham (or anyone else) killed the boys, and she presents a chronology of his whereabouts to support her theory.

Note that while More and Vergil have Buckingham meeting with Richard on Richard's progress, CC does not. I think half the problems historians have in figuring out not only what happened with the "Princes" and what motivated Buckingham relates to the assumption that Vergil and More knew what they were writing about. The rest relates to the assumption that Mancini's reports of the boys being moved further into the Tower and being seen less and less are firsthand observation and relate to his time in London when in fact they probably reflect the very rumors we're talking about, which were being spread in October or November (I'm not sure of the timing, but I don't think it was as early as September) among the dissident Yorkists in England and, in France, among Henry Tudor's followers.

If we can figure out (via Annette or other sources) when Buckingham reached Brecon, when he wrote to Tudor, when Morton arrived in France, and compare that to the date of the French speech naming Richard as the murderer of his nephews, we should have a good idea of when the rumors first arose among the rebels (as opposed to the whispers in London, which seemingly did not arise until the following April).

Carol

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance


> 1483 A year noted for its continual monsoon-like rains. The river Wye in
> Herefordshire and the Severn in Worcestershire rose rapidly&

Although the south-west often gets the worst of the weather, if heavy rain
was "continual" in the West Country that autumn it would be surprising if
London didn't catch at least some of it. So the Tower would be damply
unpleasant and surrounded by smelly mud, and nobody at the time would think
it odd that boys seemed to have been moved elsewhere. Only when they didn't
reappear - for whatever reason - would people start to wonder.

Until they put the Thames Barrier in in the 1980s, flooding was a constant
risk in London. When I was working on the Isle of Dogs in the '80s I
sometimes used to get to work by catching a catermaran taxi. One of the
Embankments of the Thames - the one near Parliament I think - has a row of
big bronze lion heads on it, with mooring-rings in their mouths for boats to
tie up at. There used to be a saying that "When the lion drinks, the Thames
will flood", meaning that if the water was high enough to enter the lions'
mouths it would be over its banks further downstream. I've bounced past
those lions in a little catamaran, leaping out of the water as it went, and
seen the water halfway up the lions' chins and within half an inch of their
mouths.

Paul wrote:

<clipped>

> And I mean no-one. Not Buckingham, certainly not Margaret Beaufort, who was supposedly under house arrest with her husband, who had, in my mind unbelievably, been made Constable by Richard. However, with Stanley returned to royal favour, why was his wife, one of the Anne's ladies in waiting, also returned to favour, joining the progress so that Richard could keep his eye on her?

Was MB actually on the progress? Because Kendall has her staying behind in London when the progress set out from Windsor. He has MB sending Reginald Bray to Morton/Buckingham when the latter needed him (to carry messages?) Perhaps she was on the progress until Anne left Richard? (See below.)

> Why for example did Richard stay at Sheriff Hutton during his progress? Why there in particular?

Kendall has him at Sheriff Hutton specifically to establish a household for little Warwick and John, Earl of Lincoln. So it sounds like he was in residence to supervise its establishment, rather than putting his seal of approval on something he'd ordered established before leaving London/Windsor?

>...Perhaps because the daughters of Edward IV were going to be moved to live there at some stage in the future, which of course they were, to be with their brothers perhaps, who Richard and Anne were settling in there?

It certainly sounds like he intended Sheriff Hutton to be a safehouse.

> After that stay the king and queen moved on to Nottingham, then Lincoln, while their son went back to Middleham and the fresh air and safety of the moors!

Anne didn't go with Richard to Nottingham. Around the middle of September, she left Sheriff Hutton with E of M to go back Middleham. Richard continued on with whatever retinue he had left to Nottingham and Lincoln.

I haven't looked to put together the puzzle pieces to know when Anne returned to London, or how she and Richard ended up in Nottingham the following April, where they were told their son had died.

~Weds

Long post. Sorry. I found one thing about Buckingham's Flood, and one thought led to another. You know how it is.

*October 1483 flood: 'In the second year of Richard III in the month of October 1483, as the Duke of Buckingham was advancing by long marches through the Forest of Dean to Gloucester, where he designed to pass with his army over the Severn, there was so great an inundation of water that men were drowned in their beds, houses were overturned, children were carried about the fields swimming in cradles, beasts were drowned on the hills. Which rage of water lasted for ten days and nights, and it is to this day in the counties thereabout called The Great Water' or The Duke of Buckingham's Water'' (Gloucester Journal, November 1770).*

Not sure about the second year' of Richard III, for surely it was the first? But the October 1483 is definite enough as the time of Buckingham's Rebellion. I cannot understand Buckingham attempting to cross the Severn at Gloucester in a particularly wet October. Clearly he did not go back and forth from Brecon all that often---once is all it would have taken me to get the picture. It is the worst possible time---or around March---because downstream of Worcester the tides are at their highest and most hazardous, what with the Severn Bore and so on. The bridge at Gloucester would have been isolated to the west by water. In the 15th century, before weirs and so on stopped the Bore at Maisemore, the wave went far inland, past Tewkesbury and as far as Worcester. It also went up the Avon from Tewkesbury. Attempting to cross in bad weather anywhere below that, especially with an army and everything that had to accompany it, would have been even more hazardous than heavy-rain floods, because of the tides. Upstream of Worcester, there would not be the Bore, but the floods themselves would have been too wide and treacherous to even think of entering them. Even as far north as Shrewsbury the river floods very badly and makes crossing dangerous.

South of Worcester, floods AND the Bore combined would have been a particularly fearful mix. And if Buckingham did indeed intend to cross at Gloucester, which is why he is said to have approached through the Forest of Dean, he would definitely encounter floods and strong tides together. Even when the bore isn't expected to be all that severe, the tides still come in and out twice in twenty-four hours. The land west of Gloucester and the river can be guaranteed to be flooded in weather as atrocious as that October. Didn't Buckingham seek advice before setting out? Or didn't he have any choice about the timing because all the plans had been firmly laid by others who didn't know how much the Severn had to be taken into account?

I have never really considered what Buckingham actually intended, and speak only as someone intrigued by things in general. Was Buckingham planning to join up with Henry Tudor's invasion? He would choose Gloucester for this. But if he intended to take the throne for himself, I'm convinced that to get to Richard first, he would have set out at the beginning to cross further north. But what do I know?

The Severn is still a sod of a river, and has to be treated with very healthy respect. It claims a life or two every year even now, and until recently there were always stories of people walking the sands near Newnham-Arlingham at low water, families out for a stroll on a summer evening, etc. That part of the river is a favourite beauty spot, with a grand pub and lots of families on summer evenings. The inland sands are golden and very inviting  and then people are caught when the bore scurries in. You can hear its roar long before you actually see it. No wonder the Romans made offerings to this river. I've lived in and around Gloucester since 1963, and no one here takes her lightly. My skin crawls when I am near that silent, muddy, tidal water, then comes the noise, the bore and for a couple of hours the river flows backward. Buckingham must have been stupid (always likely) or forced to go ahead because other plans, i.e. Henry Tudor, for the rebellion gave him no option (possible). Either way he needed his bumps felt IMHO. It cost him dear in the end.

I'll shut up now.

I suspect that he didn't know jack about the Severn which I think is second only to the Bay of Fundy in terms of drastic changes in water level.

Somebody who could be taken in by Morton would IMHO be also likely to charge into an area without taking stock of the local conditions.


Tamara



-----Original Message-----
From: sandramachin@...
To: <>
Sent: Mon, May 13, 2013 8:41 am
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance



Long post. Sorry. I found one thing about Buckingham's Flood, and one thought
led to another. You know how it is.

*October 1483 flood: 'In the second year of Richard III in the month of October
1483, as the Duke of Buckingham was advancing by long marches through the Forest
of Dean to Gloucester, where he designed to pass with his army over the Severn,
there was so great an inundation of water that men were drowned in their beds,
houses were overturned, children were carried about the fields swimming in
cradles, beasts were drowned on the hills. Which rage of water lasted for ten
days and nights, and it is to this day in the counties thereabout called The
Great Water' or The Duke of Buckingham's Water'' (Gloucester Journal, November
1770).*

Not sure about the second year' of Richard III, for surely it was the first?
But the October 1483 is definite enough as the time of Buckingham's Rebellion. I
cannot understand Buckingham attempting to cross the Severn at Gloucester in a
particularly wet October. Clearly he did not go back and forth from Brecon all
that often---once is all it would have taken me to get the picture. It is the
worst possible time---or around March---because downstream of Worcester the
tides are at their highest and most hazardous, what with the Severn Bore and so
on. The bridge at Gloucester would have been isolated to the west by water. In
the 15th century, before weirs and so on stopped the Bore at Maisemore, the wave
went far inland, past Tewkesbury and as far as Worcester. It also went up the
Avon from Tewkesbury. Attempting to cross in bad weather anywhere below that,
especially with an army and everything that had to accompany it, would have been
even more hazardous than heavy-rain floods, because of the tides. Upstream of
Worcester, there would not be the Bore, but the floods themselves would have
been too wide and treacherous to even think of entering them. Even as far north
as Shrewsbury the river floods very badly and makes crossing dangerous.

South of Worcester, floods AND the Bore combined would have been a particularly
fearful mix. And if Buckingham did indeed intend to cross at Gloucester, which
is why he is said to have approached through the Forest of Dean, he would
definitely encounter floods and strong tides together. Even when the bore isn't
expected to be all that severe, the tides still come in and out twice in
twenty-four hours. The land west of Gloucester and the river can be guaranteed
to be flooded in weather as atrocious as that October. Didn't Buckingham seek
advice before setting out? Or didn't he have any choice about the timing because
all the plans had been firmly laid by others who didn't know how much the Severn
had to be taken into account?

I have never really considered what Buckingham actually intended, and speak only
as someone intrigued by things in general. Was Buckingham planning to join up
with Henry Tudor's invasion? He would choose Gloucester for this. But if he
intended to take the throne for himself, I'm convinced that to get to Richard
first, he would have set out at the beginning to cross further north. But what
do I know?

The Severn is still a sod of a river, and has to be treated with very healthy
respect. It claims a life or two every year even now, and until recently there
were always stories of people walking the sands near Newnham-Arlingham at low
water, families out for a stroll on a summer evening, etc. That part of the
river is a favourite beauty spot, with a grand pub and lots of families on
summer evenings. The inland sands are golden and very inviting  and then people
are caught when the bore scurries in. You can hear its roar long before you
actually see it. No wonder the Romans made offerings to this river. I've lived
in and around Gloucester since 1963, and no one here takes her lightly. My skin
crawls when I am near that silent, muddy, tidal water, then comes the noise, the
bore and for a couple of hours the river flows backward. Buckingham must have
been stupid (always likely) or forced to go ahead because other plans, i.e.
Henry Tudor, for the rebellion gave him no option (possible). Either way he
needed his bumps felt IMHO. It cost him dear in the end.

I'll shut up now.



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Sandra, I think this yet again enforces that there are so many things we don't know. And it's intriguing how so much has disappeared, though by whose hands we don't know.
 
Sometimes when you think we have only the 'chronicles' to rely on it's as though we are back a millennium before, but then read a few wills and a few Exchequer docs and these people lived in an age we could recognise. I like you know the Severn, in fact I dodged its floods less than a decade ago on a journey home from Bristol. What you say is very important. I think we have to look outside the box, we seem to go over and over the same material. Richard wasn't necessarily the centre of this, it was the plan to topple him which was. I know others may disagree, but everything I've found out so far points to it.


________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013, 18:41
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

 

Long post. Sorry. I found one thing about Buckingham's Flood, and one thought led to another. You know how it is.

*October 1483 flood: 'In the second year of Richard III in the month of October 1483, as the Duke of Buckingham was advancing by long marches through the Forest of Dean to Gloucester, where he designed to pass with his army over the Severn, there was so great an inundation of water that men were drowned in their beds, houses were overturned, children were carried about the fields swimming in cradles, beasts were drowned on the hills. Which rage of water lasted for ten days and nights, and it is to this day in the counties thereabout called The Great Water' or The Duke of Buckingham's Water'' (Gloucester Journal, November 1770).*

Not sure about the second year' of Richard III, for surely it was the first? But the October 1483 is definite enough as the time of Buckingham's Rebellion. I cannot understand Buckingham attempting to cross the Severn at Gloucester in a particularly wet October. Clearly he did not go back and forth from Brecon all that often---once is all it would have taken me to get the picture. It is the worst possible time---or around March---because downstream of Worcester the tides are at their highest and most hazardous, what with the Severn Bore and so on. The bridge at Gloucester would have been isolated to the west by water. In the 15th century, before weirs and so on stopped the Bore at Maisemore, the wave went far inland, past Tewkesbury and as far as Worcester. It also went up the Avon from Tewkesbury. Attempting to cross in bad weather anywhere below that, especially with an army and everything that had to accompany it, would have been even more
hazardous than heavy-rain floods, because of the tides. Upstream of Worcester, there would not be the Bore, but the floods themselves would have been too wide and treacherous to even think of entering them. Even as far north as Shrewsbury the river floods very badly and makes crossing dangerous.

South of Worcester, floods AND the Bore combined would have been a particularly fearful mix. And if Buckingham did indeed intend to cross at Gloucester, which is why he is said to have approached through the Forest of Dean, he would definitely encounter floods and strong tides together. Even when the bore isn't expected to be all that severe, the tides still come in and out twice in twenty-four hours. The land west of Gloucester and the river can be guaranteed to be flooded in weather as atrocious as that October. Didn't Buckingham seek advice before setting out? Or didn't he have any choice about the timing because all the plans had been firmly laid by others who didn't know how much the Severn had to be taken into account?

I have never really considered what Buckingham actually intended, and speak only as someone intrigued by things in general. Was Buckingham planning to join up with Henry Tudor's invasion? He would choose Gloucester for this. But if he intended to take the throne for himself, I'm convinced that to get to Richard first, he would have set out at the beginning to cross further north. But what do I know?

The Severn is still a sod of a river, and has to be treated with very healthy respect. It claims a life or two every year even now, and until recently there were always stories of people walking the sands near Newnham-Arlingham at low water, families out for a stroll on a summer evening, etc. That part of the river is a favourite beauty spot, with a grand pub and lots of families on summer evenings. The inland sands are golden and very inviting  and then people are caught when the bore scurries in. You can hear its roar long before you actually see it. No wonder the Romans made offerings to this river. I've lived in and around Gloucester since 1963, and no one here takes her lightly. My skin crawls when I am near that silent, muddy, tidal water, then comes the noise, the bore and for a couple of hours the river flows backward. Buckingham must have been stupid (always likely) or forced to go ahead because other plans, i.e. Henry Tudor, for the
rebellion gave him no option (possible). Either way he needed his bumps felt IMHO. It cost him dear in the end.

I'll shut up now.




 

Very good thoughts..... And the plot to rid England of the Plantagenets went on long before Richard. I am sure someone has taken a comprehensive look at the Dynasty, but from a Ricardian viewpoint? Out of the bios for certain would give much to think about and explore.

On May 13, 2013, at 3:59 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Sandra, I think this yet again enforces that there are so many things we don't know. And it's intriguing how so much has disappeared, though by whose hands we don't know.

Sometimes when you think we have only the 'chronicles' to rely on it's as though we are back a millennium before, but then read a few wills and a few Exchequer docs and these people lived in an age we could recognise. I like you know the Severn, in fact I dodged its floods less than a decade ago on a journey home from Bristol. What you say is very important. I think we have to look outside the box, we seem to go over and over the same material. Richard wasn't necessarily the centre of this, it was the plan to topple him which was. I know others may disagree, but everything I've found out so far points to it.


________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013, 18:41
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance



Long post. Sorry. I found one thing about Buckinghamýs Flood, and one thought led to another. You know how it is.

*October 1483 flood: ý'In the second year of Richard III in the month of October 1483, as the Duke of Buckingham was advancing by long marches through the Forest of Dean to Gloucester, where he designed to pass with his army over the Severn, there was so great an inundation of water that men were drowned in their beds, houses were overturned, children were carried about the fields swimming in cradles, beasts were drowned on the hills. Which rage of water lasted for ten days and nights, and it is to this day in the counties thereabout called ýThe Great Waterý or ýThe Duke of Buckinghamýs Waterý' (Gloucester Journal, November 1770).*

Not sure about the ýsecond yearý of Richard III, for surely it was the first? But the October 1483 is definite enough as the time of Buckinghamýs Rebellion. I cannot understand Buckingham attempting to cross the Severn at Gloucester in a particularly wet October. Clearly he did not go back and forth from Brecon all that often---once is all it would have taken me to get the picture. It is the worst possible time---or around March---because downstream of Worcester the tides are at their highest and most hazardous, what with the Severn Bore and so on. The bridge at Gloucester would have been isolated to the west by water. In the 15th century, before weirs and so on stopped the Bore at Maisemore, the wave went far inland, past Tewkesbury and as far as Worcester. It also went up the Avon from Tewkesbury. Attempting to cross in bad weather anywhere below that, especially with an army and everything that had to accompany it, would have been even more
hazardous than heavy-rain floods, because of the tides. Upstream of Worcester, there would not be the Bore, but the floods themselves would have been too wide and treacherous to even think of entering them. Even as far north as Shrewsbury the river floods very badly and makes crossing dangerous.

South of Worcester, floods AND the Bore combined would have been a particularly fearful mix. And if Buckingham did indeed intend to cross at Gloucester, which is why he is said to have approached through the Forest of Dean, he would definitely encounter floods and strong tides together. Even when the bore isnýt expected to be all that severe, the tides still come in and out twice in twenty-four hours. The land west of Gloucester and the river can be guaranteed to be flooded in weather as atrocious as that October. Didnýt Buckingham seek advice before setting out? Or didnýt he have any choice about the timing because all the plans had been firmly laid by others who didnýt know how much the Severn had to be taken into account?

I have never really considered what Buckingham actually intended, and speak only as someone intrigued by things in general. Was Buckingham planning to join up with Henry Tudorýs invasion? He would choose Gloucester for this. But if he intended to take the throne for himself, Iým convinced that to get to Richard first, he would have set out at the beginning to cross further north. But what do I know?

The Severn is still a sod of a river, and has to be treated with very healthy respect. It claims a life or two every year even now, and until recently there were always stories of people walking the sands near Newnham-Arlingham at low water, families out for a stroll on a summer evening, etc. That part of the river is a favourite beauty spot, with a grand pub and lots of families on summer evenings. The inland sands are golden and very inviting ý and then people are caught when the bore scurries in. You can hear its roar long before you actually see it. No wonder the Romans made offerings to this river. Iýve lived in and around Gloucester since 1963, and no one here takes her lightly. My skin crawls when I am near that silent, muddy, tidal water, then comes the noise, the bore and for a couple of hours the river flows backward. Buckingham must have been stupid (always likely) or forced to go ahead because other plans, i.e. Henry Tudor, for the
rebellion gave him no option (possible). Either way he needed his bumps felt IMHO. It cost him dear in the end.

Iýll shut up now.

Ngh!

(NOTE: This is a word used when a Ricardian's brain hurts after she has tried for days to make sense of the details surrounding the disappearance of the Little Terrors in the Tower. Other words used are not suitable for use here.)

After reading Carol's erudite post (per below) and literally screeching like a barn owl in frustration at the tangle provided by the available resources, and the unavailability of reliable resources regarding everything to do with those Tower Brats, I've come to believe that what separates the Traditionalist from the Ricardian is that the Traditionalist throws up his/her hands when looking at anything pre-1485 and flees in horror back to the plethora of Tudor documentation/propaganda -- and *not* because Richard did it.

By comparison, anyone loyal to Richard -- and like the most loyal horse or dog imaginable -- keeps tracing and retracing what is available, no matter how reliable/unreliable. There is something inside us that won't give up. We continue hoping and believing if we just keep teasing through whatever we have, we'll find something something -- anything -- we haven't seen or heard or discovered before. Surely it's there...?

It has also occurred to me that the tangle of non-information may exist precisely because Richard is innocent. Because heaven knows that the documentation of the Tudors many judicial murders and off-with-their-heads moments is solid and multiple and nauseatingly plentiful -- witness the many books, textbooks, biographies, movies, romances, mini-series, documentaries that make much money for their producers. And also because heaven knows if The Tudor Company Ltd could have come up with any sort of original documentation to damn Richard, they would have.

More and more, I'm thinking that we don't have proof of Richard's innocence because the proof of his guilt was never there either. Because if Richard were guilty, The Tudor Company Ltd would have seen it published in a hundred gleeful, better forms than Vergil or More or Mancini or the Chronicles or Old Bill.

I guess what I'm trying to say (and think) is that if Richard were guilty of killing the littles, the proof should be there in spades. A murderer *always* leaves evidence behind, but all we have evidence of is gossip. That's not evidence of murder. Either Richard was the most gifted judicial murderer ever (who managed to cover all his tracks and all the tracks of those who helped him do this while he was on progress), or something's rotten in the records.

Maybe we should do what criminal investigators in the U.S. do to determine whether they have evidence that will stand in court. Per Wikipedia, in US Criminal law, "means, motive, and opportunity" is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding.

Respectively, they refer to:

(1) the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means)

(2) the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime (motive)

(3) and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity)

Maybe we should list possible other suspects for the murder of the little Brats? If none of those people had the means, motive and opportunity to kill the darlings, then perhaps the argument of Richard having the means, motive and opportunity to get them out of reach?

~Weds

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> > Far be it from me to try to haul water for Ms. Weir, an author for whom I have little regard. But as it happens, in looking for the source of the "Easter 1483" vs. "Easter 1484" discussion, I picked up *The Maligned King,* and there I found the following: [snip]
>
> > Thus from Ms. Carson's line of reasoning from Vergil and the Chronicler, it would appear that the death or disappearance of the Princes occurred sometime after the investiture of Richard's son Edward as Prince of Wales on 8 September 1483.
>
> > Does anyone know off-hand how that chronology fits with Buckingham's being in London? Was that during the earlier part of Richard's progress (i.e. before Richard arrived at York) or afterward? [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> First, Johanne, don't worry. You're undermining Weir, not supporting her. She's saying that the Croyland chronicler must be *wrong* in saying that the boys were alive at the time of EoM's investiture (September 8) because Tyrell (who *must* have killed them because More says so) was already back in York by that time and must have left London several days earlier to be there in time. So, in Weir's view, he *must* have killed Richard's nephews on September 3. (She depicts Richard walking hand in hand with his little son at his investiture in the sure knowledge that his nephews were dead--"wicked uncle" indeed.)
>
> We do know that Tyrell went to London before the investiture, which is probably why his name was ultimately associated with the "murders" by Vergil and others, but the Croyland chronicler's dating, if accurate, exonerates him (which is why, for Weir, the chronicler must be "wrong"). (If you've read our earlier threads on Tyrrell, you know that the question of Tyrrell's association with the "Princes" is actually much more complicated than this and that there was no confession, but what really happened or may have happened is irrelevant to Weir, who believes that More's story reflects a real confession by Tyrrell. She has no clue that More invented the whole thing, confession and all.)
>
> As for the rumors that were spread after the failed "rescue" attempt, they seem to coincide with Buckingham's joining of the rebellion, but IMO that could have as much to do with Morton (now free) as with Buckingham. I suspect that B. knew about the bodyguard that the chronicler mentions, and it's quite possible that the boys *had* been moved deeper into the Tower for their own safety. Buckingham could have reported these new arrangements to Morton, who could have suggested using them as the basis for a rumor ("The boys have disappeared--they must have been killed") and let the rumor grow and develop on its own among the target population, the dissident Yorkists who wanted to depose Richard and put EV on the throne.
>
> Regarding Buckingham in London, keep reading. Annette doesn't think that Buckingham (or anyone else) killed the boys, and she presents a chronology of his whereabouts to support her theory.
>
> Note that while More and Vergil have Buckingham meeting with Richard on Richard's progress, CC does not. I think half the problems historians have in figuring out not only what happened with the "Princes" and what motivated Buckingham relates to the assumption that Vergil and More knew what they were writing about. The rest relates to the assumption that Mancini's reports of the boys being moved further into the Tower and being seen less and less are firsthand observation and relate to his time in London when in fact they probably reflect the very rumors we're talking about, which were being spread in October or November (I'm not sure of the timing, but I don't think it was as early as September) among the dissident Yorkists in England and, in France, among Henry Tudor's followers.
>
> If we can figure out (via Annette or other sources) when Buckingham reached Brecon, when he wrote to Tudor, when Morton arrived in France, and compare that to the date of the French speech naming Richard as the murderer of his nephews, we should have a good idea of when the rumors first arose among the rebels (as opposed to the whispers in London, which seemingly did not arise until the following April).
>
> Carol
>

It's my understanding that Humphrey Stafford systematically wrecked bridges (and blocked passes and posted men in narrow mountain passes) ahead of Buckingham. The storm also helped by not only flooding the Severn, but washing out roads and other river crossings as well. Forsooth he was dooooomed and his army melted away.


--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

> Didn’t Buckingham seek advice before setting out? Or didn’t he have any choice about the timing because all the plans had been firmly laid by others who didn’t know how much the Severn had to be taken into account?

Excellent thoughts......and I like NGH!

On May 13, 2013, at 4:43 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:



Ngh!

(NOTE: This is a word used when a Ricardian's brain hurts after she has tried for days to make sense of the details surrounding the disappearance of the Little Terrors in the Tower. Other words used are not suitable for use here.)

After reading Carol's erudite post (per below) and literally screeching like a barn owl in frustration at the tangle provided by the available resources, and the unavailability of reliable resources regarding everything to do with those Tower Brats, I've come to believe that what separates the Traditionalist from the Ricardian is that the Traditionalist throws up his/her hands when looking at anything pre-1485 and flees in horror back to the plethora of Tudor documentation/propaganda -- and *not* because Richard did it.

By comparison, anyone loyal to Richard -- and like the most loyal horse or dog imaginable -- keeps tracing and retracing what is available, no matter how reliable/unreliable. There is something inside us that won't give up. We continue hoping and believing if we just keep teasing through whatever we have, we'll find something something -- anything -- we haven't seen or heard or discovered before. Surely it's there...?

It has also occurred to me that the tangle of non-information may exist precisely because Richard is innocent. Because heaven knows that the documentation of the Tudors many judicial murders and off-with-their-heads moments is solid and multiple and nauseatingly plentiful -- witness the many books, textbooks, biographies, movies, romances, mini-series, documentaries that make much money for their producers. And also because heaven knows if The Tudor Company Ltd could have come up with any sort of original documentation to damn Richard, they would have.

More and more, I'm thinking that we don't have proof of Richard's innocence because the proof of his guilt was never there either. Because if Richard were guilty, The Tudor Company Ltd would have seen it published in a hundred gleeful, better forms than Vergil or More or Mancini or the Chronicles or Old Bill.

I guess what I'm trying to say (and think) is that if Richard were guilty of killing the littles, the proof should be there in spades. A murderer *always* leaves evidence behind, but all we have evidence of is gossip. That's not evidence of murder. Either Richard was the most gifted judicial murderer ever (who managed to cover all his tracks and all the tracks of those who helped him do this while he was on progress), or something's rotten in the records.

Maybe we should do what criminal investigators in the U.S. do to determine whether they have evidence that will stand in court. Per Wikipedia, in US Criminal law, "means, motive, and opportunity" is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding.

Respectively, they refer to:

(1) the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means)

(2) the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime (motive)

(3) and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity)

Maybe we should list possible other suspects for the murder of the little Brats? If none of those people had the means, motive and opportunity to kill the darlings, then perhaps the argument of Richard having the means, motive and opportunity to get them out of reach?

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> > Far be it from me to try to haul water for Ms. Weir, an author for whom I have little regard. But as it happens, in looking for the source of the "Easter 1483" vs. "Easter 1484" discussion, I picked up *The Maligned King,* and there I found the following: [snip]
>
> > Thus from Ms. Carson's line of reasoning from Vergil and the Chronicler, it would appear that the death or disappearance of the Princes occurred sometime after the investiture of Richard's son Edward as Prince of Wales on 8 September 1483.
>
> > Does anyone know off-hand how that chronology fits with Buckingham's being in London? Was that during the earlier part of Richard's progress (i.e. before Richard arrived at York) or afterward? [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> First, Johanne, don't worry. You're undermining Weir, not supporting her. She's saying that the Croyland chronicler must be *wrong* in saying that the boys were alive at the time of EoM's investiture (September 8) because Tyrell (who *must* have killed them because More says so) was already back in York by that time and must have left London several days earlier to be there in time. So, in Weir's view, he *must* have killed Richard's nephews on September 3. (She depicts Richard walking hand in hand with his little son at his investiture in the sure knowledge that his nephews were dead--"wicked uncle" indeed.)
>
> We do know that Tyrell went to London before the investiture, which is probably why his name was ultimately associated with the "murders" by Vergil and others, but the Croyland chronicler's dating, if accurate, exonerates him (which is why, for Weir, the chronicler must be "wrong"). (If you've read our earlier threads on Tyrrell, you know that the question of Tyrrell's association with the "Princes" is actually much more complicated than this and that there was no confession, but what really happened or may have happened is irrelevant to Weir, who believes that More's story reflects a real confession by Tyrrell. She has no clue that More invented the whole thing, confession and all.)
>
> As for the rumors that were spread after the failed "rescue" attempt, they seem to coincide with Buckingham's joining of the rebellion, but IMO that could have as much to do with Morton (now free) as with Buckingham. I suspect that B. knew about the bodyguard that the chronicler mentions, and it's quite possible that the boys *had* been moved deeper into the Tower for their own safety. Buckingham could have reported these new arrangements to Morton, who could have suggested using them as the basis for a rumor ("The boys have disappeared--they must have been killed") and let the rumor grow and develop on its own among the target population, the dissident Yorkists who wanted to depose Richard and put EV on the throne.
>
> Regarding Buckingham in London, keep reading. Annette doesn't think that Buckingham (or anyone else) killed the boys, and she presents a chronology of his whereabouts to support her theory.
>
> Note that while More and Vergil have Buckingham meeting with Richard on Richard's progress, CC does not. I think half the problems historians have in figuring out not only what happened with the "Princes" and what motivated Buckingham relates to the assumption that Vergil and More knew what they were writing about. The rest relates to the assumption that Mancini's reports of the boys being moved further into the Tower and being seen less and less are firsthand observation and relate to his time in London when in fact they probably reflect the very rumors we're talking about, which were being spread in October or November (I'm not sure of the timing, but I don't think it was as early as September) among the dissident Yorkists in England and, in France, among Henry Tudor's followers.
>
> If we can figure out (via Annette or other sources) when Buckingham reached Brecon, when he wrote to Tudor, when Morton arrived in France, and compare that to the date of the French speech naming Richard as the murderer of his nephews, we should have a good idea of when the rumors first arose among the rebels (as opposed to the whispers in London, which seemingly did not arise until the following April).
>
> Carol
>

Well said Weds. Add in the fact that H7 was plagued by pretenders but he didn't bring forward any worthwhile evidence to prove that they were dead. I think that if Richard did get them safely abroad his organisation of the deed was extremely thorough. He probably left nothing to chance and covered their tracks well. The fact that Tyrrell and Brampton were not in the country for Bosworth says a lot about the fact that they were involved. I would imagine that Richard would have needed their expertise to see off the usurper but what they were doing was more important. Brampton never came back until after Warbeck was executed. Also it would be interesting to know why James Tyrrell was pardoned twice by Tudor, not sure if it was in 1485 or 1486.

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Ngh!
>
> (NOTE: This is a word used when a Ricardian's brain hurts after she has tried for days to make sense of the details surrounding the disappearance of the Little Terrors in the Tower. Other words used are not suitable for use here.)
>
> After reading Carol's erudite post (per below) and literally screeching like a barn owl in frustration at the tangle provided by the available resources, and the unavailability of reliable resources regarding everything to do with those Tower Brats, I've come to believe that what separates the Traditionalist from the Ricardian is that the Traditionalist throws up his/her hands when looking at anything pre-1485 and flees in horror back to the plethora of Tudor documentation/propaganda -- and *not* because Richard did it.
>
> By comparison, anyone loyal to Richard -- and like the most loyal horse or dog imaginable -- keeps tracing and retracing what is available, no matter how reliable/unreliable. There is something inside us that won't give up. We continue hoping and believing if we just keep teasing through whatever we have, we'll find something something -- anything -- we haven't seen or heard or discovered before. Surely it's there...?
>
> It has also occurred to me that the tangle of non-information may exist precisely because Richard is innocent. Because heaven knows that the documentation of the Tudors many judicial murders and off-with-their-heads moments is solid and multiple and nauseatingly plentiful -- witness the many books, textbooks, biographies, movies, romances, mini-series, documentaries that make much money for their producers. And also because heaven knows if The Tudor Company Ltd could have come up with any sort of original documentation to damn Richard, they would have.
>
> More and more, I'm thinking that we don't have proof of Richard's innocence because the proof of his guilt was never there either. Because if Richard were guilty, The Tudor Company Ltd would have seen it published in a hundred gleeful, better forms than Vergil or More or Mancini or the Chronicles or Old Bill.
>
> I guess what I'm trying to say (and think) is that if Richard were guilty of killing the littles, the proof should be there in spades. A murderer *always* leaves evidence behind, but all we have evidence of is gossip. That's not evidence of murder. Either Richard was the most gifted judicial murderer ever (who managed to cover all his tracks and all the tracks of those who helped him do this while he was on progress), or something's rotten in the records.
>
> Maybe we should do what criminal investigators in the U.S. do to determine whether they have evidence that will stand in court. Per Wikipedia, in US Criminal law, "means, motive, and opportunity" is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding.
>
> Respectively, they refer to:
>
> (1) the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means)
>
> (2) the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime (motive)
>
> (3) and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity)
>
> Maybe we should list possible other suspects for the murder of the little Brats? If none of those people had the means, motive and opportunity to kill the darlings, then perhaps the argument of Richard having the means, motive and opportunity to get them out of reach?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > > Far be it from me to try to haul water for Ms. Weir, an author for whom I have little regard. But as it happens, in looking for the source of the "Easter 1483" vs. "Easter 1484" discussion, I picked up *The Maligned King,* and there I found the following: [snip]
> >
> > > Thus from Ms. Carson's line of reasoning from Vergil and the Chronicler, it would appear that the death or disappearance of the Princes occurred sometime after the investiture of Richard's son Edward as Prince of Wales on 8 September 1483.
> >
> > > Does anyone know off-hand how that chronology fits with Buckingham's being in London? Was that during the earlier part of Richard's progress (i.e. before Richard arrived at York) or afterward? [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > First, Johanne, don't worry. You're undermining Weir, not supporting her. She's saying that the Croyland chronicler must be *wrong* in saying that the boys were alive at the time of EoM's investiture (September 8) because Tyrell (who *must* have killed them because More says so) was already back in York by that time and must have left London several days earlier to be there in time. So, in Weir's view, he *must* have killed Richard's nephews on September 3. (She depicts Richard walking hand in hand with his little son at his investiture in the sure knowledge that his nephews were dead--"wicked uncle" indeed.)
> >
> > We do know that Tyrell went to London before the investiture, which is probably why his name was ultimately associated with the "murders" by Vergil and others, but the Croyland chronicler's dating, if accurate, exonerates him (which is why, for Weir, the chronicler must be "wrong"). (If you've read our earlier threads on Tyrrell, you know that the question of Tyrrell's association with the "Princes" is actually much more complicated than this and that there was no confession, but what really happened or may have happened is irrelevant to Weir, who believes that More's story reflects a real confession by Tyrrell. She has no clue that More invented the whole thing, confession and all.)
> >
> > As for the rumors that were spread after the failed "rescue" attempt, they seem to coincide with Buckingham's joining of the rebellion, but IMO that could have as much to do with Morton (now free) as with Buckingham. I suspect that B. knew about the bodyguard that the chronicler mentions, and it's quite possible that the boys *had* been moved deeper into the Tower for their own safety. Buckingham could have reported these new arrangements to Morton, who could have suggested using them as the basis for a rumor ("The boys have disappeared--they must have been killed") and let the rumor grow and develop on its own among the target population, the dissident Yorkists who wanted to depose Richard and put EV on the throne.
> >
> > Regarding Buckingham in London, keep reading. Annette doesn't think that Buckingham (or anyone else) killed the boys, and she presents a chronology of his whereabouts to support her theory.
> >
> > Note that while More and Vergil have Buckingham meeting with Richard on Richard's progress, CC does not. I think half the problems historians have in figuring out not only what happened with the "Princes" and what motivated Buckingham relates to the assumption that Vergil and More knew what they were writing about. The rest relates to the assumption that Mancini's reports of the boys being moved further into the Tower and being seen less and less are firsthand observation and relate to his time in London when in fact they probably reflect the very rumors we're talking about, which were being spread in October or November (I'm not sure of the timing, but I don't think it was as early as September) among the dissident Yorkists in England and, in France, among Henry Tudor's followers.
> >
> > If we can figure out (via Annette or other sources) when Buckingham reached Brecon, when he wrote to Tudor, when Morton arrived in France, and compare that to the date of the French speech naming Richard as the murderer of his nephews, we should have a good idea of when the rumors first arose among the rebels (as opposed to the whispers in London, which seemingly did not arise until the following April).
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Still thinking, I'm afraid. Never a good sign. Did Buckingham's choice of
Gloucester indicate his initial intention to support Henry Tudor's claim?
And did the floods leave him with three choices - (1) Take the long detour
and still go to Henry, in the south of the realm, hoping not to be
side-swiped and skirmished by Richard before he got there. On the hoof, so
to speak. (2) Disband his army, call it a day and go home to Brecon in time
for tea and tiffin in front of the roaring log fire. (3) Make use of the
army to go after Richard on his own account? It was a more direct thing to
go north up the higher land on the west bank of the river, cross at the
first opportunity above Worcester, and go face to face in battle formation
with Richard in the centre of the kingdom. By then he certainly would not be
thinking of Henry Tudor, but of himself. Buckingham had the claim,
Buckingham raised the army, Buckingham had taken on Richard, and if
Buckingham won it would be to put Buckingham on the throne, not some
Lancastrian half-Beaufort upstart without a legitimate claim. It all went
pear-shaped, of course, but that is how I am beginning to view Buckingham's
actions. Whatever his motives, I cannot respect him. He was no adornment to
his family or dukedom. Richard, already embittered by his treachery, would
have made mincemeat of him on a battlefield.

But yes, altogether there was a HUGE conspiracy going on across England,
working on so many levels it cannot be deciphered. Perhaps it could not be
deciphered even then. How many of them actually knew what others were up to?
All they knew was that they had the same aim. It had probably been building
from the moment the House of York settled on the throne. Only Edward IV's
strength as king kept them at bay. Richard was the conspiracy's ultimate
victim. His actions, justified and inevitable as they were, finally tipped
the balance and he paid the price for the removal of Henry VI and the House
of Lancaster. The fact that he was a good king made no difference at all. He
was the wrong House, and personal tragedy wounded and weakened him. The pack
moved in on their prey. I think it would have happened even if Edward V came
to the throne. They all wanted rid of York, and Edward V could only be
manipulated until he was of an age to think for himself. By then he might
have come to think well of his blood line. He might even think Uncle Richard
had some good ideas! So he would have to go, because he was House of York,
regardless of how much influence the Woodvilles had over him. Well, it all
succeeded...York was disposed of, and they got Tudor instead. Good luck to
them.

Sandra

-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Bain
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:05 PM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
Disappearance

Very good thoughts..... And the plot to rid England of the Plantagenets went
on long before Richard. I am sure someone has taken a comprehensive look at
the Dynasty, but from a Ricardian viewpoint? Out of the bios for certain
would give much to think about and explore.

On May 13, 2013, at 3:59 PM, "Hilary Jones"
<hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Sandra, I think this yet again enforces that there are so many things we
don't know. And it's intriguing how so much has disappeared, though by whose
hands we don't know.

Sometimes when you think we have only the 'chronicles' to rely on it's as
though we are back a millennium before, but then read a few wills and a few
Exchequer docs and these people lived in an age we could recognise. I like
you know the Severn, in fact I dodged its floods less than a decade ago on a
journey home from Bristol. What you say is very important. I think we have
to look outside the box, we seem to go over and over the same material.
Richard wasn't necessarily the centre of this, it was the plan to topple him
which was. I know others may disagree, but everything I've found out so far
points to it.


________________________________
From: SandraMachin
<sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>>
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013, 18:41
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
Disappearance



Long post. Sorry. I found one thing about Buckingham's Flood, and one
thought led to another. You know how it is.

*October 1483 flood: 'In the second year of Richard III in the month of
October 1483, as the Duke of Buckingham was advancing by long marches
through the Forest of Dean to Gloucester, where he designed to pass with his
army over the Severn, there was so great an inundation of water that men
were drowned in their beds, houses were overturned, children were carried
about the fields swimming in cradles, beasts were drowned on the hills.
Which rage of water lasted for ten days and nights, and it is to this day in
the counties thereabout called The Great Water' or The Duke of Buckingham's
Water'' (Gloucester Journal, November 1770).*

Not sure about the second year' of Richard III, for surely it was the
first? But the October 1483 is definite enough as the time of Buckingham's
Rebellion. I cannot understand Buckingham attempting to cross the Severn at
Gloucester in a particularly wet October. Clearly he did not go back and
forth from Brecon all that often---once is all it would have taken me to get
the picture. It is the worst possible time---or around March---because
downstream of Worcester the tides are at their highest and most hazardous,
what with the Severn Bore and so on. The bridge at Gloucester would have
been isolated to the west by water. In the 15th century, before weirs and so
on stopped the Bore at Maisemore, the wave went far inland, past Tewkesbury
and as far as Worcester. It also went up the Avon from Tewkesbury.
Attempting to cross in bad weather anywhere below that, especially with an
army and everything that had to accompany it, would have been even more
hazardous than heavy-rain floods, because of the tides. Upstream of
Worcester, there would not be the Bore, but the floods themselves would have
been too wide and treacherous to even think of entering them. Even as far
north as Shrewsbury the river floods very badly and makes crossing
dangerous.

South of Worcester, floods AND the Bore combined would have been a
particularly fearful mix. And if Buckingham did indeed intend to cross at
Gloucester, which is why he is said to have approached through the Forest of
Dean, he would definitely encounter floods and strong tides together. Even
when the bore isn't expected to be all that severe, the tides still come in
and out twice in twenty-four hours. The land west of Gloucester and the
river can be guaranteed to be flooded in weather as atrocious as that
October. Didn't Buckingham seek advice before setting out? Or didn't he have
any choice about the timing because all the plans had been firmly laid by
others who didn't know how much the Severn had to be taken into account?

I have never really considered what Buckingham actually intended, and speak
only as someone intrigued by things in general. Was Buckingham planning to
join up with Henry Tudor's invasion? He would choose Gloucester for this.
But if he intended to take the throne for himself, I'm convinced that to get
to Richard first, he would have set out at the beginning to cross further
north. But what do I know?

The Severn is still a sod of a river, and has to be treated with very
healthy respect. It claims a life or two every year even now, and until
recently there were always stories of people walking the sands near
Newnham-Arlingham at low water, families out for a stroll on a summer
evening, etc. That part of the river is a favourite beauty spot, with a
grand pub and lots of families on summer evenings. The inland sands are
golden and very inviting  and then people are caught when the bore scurries
in. You can hear its roar long before you actually see it. No wonder the
Romans made offerings to this river. I've lived in and around Gloucester
since 1963, and no one here takes her lightly. My skin crawls when I am near
that silent, muddy, tidal water, then comes the noise, the bore and for a
couple of hours the river flows backward. Buckingham must have been stupid
(always likely) or forced to go ahead because other plans, i.e. Henry Tudor,
for the
rebellion gave him no option (possible). Either way he needed his bumps felt
IMHO. It cost him dear in the end.

Not sure where the first opportunity to cross the River Severn above Worcester would be. Probably Bewdley. In those days there was no bridge at Bewdley ( Richard gave money towards the building of a bridge} but there was a ford at Lax Lane but if the river was in flood then that would not have been usable. There are bridges at Stourport and Holt Heath now but not sure there would have been in those days.

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Still thinking, I'm afraid. Never a good sign. Did Buckingham's choice of
> Gloucester indicate his initial intention to support Henry Tudor's claim?
> And did the floods leave him with three choices - (1) Take the long detour
> and still go to Henry, in the south of the realm, hoping not to be
> side-swiped and skirmished by Richard before he got there. On the hoof, so
> to speak. (2) Disband his army, call it a day and go home to Brecon in time
> for tea and tiffin in front of the roaring log fire. (3) Make use of the
> army to go after Richard on his own account? It was a more direct thing to
> go north up the higher land on the west bank of the river, cross at the
> first opportunity above Worcester, and go face to face in battle formation
> with Richard in the centre of the kingdom. By then he certainly would not be
> thinking of Henry Tudor, but of himself. Buckingham had the claim,
> Buckingham raised the army, Buckingham had taken on Richard, and if
> Buckingham won it would be to put Buckingham on the throne, not some
> Lancastrian half-Beaufort upstart without a legitimate claim. It all went
> pear-shaped, of course, but that is how I am beginning to view Buckingham's
> actions. Whatever his motives, I cannot respect him. He was no adornment to
> his family or dukedom. Richard, already embittered by his treachery, would
> have made mincemeat of him on a battlefield.
>
> But yes, altogether there was a HUGE conspiracy going on across England,
> working on so many levels it cannot be deciphered. Perhaps it could not be
> deciphered even then. How many of them actually knew what others were up to?
> All they knew was that they had the same aim. It had probably been building
> from the moment the House of York settled on the throne. Only Edward IV's
> strength as king kept them at bay. Richard was the conspiracy's ultimate
> victim. His actions, justified and inevitable as they were, finally tipped
> the balance and he paid the price for the removal of Henry VI and the House
> of Lancaster. The fact that he was a good king made no difference at all. He
> was the wrong House, and personal tragedy wounded and weakened him. The pack
> moved in on their prey. I think it would have happened even if Edward V came
> to the throne. They all wanted rid of York, and Edward V could only be
> manipulated until he was of an age to think for himself. By then he might
> have come to think well of his blood line. He might even think Uncle Richard
> had some good ideas! So he would have to go, because he was House of York,
> regardless of how much influence the Woodvilles had over him. Well, it all
> succeeded...York was disposed of, and they got Tudor instead. Good luck to
> them.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pamela Bain
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:05 PM
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
> Disappearance
>
> Very good thoughts..... And the plot to rid England of the Plantagenets went
> on long before Richard. I am sure someone has taken a comprehensive look at
> the Dynasty, but from a Ricardian viewpoint? Out of the bios for certain
> would give much to think about and explore.
>
> On May 13, 2013, at 3:59 PM, "Hilary Jones"
> <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sandra, I think this yet again enforces that there are so many things we
> don't know. And it's intriguing how so much has disappeared, though by whose
> hands we don't know.
>
> Sometimes when you think we have only the 'chronicles' to rely on it's as
> though we are back a millennium before, but then read a few wills and a few
> Exchequer docs and these people lived in an age we could recognise. I like
> you know the Severn, in fact I dodged its floods less than a decade ago on a
> journey home from Bristol. What you say is very important. I think we have
> to look outside the box, we seem to go over and over the same material.
> Richard wasn't necessarily the centre of this, it was the plan to topple him
> which was. I know others may disagree, but everything I've found out so far
> points to it.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin
> <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>>
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013, 18:41
> Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
> Disappearance
>
>
>
> Long post. Sorry. I found one thing about Buckingham’s Flood, and one
> thought led to another. You know how it is.
>
> *October 1483 flood: ‘'In the second year of Richard III in the month of
> October 1483, as the Duke of Buckingham was advancing by long marches
> through the Forest of Dean to Gloucester, where he designed to pass with his
> army over the Severn, there was so great an inundation of water that men
> were drowned in their beds, houses were overturned, children were carried
> about the fields swimming in cradles, beasts were drowned on the hills.
> Which rage of water lasted for ten days and nights, and it is to this day in
> the counties thereabout called ‘The Great Water’ or ‘The Duke of Buckingham’s
> Water’' (Gloucester Journal, November 1770).*
>
> Not sure about the ‘second year’ of Richard III, for surely it was the
> first? But the October 1483 is definite enough as the time of Buckingham’s
> Rebellion. I cannot understand Buckingham attempting to cross the Severn at
> Gloucester in a particularly wet October. Clearly he did not go back and
> forth from Brecon all that often---once is all it would have taken me to get
> the picture. It is the worst possible time---or around March---because
> downstream of Worcester the tides are at their highest and most hazardous,
> what with the Severn Bore and so on. The bridge at Gloucester would have
> been isolated to the west by water. In the 15th century, before weirs and so
> on stopped the Bore at Maisemore, the wave went far inland, past Tewkesbury
> and as far as Worcester. It also went up the Avon from Tewkesbury.
> Attempting to cross in bad weather anywhere below that, especially with an
> army and everything that had to accompany it, would have been even more
> hazardous than heavy-rain floods, because of the tides. Upstream of
> Worcester, there would not be the Bore, but the floods themselves would have
> been too wide and treacherous to even think of entering them. Even as far
> north as Shrewsbury the river floods very badly and makes crossing
> dangerous.
>
> South of Worcester, floods AND the Bore combined would have been a
> particularly fearful mix. And if Buckingham did indeed intend to cross at
> Gloucester, which is why he is said to have approached through the Forest of
> Dean, he would definitely encounter floods and strong tides together. Even
> when the bore isn’t expected to be all that severe, the tides still come in
> and out twice in twenty-four hours. The land west of Gloucester and the
> river can be guaranteed to be flooded in weather as atrocious as that
> October. Didn’t Buckingham seek advice before setting out? Or didn’t he have
> any choice about the timing because all the plans had been firmly laid by
> others who didn’t know how much the Severn had to be taken into account?
>
> I have never really considered what Buckingham actually intended, and speak
> only as someone intrigued by things in general. Was Buckingham planning to
> join up with Henry Tudor’s invasion? He would choose Gloucester for this.
> But if he intended to take the throne for himself, I’m convinced that to get
> to Richard first, he would have set out at the beginning to cross further
> north. But what do I know?
>
> The Severn is still a sod of a river, and has to be treated with very
> healthy respect. It claims a life or two every year even now, and until
> recently there were always stories of people walking the sands near
> Newnham-Arlingham at low water, families out for a stroll on a summer
> evening, etc. That part of the river is a favourite beauty spot, with a
> grand pub and lots of families on summer evenings. The inland sands are
> golden and very inviting â€" and then people are caught when the bore scurries
> in. You can hear its roar long before you actually see it. No wonder the
> Romans made offerings to this river. I’ve lived in and around Gloucester
> since 1963, and no one here takes her lightly. My skin crawls when I am near
> that silent, muddy, tidal water, then comes the noise, the bore and for a
> couple of hours the river flows backward. Buckingham must have been stupid
> (always likely) or forced to go ahead because other plans, i.e. Henry Tudor,
> for the
> rebellion gave him no option (possible). Either way he needed his bumps felt
> IMHO. It cost him dear in the end.
>

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
Disappearance


> It is the worst possible time---or around March---because downstream of
> Worcester the tides are at their highest and most hazardous, what with the
> Severn Bore and so on.

Just wanted to add, for the benefit of furriners who don't know, that the
Severn feeds into the Bristol Channel which is one of the most dangerous
waterways in the world, because it has the second-highest maximum difference
between high and low tide in the world (I think the highest is the Bay of
Fundy). The Severn Bore is a wall of water pushed upriver at great speed by
the in-funnelling tide, usually only a few inches high but can sometimes be
over 6ft high iirc. It's like Britain's own private, scheduled tsunami.

> The Severn is still a sod of a river, and has to be treated with very
> healthy respect. It claims a life or two every year even now, and until
> recently there were always stories of people walking the sands near
> Newnham-Arlingham at low water, families out for a stroll on a summer
> evening, etc. That part of the river is a favourite beauty spot, with a
> grand pub and lots of families on summer evenings. The inland sands are
> golden and very inviting  and then people are caught when the bore
> scurries in. You can hear its roar long before you actually see it. No
> wonder the Romans made offerings to this river. I've lived in and around
> Gloucester since 1963, and no one here takes her lightly. My skin crawls
> when I am near that silent, muddy, tidal water, then comes the noise, the
> bore and for a couple of hours the river flows backward.

What a wonderful description!

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: Disappearance



> I suspect that B. knew about the bodyguard that the chronicler mentions,
> and it's quite possible that the boys *had* been moved deeper into the
> Tower for their own safety.

That comes from Mancini, right? I've been wondering what "deeper into the
Tower" actually means. Maybe that they were moved to the White Tower -
which is close to the centre of the compound - rathjer than one of the
buildings nearer the edge. But the garden/green is all one open space as
far as I can see, so if they came outside at all they'd be visible from the
surrounding walls, as much if they were living in the White Tower as if they
were in one of the other buildings.

Maybe Mancini said something a bit different and it's been mistranslated.
Or maybe Mancini himself misunderstood what Dr Argentine said.

I'm with you. When I joined this forum about six months' ago I thought the events of 1483 were the results of a few headless chickens (Hastings, Woodvilles, Buckingham) running round in an effort to stake out a new position in a new reign and that Richard was the unintended victim who just got in the way. Having dug a lot deeper round the edges I've come to believe it was much more complex and that the intended victim was the House of York which for some reason, despite Edward's affability, did not suit the Church and some landed magnates (Stanley comes to mind). MB is of course another matter; but why really would so many support her cause unless it suited their ends?
 
The Church? Well the two people who perceivably had no motive in 1483 were Stillington and Morton - yet the first arguably started the beginning of the end. Morton had been Lancastrian but he'd done well under Edward. I'm sure York or Canterbury would have come up for him before long and the Woodvilles, had they seized power with the new king, had no real need to discard him; he was a formidably intelligent man. We know he'd been exposed to Jasper Tudor in France, but why support his cause? There are so many unanswered questions and so much that answered them has been expunged. Oh how we need that box in the attic!   


________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013, 23:33
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance


 

Still thinking, I'm afraid. Never a good sign. Did Buckingham's choice of
Gloucester indicate his initial intention to support Henry Tudor's claim?
And did the floods leave him with three choices - (1) Take the long detour
and still go to Henry, in the south of the realm, hoping not to be
side-swiped and skirmished by Richard before he got there. On the hoof, so
to speak. (2) Disband his army, call it a day and go home to Brecon in time
for tea and tiffin in front of the roaring log fire. (3) Make use of the
army to go after Richard on his own account? It was a more direct thing to
go north up the higher land on the west bank of the river, cross at the
first opportunity above Worcester, and go face to face in battle formation
with Richard in the centre of the kingdom. By then he certainly would not be
thinking of Henry Tudor, but of himself. Buckingham had the claim,
Buckingham raised the army, Buckingham had taken on Richard, and if
Buckingham won it would be to put Buckingham on the throne, not some
Lancastrian half-Beaufort upstart without a legitimate claim. It all went
pear-shaped, of course, but that is how I am beginning to view Buckingham's
actions. Whatever his motives, I cannot respect him. He was no adornment to
his family or dukedom. Richard, already embittered by his treachery, would
have made mincemeat of him on a battlefield.

But yes, altogether there was a HUGE conspiracy going on across England,
working on so many levels it cannot be deciphered. Perhaps it could not be
deciphered even then. How many of them actually knew what others were up to?
All they knew was that they had the same aim. It had probably been building
from the moment the House of York settled on the throne. Only Edward IV's
strength as king kept them at bay. Richard was the conspiracy's ultimate
victim. His actions, justified and inevitable as they were, finally tipped
the balance and he paid the price for the removal of Henry VI and the House
of Lancaster. The fact that he was a good king made no difference at all. He
was the wrong House, and personal tragedy wounded and weakened him. The pack
moved in on their prey. I think it would have happened even if Edward V came
to the throne. They all wanted rid of York, and Edward V could only be
manipulated until he was of an age to think for himself. By then he might
have come to think well of his blood line. He might even think Uncle Richard
had some good ideas! So he would have to go, because he was House of York,
regardless of how much influence the Woodvilles had over him. Well, it all
succeeded...York was disposed of, and they got Tudor instead. Good luck to
them.

Sandra

-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Bain
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:05 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
Disappearance

Very good thoughts..... And the plot to rid England of the Plantagenets went
on long before Richard. I am sure someone has taken a comprehensive look at
the Dynasty, but from a Ricardian viewpoint? Out of the bios for certain
would give much to think about and explore.

On May 13, 2013, at 3:59 PM, "Hilary Jones"
<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<mailto:mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>> wrote:

Sandra, I think this yet again enforces that there are so many things we
don't know. And it's intriguing how so much has disappeared, though by whose
hands we don't know.

Sometimes when you think we have only the 'chronicles' to rely on it's as
though we are back a millennium before, but then read a few wills and a few
Exchequer docs and these people lived in an age we could recognise. I like
you know the Severn, in fact I dodged its floods less than a decade ago on a
journey home from Bristol. What you say is very important. I think we have
to look outside the box, we seem to go over and over the same material.
Richard wasn't necessarily the centre of this, it was the plan to topple him
which was. I know others may disagree, but everything I've found out so far
points to it.

________________________________
From: SandraMachin
<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>>
To:
mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013, 18:41
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
Disappearance

Long post. Sorry. I found one thing about Buckingham's Flood, and one
thought led to another. You know how it is.

*October 1483 flood: 'In the second year of Richard III in the month of
October 1483, as the Duke of Buckingham was advancing by long marches
through the Forest of Dean to Gloucester, where he designed to pass with his
army over the Severn, there was so great an inundation of water that men
were drowned in their beds, houses were overturned, children were carried
about the fields swimming in cradles, beasts were drowned on the hills.
Which rage of water lasted for ten days and nights, and it is to this day in
the counties thereabout called The Great Water' or The Duke of Buckingham's
Water'' (Gloucester Journal, November 1770).*

Not sure about the second year' of Richard III, for surely it was the
first? But the October 1483 is definite enough as the time of Buckingham's
Rebellion. I cannot understand Buckingham attempting to cross the Severn at
Gloucester in a particularly wet October. Clearly he did not go back and
forth from Brecon all that often---once is all it would have taken me to get
the picture. It is the worst possible time---or around March---because
downstream of Worcester the tides are at their highest and most hazardous,
what with the Severn Bore and so on. The bridge at Gloucester would have
been isolated to the west by water. In the 15th century, before weirs and so
on stopped the Bore at Maisemore, the wave went far inland, past Tewkesbury
and as far as Worcester. It also went up the Avon from Tewkesbury.
Attempting to cross in bad weather anywhere below that, especially with an
army and everything that had to accompany it, would have been even more
hazardous than heavy-rain floods, because of the tides. Upstream of
Worcester, there would not be the Bore, but the floods themselves would have
been too wide and treacherous to even think of entering them. Even as far
north as Shrewsbury the river floods very badly and makes crossing
dangerous.

South of Worcester, floods AND the Bore combined would have been a
particularly fearful mix. And if Buckingham did indeed intend to cross at
Gloucester, which is why he is said to have approached through the Forest of
Dean, he would definitely encounter floods and strong tides together. Even
when the bore isn't expected to be all that severe, the tides still come in
and out twice in twenty-four hours. The land west of Gloucester and the
river can be guaranteed to be flooded in weather as atrocious as that
October. Didn't Buckingham seek advice before setting out? Or didn't he have
any choice about the timing because all the plans had been firmly laid by
others who didn't know how much the Severn had to be taken into account?

I have never really considered what Buckingham actually intended, and speak
only as someone intrigued by things in general. Was Buckingham planning to
join up with Henry Tudor's invasion? He would choose Gloucester for this.
But if he intended to take the throne for himself, I'm convinced that to get
to Richard first, he would have set out at the beginning to cross further
north. But what do I know?

The Severn is still a sod of a river, and has to be treated with very
healthy respect. It claims a life or two every year even now, and until
recently there were always stories of people walking the sands near
Newnham-Arlingham at low water, families out for a stroll on a summer
evening, etc. That part of the river is a favourite beauty spot, with a
grand pub and lots of families on summer evenings. The inland sands are
golden and very inviting  and then people are caught when the bore scurries
in. You can hear its roar long before you actually see it. No wonder the
Romans made offerings to this river. I've lived in and around Gloucester
since 1963, and no one here takes her lightly. My skin crawls when I am near
that silent, muddy, tidal water, then comes the noise, the bore and for a
couple of hours the river flows backward. Buckingham must have been stupid
(always likely) or forced to go ahead because other plans, i.e. Henry Tudor,
for the
rebellion gave him no option (possible). Either way he needed his bumps felt
IMHO. It cost him dear in the end.

From my readings on Tewkesbury 1471 there were only 3 crossings then - Gloucester, Tewkesbury and Worcester which is why there was the race for the Severn - but of course the authors could be wrong. It also depended on availability of fords - there's a ford at Lode Tewkesbury where Margaret escaped - which would be easy for one or two but not necessarily a contingent of soldiers in a hurry. If the weather was bad, as Sandra says, then the fords would not be available which would severely restrict Buck's route. 



________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 0:02
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

 

Not sure where the first opportunity to cross the River Severn above Worcester would be. Probably Bewdley. In those days there was no bridge at Bewdley ( Richard gave money towards the building of a bridge} but there was a ford at Lax Lane but if the river was in flood then that would not have been usable. There are bridges at Stourport and Holt Heath now but not sure there would have been in those days.

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Still thinking, I'm afraid. Never a good sign. Did Buckingham's choice of
> Gloucester indicate his initial intention to support Henry Tudor's claim?
> And did the floods leave him with three choices - (1) Take the long detour
> and still go to Henry, in the south of the realm, hoping not to be
> side-swiped and skirmished by Richard before he got there. On the hoof, so
> to speak. (2) Disband his army, call it a day and go home to Brecon in time
> for tea and tiffin in front of the roaring log fire. (3) Make use of the
> army to go after Richard on his own account? It was a more direct thing to
> go north up the higher land on the west bank of the river, cross at the
> first opportunity above Worcester, and go face to face in battle formation
> with Richard in the centre of the kingdom. By then he certainly would not be
> thinking of Henry Tudor, but of himself. Buckingham had the claim,
> Buckingham raised the army, Buckingham had taken on Richard, and if
> Buckingham won it would be to put Buckingham on the throne, not some
> Lancastrian half-Beaufort upstart without a legitimate claim. It all went
> pear-shaped, of course, but that is how I am beginning to view Buckingham's
> actions. Whatever his motives, I cannot respect him. He was no adornment to
> his family or dukedom. Richard, already embittered by his treachery, would
> have made mincemeat of him on a battlefield.
>
> But yes, altogether there was a HUGE conspiracy going on across England,
> working on so many levels it cannot be deciphered. Perhaps it could not be
> deciphered even then. How many of them actually knew what others were up to?
> All they knew was that they had the same aim. It had probably been building
> from the moment the House of York settled on the throne. Only Edward IV's
> strength as king kept them at bay. Richard was the conspiracy's ultimate
> victim. His actions, justified and inevitable as they were, finally tipped
> the balance and he paid the price for the removal of Henry VI and the House
> of Lancaster. The fact that he was a good king made no difference at all. He
> was the wrong House, and personal tragedy wounded and weakened him. The pack
> moved in on their prey. I think it would have happened even if Edward V came
> to the throne. They all wanted rid of York, and Edward V could only be
> manipulated until he was of an age to think for himself. By then he might
> have come to think well of his blood line. He might even think Uncle Richard
> had some good ideas! So he would have to go, because he was House of York,
> regardless of how much influence the Woodvilles had over him. Well, it all
> succeeded...York was disposed of, and they got Tudor instead. Good luck to
> them.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pamela Bain
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:05 PM
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
> Disappearance
>
> Very good thoughts..... And the plot to rid England of the Plantagenets went
> on long before Richard. I am sure someone has taken a comprehensive look at
> the Dynasty, but from a Ricardian viewpoint? Out of the bios for certain
> would give much to think about and explore.
>
> On May 13, 2013, at 3:59 PM, "Hilary Jones"
> <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sandra, I think this yet again enforces that there are so many things we
> don't know. And it's intriguing how so much has disappeared, though by whose
> hands we don't know.
>
> Sometimes when you think we have only the 'chronicles' to rely on it's as
> though we are back a millennium before, but then read a few wills and a few
> Exchequer docs and these people lived in an age we could recognise. I like
> you know the Severn, in fact I dodged its floods less than a decade ago on a
> journey home from Bristol. What you say is very important. I think we have
> to look outside the box, we seem to go over and over the same material.
> Richard wasn't necessarily the centre of this, it was the plan to topple him
> which was. I know others may disagree, but everything I've found out so far
> points to it.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin
> <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>>
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013, 18:41
> Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
> Disappearance
>
>
>
> Long post. Sorry. I found one thing about Buckinghamâ¬"s Flood, and one
> thought led to another. You know how it is.
>
> *October 1483 flood: â¬Ü'In the second year of Richard III in the month of
> October 1483, as the Duke of Buckingham was advancing by long marches
> through the Forest of Dean to Gloucester, where he designed to pass with his
> army over the Severn, there was so great an inundation of water that men
> were drowned in their beds, houses were overturned, children were carried
> about the fields swimming in cradles, beasts were drowned on the hills.
> Which rage of water lasted for ten days and nights, and it is to this day in
> the counties thereabout called â¬ÜThe Great Waterâ¬" or â¬ÜThe Duke of Buckinghamâ¬"s
> Waterâ¬"' (Gloucester Journal, November 1770).*
>
> Not sure about the â¬Üsecond yearâ¬" of Richard III, for surely it was the
> first? But the October 1483 is definite enough as the time of Buckinghamâ¬"s
> Rebellion. I cannot understand Buckingham attempting to cross the Severn at
> Gloucester in a particularly wet October. Clearly he did not go back and
> forth from Brecon all that often---once is all it would have taken me to get
> the picture. It is the worst possible time---or around March---because
> downstream of Worcester the tides are at their highest and most hazardous,
> what with the Severn Bore and so on. The bridge at Gloucester would have
> been isolated to the west by water. In the 15th century, before weirs and so
> on stopped the Bore at Maisemore, the wave went far inland, past Tewkesbury
> and as far as Worcester. It also went up the Avon from Tewkesbury.
> Attempting to cross in bad weather anywhere below that, especially with an
> army and everything that had to accompany it, would have been even more
> hazardous than heavy-rain floods, because of the tides. Upstream of
> Worcester, there would not be the Bore, but the floods themselves would have
> been too wide and treacherous to even think of entering them. Even as far
> north as Shrewsbury the river floods very badly and makes crossing
> dangerous.
>
> South of Worcester, floods AND the Bore combined would have been a
> particularly fearful mix. And if Buckingham did indeed intend to cross at
> Gloucester, which is why he is said to have approached through the Forest of
> Dean, he would definitely encounter floods and strong tides together. Even
> when the bore isnâ¬"t expected to be all that severe, the tides still come in
> and out twice in twenty-four hours. The land west of Gloucester and the
> river can be guaranteed to be flooded in weather as atrocious as that
> October. Didnâ¬"t Buckingham seek advice before setting out? Or didnâ¬"t he have
> any choice about the timing because all the plans had been firmly laid by
> others who didnâ¬"t know how much the Severn had to be taken into account?
>
> I have never really considered what Buckingham actually intended, and speak
> only as someone intrigued by things in general. Was Buckingham planning to
> join up with Henry Tudorâ¬"s invasion? He would choose Gloucester for this.
> But if he intended to take the throne for himself, Iâ¬"m convinced that to get
> to Richard first, he would have set out at the beginning to cross further
> north. But what do I know?
>
> The Severn is still a sod of a river, and has to be treated with very
> healthy respect. It claims a life or two every year even now, and until
> recently there were always stories of people walking the sands near
> Newnham-Arlingham at low water, families out for a stroll on a summer
> evening, etc. That part of the river is a favourite beauty spot, with a
> grand pub and lots of families on summer evenings. The inland sands are
> golden and very inviting â¬" and then people are caught when the bore scurries
> in. You can hear its roar long before you actually see it. No wonder the
> Romans made offerings to this river. Iâ¬"ve lived in and around Gloucester
> since 1963, and no one here takes her lightly. My skin crawls when I am near
> that silent, muddy, tidal water, then comes the noise, the bore and for a
> couple of hours the river flows backward. Buckingham must have been stupid
> (always likely) or forced to go ahead because other plans, i.e. Henry Tudor,
> for the
> rebellion gave him no option (possible). Either way he needed his bumps felt
> IMHO. It cost him dear in the end.
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
Disappearance


> the intended victim was the House of York which for some reason, despite
> Edward's affability, did not suit the Church and some landed magnates

Affable Edward may have been, and liberal in some respects, but he employed
Tiptoft who seems to have been a licensed serial killer. He probably had
Henry VI murdered. He executed his own brother (yes, it's hard to see what
else he could have done, but it still doesn't look good). He was
acquisative, and I believe it's in the Chronicle of London that I saw
mention of him in later years inventing increasingly cruel forms of
execution (don't have time to hunt it up right now, as I have to master
Mathematical Proofs by Induction by tomorrow in order to coach someone else
in it). This is not to mention his over-indulgence, which must have caused
many people to find him personally unattractive (if it's true about the
gorging and vomiting, for example, his breath would have stunk of vomit),
and the possibility that some of his opponents might have known or suspected
that he was a bigamist.

Even if they didn't know about it, if the pre-contract story is true it
follows I think that Edward had a very bad attitude to the throne, and
didn't mind cheating and deceiving his people if it suited his own ends to
do so. That may well have been apparent in his manner even if people didn't
know the prcise details of what he'd been up to, so all in all I think it's
not surprising if many people thought Edward was a Bad Thing who needed to
be got rid of. By the time Richard came along the opposition were already
entrenched and he didn't rule for long enough for them to realise he was a
quite different quantity from his brother - even if that would have made a
difference.

The Chronicle of London btw is available to download here
http://archive.org/details/chronicleoflondo00nicouoft

> MB is of course another matter; but why really would so many support her
> cause unless it suited their ends?

Maybe she was very charming and persuasive. I know she looks hatchet-faced
and sour in her portraits but that might have been because she had
age-related pains such as arthritis, or because she thought a disapproving
expression would make her appear more pious. Or maybe the artist was very
annoying!

> The Church? Well the two people who perceivably had no motive in 1483 were
> Stillington and Morton - yet the first arguably started the beginning of
> the end. Morton had been Lancastrian but he'd done well under Edward. I'm
> sure York or Canterbury would have come up for him before long and the
> Woodvilles, had they seized power with the new king, had no real need to
> discard him; he was a formidably intelligent man. We know he'd been
> exposed to Jasper Tudor in France, but why support his cause?

Bacon attributed his motives at least partly to pure spite. Carol thinks he
was driven by loyalty to Margaret of Anjou - which may well be so, and if so
would make him considerably less horrible and almost, in a dark way, a
romantic figure.

>>>This is not to mention his over-indulgence, which must have caused
many people to find him personally unattractive (if it's true about the
gorging and vomiting, for example, his breath would have stunk of vomit)<<<

OMG, Claire, what a disgusting thought. Imagine catching the royal eye and then seeing the ominously beckoning finger. One would just have to tell him it was the wrong time of the month and hope it put him off! He seems to have been so like Henry VIII it's incredible. How on earth could someone as elegant, refined and honest as Richard be Edward's brother???? I believe he was elegant. and refined. Both seem to be written right across his portraits. If he turned out to be a boor, I'd be truly astonished.

As for where Buckingham would have been able to cross the Severn, I really do not know. But then, neither would he, so he'd he'd just have to keep going north in the hope of finding somewhere. The river is mostly narrow inland of the estuary, so maybe some enterprising landowner had thrown a wooden bridge across, for which there are no longer any records? If so, whoever it was would have done well out of the tolls! Mostly, however, I believe there were only ferries, or even ferrymen who could carry people across on their shoulders when the tide was low  Arlingham-Newnham had one such. But not in floods, and these October 1483 floods do seem to have been notable. Buckingham must have been sobbing with the frustration of it all. I wouldn't be handing him my hanky. Let him blow his nose on his costly sleeve!

Sandra

Thank you for the moral support, Weds! I thought maybe it was just me whose
brain was hurting from trying to sort this stuff out! I am currently trying
to sort out my feelings and create some sort of chronology re: Tyrell and
Buckhingham and not having very much luck. I was also reading Chapter 10 of
*The Maligned King* last night - "Bones of Contention," and much enjoying
Annette Carson's dissection of the analysis of the "bones in the urn,"
summary of Hicks's characterization of Edward - and his apparent failure to
critically assess the analysis that was done in 1933. Also the unlikelihood
of the princes' bones being found 10 feet deep under or alongside the stairs
going into the White Tower. Her summary leads me to believe that an
up-to-date analysis of the bones is essential, at least to determine if they
are the boys' or not.



NGH!



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 6:43 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Disappearance





Ngh!

(NOTE: This is a word used when a Ricardian's brain hurts after she has
tried for days to make sense of the details surrounding the disappearance of
the Little Terrors in the Tower. Other words used are not suitable for use
here.)

After reading Carol's erudite post (per below) and literally screeching like
a barn owl in frustration at the tangle provided by the available resources,
and the unavailability of reliable resources regarding everything to do with
those Tower Brats, I've come to believe that what separates the
Traditionalist from the Ricardian is that the Traditionalist throws up
his/her hands when looking at anything pre-1485 and flees in horror back to
the plethora of Tudor documentation/propaganda -- and *not* because Richard
did it.

By comparison, anyone loyal to Richard -- and like the most loyal horse or
dog imaginable -- keeps tracing and retracing what is available, no matter
how reliable/unreliable. There is something inside us that won't give up. We
continue hoping and believing if we just keep teasing through whatever we
have, we'll find something something -- anything -- we haven't seen or heard
or discovered before. Surely it's there...?

It has also occurred to me that the tangle of non-information may exist
precisely because Richard is innocent. Because heaven knows that the
documentation of the Tudors many judicial murders and off-with-their-heads
moments is solid and multiple and nauseatingly plentiful -- witness the many
books, textbooks, biographies, movies, romances, mini-series, documentaries
that make much money for their producers. And also because heaven knows if
The Tudor Company Ltd could have come up with any sort of original
documentation to damn Richard, they would have.

More and more, I'm thinking that we don't have proof of Richard's innocence
because the proof of his guilt was never there either. Because if Richard
were guilty, The Tudor Company Ltd would have seen it published in a hundred
gleeful, better forms than Vergil or More or Mancini or the Chronicles or
Old Bill.

I guess what I'm trying to say (and think) is that if Richard were guilty of
killing the littles, the proof should be there in spades. A murderer
*always* leaves evidence behind, but all we have evidence of is gossip.
That's not evidence of murder. Either Richard was the most gifted judicial
murderer ever (who managed to cover all his tracks and all the tracks of
those who helped him do this while he was on progress), or something's
rotten in the records.

Maybe we should do what criminal investigators in the U.S. do to determine
whether they have evidence that will stand in court. Per Wikipedia, in US
Criminal law, "means, motive, and opportunity" is a popular cultural
summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before
guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding.

Respectively, they refer to:

(1) the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means)

(2) the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime (motive)

(3) and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime
(opportunity)

Maybe we should list possible other suspects for the murder of the little
Brats? If none of those people had the means, motive and opportunity to kill
the darlings, then perhaps the argument of Richard having the means, motive
and opportunity to get them out of reach?

~Weds




<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbXA3ZHZiB
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODQ4MTM4Nw--> Visit Your Group


<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZTU0amRmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY4NDgxMzg3>
Yahoo! Groups

Switch to:
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback

.


<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=35826/stime=1368481387/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>

Just a probably stupid question. Would any of the records have been secreted by the Church and then eventually to the Vatican Archives? Those Archives seem to have secrets no one knows about.

On May 14, 2013, at 3:42 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



I'm with you. When I joined this forum about six months' ago I thought the events of 1483 were the results of a few headless chickens (Hastings, Woodvilles, Buckingham) running round in an effort to stake out a new position in a new reign and that Richard was the unintended victim who just got in the way. Having dug a lot deeper round the edges I've come to believe it was much more complex and that the intended victim was the House of York which for some reason, despite Edward's affability, did not suit the Church and some landed magnates (Stanley comes to mind). MB is of course another matter; but why really would so many support her cause unless it suited their ends?

The Church? Well the two people who perceivably had no motive in 1483 were Stillington and Morton - yet the first arguably started the beginning of the end. Morton had been Lancastrian but he'd done well under Edward. I'm sure York or Canterbury would have come up for him before long and the Woodvilles, had they seized power with the new king, had no real need to discard him; he was a formidably intelligent man. We know he'd been exposed to Jasper Tudor in France, but why support his cause? There are so many unanswered questions and so much that answered them has been expunged. Oh how we need that box in the attic!


________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013, 23:33
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance




Still thinking, I'm afraid. Never a good sign. Did Buckingham's choice of
Gloucester indicate his initial intention to support Henry Tudor's claim?
And did the floods leave him with three choices - (1) Take the long detour
and still go to Henry, in the south of the realm, hoping not to be
side-swiped and skirmished by Richard before he got there. On the hoof, so
to speak. (2) Disband his army, call it a day and go home to Brecon in time
for tea and tiffin in front of the roaring log fire. (3) Make use of the
army to go after Richard on his own account? It was a more direct thing to
go north up the higher land on the west bank of the river, cross at the
first opportunity above Worcester, and go face to face in battle formation
with Richard in the centre of the kingdom. By then he certainly would not be
thinking of Henry Tudor, but of himself. Buckingham had the claim,
Buckingham raised the army, Buckingham had taken on Richard, and if
Buckingham won it would be to put Buckingham on the throne, not some
Lancastrian half-Beaufort upstart without a legitimate claim. It all went
pear-shaped, of course, but that is how I am beginning to view Buckingham's
actions. Whatever his motives, I cannot respect him. He was no adornment to
his family or dukedom. Richard, already embittered by his treachery, would
have made mincemeat of him on a battlefield.

But yes, altogether there was a HUGE conspiracy going on across England,
working on so many levels it cannot be deciphered. Perhaps it could not be
deciphered even then. How many of them actually knew what others were up to?
All they knew was that they had the same aim. It had probably been building
from the moment the House of York settled on the throne. Only Edward IV's
strength as king kept them at bay. Richard was the conspiracy's ultimate
victim. His actions, justified and inevitable as they were, finally tipped
the balance and he paid the price for the removal of Henry VI and the House
of Lancaster. The fact that he was a good king made no difference at all. He
was the wrong House, and personal tragedy wounded and weakened him. The pack
moved in on their prey. I think it would have happened even if Edward V came
to the throne. They all wanted rid of York, and Edward V could only be
manipulated until he was of an age to think for himself. By then he might
have come to think well of his blood line. He might even think Uncle Richard
had some good ideas! So he would have to go, because he was House of York,
regardless of how much influence the Woodvilles had over him. Well, it all
succeeded...York was disposed of, and they got Tudor instead. Good luck to
them.

Sandra

-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Bain
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:05 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
Disappearance

Very good thoughts..... And the plot to rid England of the Plantagenets went
on long before Richard. I am sure someone has taken a comprehensive look at
the Dynasty, but from a Ricardian viewpoint? Out of the bios for certain
would give much to think about and explore.

On May 13, 2013, at 3:59 PM, "Hilary Jones"
<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com><mailto:mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>>> wrote:

Sandra, I think this yet again enforces that there are so many things we
don't know. And it's intriguing how so much has disappeared, though by whose
hands we don't know.

Sometimes when you think we have only the 'chronicles' to rely on it's as
though we are back a millennium before, but then read a few wills and a few
Exchequer docs and these people lived in an age we could recognise. I like
you know the Severn, in fact I dodged its floods less than a decade ago on a
journey home from Bristol. What you say is very important. I think we have
to look outside the box, we seem to go over and over the same material.
Richard wasn't necessarily the centre of this, it was the plan to topple him
which was. I know others may disagree, but everything I've found out so far
points to it.

________________________________
From: SandraMachin
<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk<http://40live.co.uk><mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk<http://40live.co.uk>>>
To:
mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013, 18:41
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
Disappearance

Long post. Sorry. I found one thing about Buckinghamýs Flood, and one
thought led to another. You know how it is.

*October 1483 flood: ý'In the second year of Richard III in the month of
October 1483, as the Duke of Buckingham was advancing by long marches
through the Forest of Dean to Gloucester, where he designed to pass with his
army over the Severn, there was so great an inundation of water that men
were drowned in their beds, houses were overturned, children were carried
about the fields swimming in cradles, beasts were drowned on the hills.
Which rage of water lasted for ten days and nights, and it is to this day in
the counties thereabout called ýThe Great Waterý or ýThe Duke of Buckinghamýs
Waterý' (Gloucester Journal, November 1770).*

Not sure about the ýsecond yearý of Richard III, for surely it was the
first? But the October 1483 is definite enough as the time of Buckinghamýs
Rebellion. I cannot understand Buckingham attempting to cross the Severn at
Gloucester in a particularly wet October. Clearly he did not go back and
forth from Brecon all that often---once is all it would have taken me to get
the picture. It is the worst possible time---or around March---because
downstream of Worcester the tides are at their highest and most hazardous,
what with the Severn Bore and so on. The bridge at Gloucester would have
been isolated to the west by water. In the 15th century, before weirs and so
on stopped the Bore at Maisemore, the wave went far inland, past Tewkesbury
and as far as Worcester. It also went up the Avon from Tewkesbury.
Attempting to cross in bad weather anywhere below that, especially with an
army and everything that had to accompany it, would have been even more
hazardous than heavy-rain floods, because of the tides. Upstream of
Worcester, there would not be the Bore, but the floods themselves would have
been too wide and treacherous to even think of entering them. Even as far
north as Shrewsbury the river floods very badly and makes crossing
dangerous.

South of Worcester, floods AND the Bore combined would have been a
particularly fearful mix. And if Buckingham did indeed intend to cross at
Gloucester, which is why he is said to have approached through the Forest of
Dean, he would definitely encounter floods and strong tides together. Even
when the bore isnýt expected to be all that severe, the tides still come in
and out twice in twenty-four hours. The land west of Gloucester and the
river can be guaranteed to be flooded in weather as atrocious as that
October. Didnýt Buckingham seek advice before setting out? Or didnýt he have
any choice about the timing because all the plans had been firmly laid by
others who didnýt know how much the Severn had to be taken into account?

I have never really considered what Buckingham actually intended, and speak
only as someone intrigued by things in general. Was Buckingham planning to
join up with Henry Tudorýs invasion? He would choose Gloucester for this.
But if he intended to take the throne for himself, Iým convinced that to get
to Richard first, he would have set out at the beginning to cross further
north. But what do I know?

The Severn is still a sod of a river, and has to be treated with very
healthy respect. It claims a life or two every year even now, and until
recently there were always stories of people walking the sands near
Newnham-Arlingham at low water, families out for a stroll on a summer
evening, etc. That part of the river is a favourite beauty spot, with a
grand pub and lots of families on summer evenings. The inland sands are
golden and very inviting ý and then people are caught when the bore scurries
in. You can hear its roar long before you actually see it. No wonder the
Romans made offerings to this river. Iýve lived in and around Gloucester
since 1963, and no one here takes her lightly. My skin crawls when I am near
that silent, muddy, tidal water, then comes the noise, the bore and for a
couple of hours the river flows backward. Buckingham must have been stupid
(always likely) or forced to go ahead because other plans, i.e. Henry Tudor,
for the
rebellion gave him no option (possible). Either way he needed his bumps felt
IMHO. It cost him dear in the end.

It's not at all a stupid question. The fact that the unlovely H8 was happy to get rid of the influence of the Pope etc (potentially at the cost of damnation of his soul) says a lot.



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 13:58
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance


Just a probably stupid question. Would any of the records have been secreted by the Church and then eventually to the Vatican Archives? Those Archives seem to have secrets no one knows about.

On May 14, 2013, at 3:42 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



I'm with you. When I joined this forum about six months' ago I thought the events of 1483 were the results of a few headless chickens (Hastings, Woodvilles, Buckingham) running round in an effort to stake out a new position in a new reign and that Richard was the unintended victim who just got in the way. Having dug a lot deeper round the edges I've come to believe it was much more complex and that the intended victim was the House of York which for some reason, despite Edward's affability, did not suit the Church and some landed magnates (Stanley comes to mind). MB is of course another matter; but why really would so many support her cause unless it suited their ends?

The Church? Well the two people who perceivably had no motive in 1483 were Stillington and Morton - yet the first arguably started the beginning of the end. Morton had been Lancastrian but he'd done well under Edward. I'm sure York or Canterbury would have come up for him before long and the Woodvilles, had they seized power with the new king, had no real need to discard him; he was a formidably intelligent man. We know he'd been exposed to Jasper Tudor in France, but why support his cause? There are so many unanswered questions and so much that answered them has been expunged. Oh how we need that box in the attic!


________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013, 23:33
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance




Still thinking, I'm afraid. Never a good sign. Did Buckingham's choice of
Gloucester indicate his initial intention to support Henry Tudor's claim?
And did the floods leave him with three choices - (1) Take the long detour
and still go to Henry, in the south of the realm, hoping not to be
side-swiped and skirmished by Richard before he got there. On the hoof, so
to speak. (2) Disband his army, call it a day and go home to Brecon in time
for tea and tiffin in front of the roaring log fire. (3) Make use of the
army to go after Richard on his own account? It was a more direct thing to
go north up the higher land on the west bank of the river, cross at the
first opportunity above Worcester, and go face to face in battle formation
with Richard in the centre of the kingdom. By then he certainly would not be
thinking of Henry Tudor, but of himself. Buckingham had the claim,
Buckingham raised the army, Buckingham had taken on Richard, and if
Buckingham won it would be to put Buckingham on the throne, not some
Lancastrian half-Beaufort upstart without a legitimate claim. It all went
pear-shaped, of course, but that is how I am beginning to view Buckingham's
actions. Whatever his motives, I cannot respect him. He was no adornment to
his family or dukedom. Richard, already embittered by his treachery, would
have made mincemeat of him on a battlefield.

But yes, altogether there was a HUGE conspiracy going on across England,
working on so many levels it cannot be deciphered. Perhaps it could not be
deciphered even then. How many of them actually knew what others were up to?
All they knew was that they had the same aim. It had probably been building
from the moment the House of York settled on the throne. Only Edward IV's
strength as king kept them at bay. Richard was the conspiracy's ultimate
victim. His actions, justified and inevitable as they were, finally tipped
the balance and he paid the price for the removal of Henry VI and the House
of Lancaster. The fact that he was a good king made no difference at all. He
was the wrong House, and personal tragedy wounded and weakened him. The pack
moved in on their prey. I think it would have happened even if Edward V came
to the throne. They all wanted rid of York, and Edward V could only be
manipulated until he was of an age to think for himself. By then he might
have come to think well of his blood line. He might even think Uncle Richard
had some good ideas! So he would have to go, because he was House of York,
regardless of how much influence the Woodvilles had over him. Well, it all
succeeded...York was disposed of, and they got Tudor instead. Good luck to
them.

Sandra

-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Bain
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:05 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
Disappearance

Very good thoughts..... And the plot to rid England of the Plantagenets went
on long before Richard. I am sure someone has taken a comprehensive look at
the Dynasty, but from a Ricardian viewpoint? Out of the bios for certain
would give much to think about and explore.

On May 13, 2013, at 3:59 PM, "Hilary Jones"
<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com><mailto:mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>>> wrote:

Sandra, I think this yet again enforces that there are so many things we
don't know. And it's intriguing how so much has disappeared, though by whose
hands we don't know.

Sometimes when you think we have only the 'chronicles' to rely on it's as
though we are back a millennium before, but then read a few wills and a few
Exchequer docs and these people lived in an age we could recognise. I like
you know the Severn, in fact I dodged its floods less than a decade ago on a
journey home from Bristol. What you say is very important. I think we have
to look outside the box, we seem to go over and over the same material.
Richard wasn't necessarily the centre of this, it was the plan to topple him
which was. I know others may disagree, but everything I've found out so far
points to it.

________________________________
From: SandraMachin
<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk<http://40live.co.uk><mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk<http://40live.co.uk>>>
To:
mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013, 18:41
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
Disappearance

Long post. Sorry. I found one thing about Buckingham's Flood, and one
thought led to another. You know how it is.

*October 1483 flood: 'In the second year of Richard III in the month of
October 1483, as the Duke of Buckingham was advancing by long marches
through the Forest of Dean to Gloucester, where he designed to pass with his
army over the Severn, there was so great an inundation of water that men
were drowned in their beds, houses were overturned, children were carried
about the fields swimming in cradles, beasts were drowned on the hills.
Which rage of water lasted for ten days and nights, and it is to this day in
the counties thereabout called The Great Water' or The Duke of Buckingham's
Water'' (Gloucester Journal, November 1770).*

Not sure about the second year' of Richard III, for surely it was the
first? But the October 1483 is definite enough as the time of Buckingham's
Rebellion. I cannot understand Buckingham attempting to cross the Severn at
Gloucester in a particularly wet October. Clearly he did not go back and
forth from Brecon all that often---once is all it would have taken me to get
the picture. It is the worst possible time---or around March---because
downstream of Worcester the tides are at their highest and most hazardous,
what with the Severn Bore and so on. The bridge at Gloucester would have
been isolated to the west by water. In the 15th century, before weirs and so
on stopped the Bore at Maisemore, the wave went far inland, past Tewkesbury
and as far as Worcester. It also went up the Avon from Tewkesbury.
Attempting to cross in bad weather anywhere below that, especially with an
army and everything that had to accompany it, would have been even more
hazardous than heavy-rain floods, because of the tides. Upstream of
Worcester, there would not be the Bore, but the floods themselves would have
been too wide and treacherous to even think of entering them. Even as far
north as Shrewsbury the river floods very badly and makes crossing
dangerous.

South of Worcester, floods AND the Bore combined would have been a
particularly fearful mix. And if Buckingham did indeed intend to cross at
Gloucester, which is why he is said to have approached through the Forest of
Dean, he would definitely encounter floods and strong tides together. Even
when the bore isn't expected to be all that severe, the tides still come in
and out twice in twenty-four hours. The land west of Gloucester and the
river can be guaranteed to be flooded in weather as atrocious as that
October. Didn't Buckingham seek advice before setting out? Or didn't he have
any choice about the timing because all the plans had been firmly laid by
others who didn't know how much the Severn had to be taken into account?

I have never really considered what Buckingham actually intended, and speak
only as someone intrigued by things in general. Was Buckingham planning to
join up with Henry Tudor's invasion? He would choose Gloucester for this.
But if he intended to take the throne for himself, I'm convinced that to get
to Richard first, he would have set out at the beginning to cross further
north. But what do I know?

The Severn is still a sod of a river, and has to be treated with very
healthy respect. It claims a life or two every year even now, and until
recently there were always stories of people walking the sands near
Newnham-Arlingham at low water, families out for a stroll on a summer
evening, etc. That part of the river is a favourite beauty spot, with a
grand pub and lots of families on summer evenings. The inland sands are
golden and very inviting  and then people are caught when the bore scurries
in. You can hear its roar long before you actually see it. No wonder the
Romans made offerings to this river. I've lived in and around Gloucester
since 1963, and no one here takes her lightly. My skin crawls when I am near
that silent, muddy, tidal water, then comes the noise, the bore and for a
couple of hours the river flows backward. Buckingham must have been stupid
(always likely) or forced to go ahead because other plans, i.e. Henry Tudor,
for the
rebellion gave him no option (possible). Either way he needed his bumps felt
IMHO. It cost him dear in the end.











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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi, All 

Well, is there any place that personal papers of a person like Morton would have been retained? At his episcopal seat, perhaps, assuming he didn't have relatives. I could see a man like Morton doing a lot of shredding and burning in his day!



I've got a copy of *The Deceivers* I haven't opened as of this date, something I'm looking forward to. Something else occurs to me . . . has anyone done a definitive bio of Morton? Now, wouldn't that be a fascinating study!



Regardless, searches of the Vatican archives might turn up a lot of interesting stuff, I would think, for our period. I wish I could do it  but I don't have the knowledge of the languages and scripts that would be necessary. Pity!



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance



It's not at all a stupid question. The fact that the unlovely H8 was happy to get rid of the influence of the Pope etc (potentially at the cost of damnation of his soul) says a lot.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@... <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> >
To: "< <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >" < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 13:58
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance


Just a probably stupid question. Would any of the records have been secreted by the Church and then eventually to the Vatican Archives? Those Archives seem to have secrets no one knows about.
_._,_.___


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbGZmYXZ0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzM1ODU5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNg--?act=reply&messageNum=35859> Reply via web post

<mailto:hjnatdat@...?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Buckingham%20and%20the%20Severn%20-%20was%20Disappearance> Reply to sender

<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Buckingham%20and%20the%20Severn%20-%20was%20Disappearance> Reply to group

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMDZxdWNxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNg--> Start a New Topic

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/35559;_ylc=X3oDMTM2cWU3bGhiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzM1ODU5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNgR0cGNJZAMzNTU1OQ--> Messages in this topic (68)

Recent Activity:

· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbW40ZG8yBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNjg1MzgwMDY-?o=6> New Members 3

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMGF1ZWJrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNg--> Visit Your Group

<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaG5oaHNiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY4NTM4MDA2> Yahoo! Groups

Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe " <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=35859/stime=1368538006>

Don't know what this is, but here's the link anyway. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-John-Morton-Archbishop-Canterbury/dp/1103690094/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1368539271&sr=8-2&keywords=archbishop+morton There's only one at Amazon. If it's something stupid, I didn't tell anyone.

Sandra

Erm, no. There's more than one.

From: SandraMachin
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance


Don't know what this is, but here's the link anyway. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-John-Morton-Archbishop-Canterbury/dp/1103690094/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1368539271&sr=8-2&keywords=archbishop+morton There's only one at Amazon. If it's something stupid, I didn't tell anyone.

Sandra

So, could we perhaps "suggest" some Vatican scholar to study the "last Catholic Plantagenet"?

On May 14, 2013, at 8:36 AM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60@...>> wrote:



Hi, All 

Well, is there any place that personal papers of a person like Morton would have been retained? At his episcopal seat, perhaps, assuming he didn't have relatives. I could see a man like Morton doing a lot of shredding and burning in his day!

I've got a copy of *The Deceivers* I haven't opened as of this date, something I'm looking forward to. Something else occurs to me . . . has anyone done a definitive bio of Morton? Now, wouldn't that be a fascinating study!

Regardless, searches of the Vatican archives might turn up a lot of interesting stuff, I would think, for our period. I wish I could do it  but I don't have the knowledge of the languages and scripts that would be necessary. Pity!

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:27 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

It's not at all a stupid question. The fact that the unlovely H8 was happy to get rid of the influence of the Pope etc (potentially at the cost of damnation of his soul) says a lot.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com<http://40bmbi.com>> >
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>> >" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>> >
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 13:58
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

Just a probably stupid question. Would any of the records have been secreted by the Church and then eventually to the Vatican Archives? Those Archives seem to have secrets no one knows about.
_._,_.___

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbGZmYXZ0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzM1ODU5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNg--?act=reply&messageNum=35859> Reply via web post

<mailto:hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Buckingham%20and%20the%20Severn%20-%20was%20Disappearance> Reply to sender

<mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Buckingham%20and%20the%20Severn%20-%20was%20Disappearance> Reply to group

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMDZxdWNxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNg--> Start a New Topic

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/35559;_ylc=X3oDMTM2cWU3bGhiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzM1ODU5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNgR0cGNJZAMzNTU1OQ--> Messages in this topic (68)

Recent Activity:

· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbW40ZG8yBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNjg1MzgwMDY-?o=6> New Members 3

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMGF1ZWJrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNg--> Visit Your Group

<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaG5oaHNiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY4NTM4MDA2> Yahoo! Groups

Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:-traditional%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:-digest%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest " <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe " <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use " <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:ygroupsnotifications%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=35859/stime=1368538006>

A good R3 scholarship I'd have thought?



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 14:53
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

 

So, could we perhaps "suggest" some Vatican scholar to study the "last Catholic Plantagenet"?

On May 14, 2013, at 8:36 AM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60@...>> wrote:



Hi, All 

Well, is there any place that personal papers of a person like Morton would have been retained? At his episcopal seat, perhaps, assuming he didn't have relatives. I could see a man like Morton doing a lot of shredding and burning in his day!

I've got a copy of *The Deceivers* I haven't opened as of this date, something I'm looking forward to. Something else occurs to me . . . has anyone done a definitive bio of Morton? Now, wouldn't that be a fascinating study!

Regardless, searches of the Vatican archives might turn up a lot of interesting stuff, I would think, for our period. I wish I could do it  but I don't have the knowledge of the languages and scripts that would be necessary. Pity!

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:27 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

It's not at all a stupid question. The fact that the unlovely H8 was happy to get rid of the influence of the Pope etc (potentially at the cost of damnation of his soul) says a lot.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com<http://40bmbi.com>> >
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>> >" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>> >
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 13:58
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

Just a probably stupid question. Would any of the records have been secreted by the Church and then eventually to the Vatican Archives? Those Archives seem to have secrets no one knows about.
_._,_.___

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbGZmYXZ0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzM1ODU5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNg--?act=reply&messageNum=35859> Reply via web post

<mailto:hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Buckingham%20and%20the%20Severn%20-%20was%20Disappearance> Reply to sender

<mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Buckingham%20and%20the%20Severn%20-%20was%20Disappearance> Reply to group

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMDZxdWNxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNg--> Start a New Topic

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/35559;_ylc=X3oDMTM2cWU3bGhiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzM1ODU5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNgR0cGNJZAMzNTU1OQ--> Messages in this topic (68)

Recent Activity:

· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbW40ZG8yBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNjg1MzgwMDY-?o=6> New Members 3

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMGF1ZWJrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNg--> Visit Your Group

<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaG5oaHNiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY4NTM4MDA2> Yahoo! Groups

Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:-traditional%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:-digest%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest " <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe " <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use " <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:ygroupsnotifications%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=35859/stime=1368538006>

He seems to be going cheap!! :) 



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 14:52
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance


 

Erm, no. There's more than one.

From: SandraMachin
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:50 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

Don't know what this is, but here's the link anyway. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-John-Morton-Archbishop-Canterbury/dp/1103690094/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1368539271&sr=8-2&keywords=archbishop+morton There's only one at Amazon. If it's something stupid, I didn't tell anyone.

Sandra

Or you can go to Google Books & download from there (at least I just did).

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=l1ILAAAAYAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=reginald+illingworth+woodhouse&ots=U72DK76hOv&sig=43mpBVnMo49rKeR3_ufc5wfwxuY

A J


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:50 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Donýt know what this is, but hereýs the link anyway.
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-John-Morton-Archbishop-Canterbury/dp/1103690094/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1368539271&sr=8-2&keywords=archbishop+mortonThere%ef%bf%bds only one at Amazon. If itýs something stupid, I didnýt tell anyone.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm sure there's an equally witty answer to that. I just can't think of it. <grin>

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:07 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance


He seems to be going cheap!! :)

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 14:52
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

Erm, no. There's more than one.

From: SandraMachin
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:50 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

Don't know what this is, but here's the link anyway. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-John-Morton-Archbishop-Canterbury/dp/1103690094/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1368539271&sr=8-2&keywords=archbishop+morton There's only one at Amazon. If it's something stupid, I didn't tell anyone.

Oh great idea....Maybe University of Leicester could encourage that!!! Since they are taking claim to everything else, this should be a natural for the Uni.

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:07 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance



A good R3 scholarship I'd have thought?

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 14:53
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance



So, could we perhaps "suggest" some Vatican scholar to study the "last Catholic Plantagenet"?

On May 14, 2013, at 8:36 AM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com><mailto:jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>>> wrote:

Hi, All -

Well, is there any place that personal papers of a person like Morton would have been retained? At his episcopal seat, perhaps, assuming he didn't have relatives. I could see a man like Morton doing a lot of shredding and burning in his day!

I've got a copy of *The Deceivers* I haven't opened as of this date, something I'm looking forward to. Something else occurs to me . . . has anyone done a definitive bio of Morton? Now, wouldn't that be a fascinating study!

Regardless, searches of the Vatican archives might turn up a lot of interesting stuff, I would think, for our period. I wish I could do it - but I don't have the knowledge of the languages and scripts that would be necessary. Pity!

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com><mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv><mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:27 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

It's not at all a stupid question. The fact that the unlovely H8 was happy to get rid of the influence of the Pope etc (potentially at the cost of damnation of his soul) says a lot.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com><mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com<http://40bmbi.com>> >
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>> >" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>> >
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 13:58
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

Just a probably stupid question. Would any of the records have been secreted by the Church and then eventually to the Vatican Archives? Those Archives seem to have secrets no one knows about.
_._,_.___

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbGZmYXZ0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzM1ODU5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNg--?act=reply&messageNum=35859> Reply via web post

<mailto:hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com><mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Buckingham%20and%20the%20Severn%20-%20was%20Disappearance> Reply to sender

<mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Buckingham%20and%20the%20Severn%20-%20was%20Disappearance> Reply to group

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMDZxdWNxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNg--> Start a New Topic

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/35559;_ylc=X3oDMTM2cWU3bGhiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzM1ODU5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNgR0cGNJZAMzNTU1OQ--> Messages in this topic (68)

Recent Activity:

* <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbW40ZG8yBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNjg1MzgwMDY-?o=6> New Members 3

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMGF1ZWJrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNg--> Visit Your Group

<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaG5oaHNiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY4NTM4MDA2> Yahoo! Groups

Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:-traditional%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:-traditional%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:-digest%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:-digest%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest * <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe * <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use * <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:ygroupsnotifications%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:ygroupsnotifications%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=35859/stime=1368538006>

How? It says no ebook available to me when I follow your links



________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 15:16
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance


Or you can go to Google Books & download from there (at least I just did).

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=l1ILAAAAYAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=reginald+illingworth+woodhouse&ots=U72DK76hOv&sig=43mpBVnMo49rKeR3_ufc5wfwxuY

A J


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:50 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Don't know what this is, but here's the link anyway.
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-John-Morton-Archbishop-Canterbury/dp/1103690094/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1368539271&sr=8-2&keywords=archbishop+mortonThere%e2%80%99s only one at Amazon. If it's something stupid, I didn't tell anyone.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Perhaps it's a country (copyright) restriction? I'm in the US, & my screen
says eBook free, so I just clicked on the pdf - et voila. Some of my
European colleagues on another list have been able to find a work around,
something involving mirror sites, perhaps? (Spoken like the true
computer-illiterate I am).

Skimming the Preface is enough to make me gag, though. Perhaps I'd better
motor through to the end to see what sources are given, since that seems to
be how this thread started.

A J


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> How? It says no ebook available to me when I follow your links
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 15:16
>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
> Disappearance
>
>
> Or you can go to Google Books & download from there (at least I just did).
>
>
> http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=l1ILAAAAYAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=reginald+illingworth+woodhouse&ots=U72DK76hOv&sig=43mpBVnMo49rKeR3_ufc5wfwxuY
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:50 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...
> >wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Donýt know what this is, but hereýs the link anyway.
> >
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-John-Morton-Archbishop-Canterbury/dp/1103690094/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1368539271&sr=8-2&keywords=archbishop+mortonThere%ef%bf%bds
> only one at Amazon. If itýs something stupid, I didnýt tell anyone.
>
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

What a good idea; but I doubt they have much interest in the history behind it all. It's a shame as the Uni has a good reputation for historical scholarship.



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 15:20
Subject: RE: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

 

Oh great idea....Maybe University of Leicester could encourage that!!! Since they are taking claim to everything else, this should be a natural for the Uni.

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:07 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

A good R3 scholarship I'd have thought?

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 14:53
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

So, could we perhaps "suggest" some Vatican scholar to study the "last Catholic Plantagenet"?

On May 14, 2013, at 8:36 AM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com><mailto:jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>>> wrote:

Hi, All -

Well, is there any place that personal papers of a person like Morton would have been retained? At his episcopal seat, perhaps, assuming he didn't have relatives. I could see a man like Morton doing a lot of shredding and burning in his day!

I've got a copy of *The Deceivers* I haven't opened as of this date, something I'm looking forward to. Something else occurs to me . . . has anyone done a definitive bio of Morton? Now, wouldn't that be a fascinating study!

Regardless, searches of the Vatican archives might turn up a lot of interesting stuff, I would think, for our period. I wish I could do it - but I don't have the knowledge of the languages and scripts that would be necessary. Pity!

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com><mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv><mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:27 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

It's not at all a stupid question. The fact that the unlovely H8 was happy to get rid of the influence of the Pope etc (potentially at the cost of damnation of his soul) says a lot.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com><mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com<http://40bmbi.com>> >
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>> >" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>> >
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 13:58
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

Just a probably stupid question. Would any of the records have been secreted by the Church and then eventually to the Vatican Archives? Those Archives seem to have secrets no one knows about.
_._,_.___

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbGZmYXZ0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzM1ODU5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNg--?act=reply&messageNum=35859> Reply via web post

<mailto:hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com><mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Buckingham%20and%20the%20Severn%20-%20was%20Disappearance> Reply to sender

<mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Buckingham%20and%20the%20Severn%20-%20was%20Disappearance> Reply to group

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMDZxdWNxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNg--> Start a New Topic

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/35559;_ylc=X3oDMTM2cWU3bGhiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzM1ODU5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNgR0cGNJZAMzNTU1OQ--> Messages in this topic (68)

Recent Activity:

* <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbW40ZG8yBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNjg1MzgwMDY-?o=6> New Members 3

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMGF1ZWJrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM2ODUzODAwNg--> Visit Your Group

<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaG5oaHNiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY4NTM4MDA2> Yahoo! Groups

Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:-traditional%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:-traditional%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:-digest%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:-digest%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest * <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe * <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use * <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:ygroupsnotifications%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:ygroupsnotifications%40yahoogroups.com>?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=35859/stime=1368538006>

P S - it is impressively documented. So if you are not successful in
downloading, I can probably be persuaded to list the references (although
maybe not all of them, since most pages also have footnotes to specific
references.

A J


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:26 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> Perhaps it's a country (copyright) restriction? I'm in the US, & my
> screen says eBook free, so I just clicked on the pdf - et voila. Some of
> my European colleagues on another list have been able to find a work
> around, something involving mirror sites, perhaps? (Spoken like the true
> computer-illiterate I am).
>
> Skimming the Preface is enough to make me gag, though. Perhaps I'd better
> motor through to the end to see what sources are given, since that seems to
> be how this thread started.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> How? It says no ebook available to me when I follow your links
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
>> To: "" <
>> >
>> Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 15:16
>>
>> Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
>> Disappearance
>>
>>
>> Or you can go to Google Books & download from there (at least I just did).
>>
>>
>> http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=l1ILAAAAYAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=reginald+illingworth+woodhouse&ots=U72DK76hOv&sig=43mpBVnMo49rKeR3_ufc5wfwxuY
>>
>> A J
>>
>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:50 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > **
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Donýt know what this is, but hereýs the link anyway.
>> >
>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-John-Morton-Archbishop-Canterbury/dp/1103690094/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1368539271&sr=8-2&keywords=archbishop+mortonThere%ef%bf%bds
>> only one at Amazon. If itýs something stupid, I didnýt tell anyone.
>>
>> >
>> > Sandra
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Sounds good. So probably worth its cheap price if I can't download it? 



________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 15:28
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance


P S - it is impressively documented.  So if you are not successful in
downloading, I can probably be persuaded to list the references (although
maybe not all of them, since most pages also have footnotes to specific
references.

A J


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:26 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> Perhaps it's a country (copyright) restriction?  I'm in the US, & my
> screen says eBook free, so I just clicked on the pdf - et voila.  Some of
> my European colleagues on another list have been able to find a work
> around, something involving mirror sites, perhaps?  (Spoken like the true
> computer-illiterate I am).
>
> Skimming the Preface is enough to make me gag, though.  Perhaps I'd better
> motor through to the end to see what sources are given, since that seems to
> be how this thread started.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> How? It says no ebook available to me when I follow your links
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
>> To: "" <
>> >
>> Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 15:16
>>
>> Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
>> Disappearance
>>
>>
>> Or you can go to Google Books & download from there (at least I just did).
>>
>>
>> http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=l1ILAAAAYAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=reginald+illingworth+woodhouse&ots=U72DK76hOv&sig=43mpBVnMo49rKeR3_ufc5wfwxuY
>>
>> A J
>>
>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:50 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > **
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Don't know what this is, but here's the link anyway.
>> >
>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-John-Morton-Archbishop-Canterbury/dp/1103690094/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1368539271&sr=8-2&keywords=archbishop+mortonThere%e2%80%99s
>> only one at Amazon. If it's something stupid, I didn't tell anyone.
>>
>> >
>> > Sandra
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I've managed to read it from archive.org it by googling it. Not as good as downloading but fine. Thanks for your help.



________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 15:26
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance


Perhaps it's a country (copyright) restriction?  I'm in the US, & my screen
says eBook free, so I just clicked on the pdf - et voila.  Some of my
European colleagues on another list have been able to find a work around,
something involving mirror sites, perhaps?  (Spoken like the true
computer-illiterate I am).

Skimming the Preface is enough to make me gag, though.  Perhaps I'd better
motor through to the end to see what sources are given, since that seems to
be how this thread started.

A J


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> How? It says no ebook available to me when I follow your links
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 15:16
>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
> Disappearance
>
>
> Or you can go to Google Books & download from there (at least I just did).
>
>
> http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=l1ILAAAAYAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=reginald+illingworth+woodhouse&ots=U72DK76hOv&sig=43mpBVnMo49rKeR3_ufc5wfwxuY
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:50 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...
> >wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Don't know what this is, but here's the link anyway.
> >
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-John-Morton-Archbishop-Canterbury/dp/1103690094/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1368539271&sr=8-2&keywords=archbishop+mortonThere%e2%80%99s
> only one at Amazon. If it's something stupid, I didn't tell anyone.
>
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I'd say yes - although it might be difficult to stomach the text, judging
from the Preface.

It has a lengthy Appendix of about 40 pages with References & summaries of
what they say, for instance --
Patent Rolls (Public Record Office)
Close Rolls (ms. catalogues)
Charter & Close Rolls, Henry VII
Harley Charters
Harley ms 433
Harley Rolls
Additional ms, British Museum
Bishop Gray's Register [womment that there are no extracts from Bishop
Morton's Register]
Materials Illustrative of the History of the Reign of Henry VII, Rev Wm
Campbell, 1873-7
Syllabus of Rymer's Foedera
Calendar of Spanish State Papers, G A Bergenroth (1862)
Calendar of Venetian State Papers, Rawdon Brown (1864)
Archives of All Souls' College, Oxford
Historical mss Report V. Canterbury. Lambeth
Register of John Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury, AD 1486 & 1501, Lambeth
Palace [includes summaries of lots of papal bulls]

There's also a pedigree chart of Morton of Milborne S. Andrew. It must be
a foldout & is chopped up into 3 sections in the pdf.

A J



On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Sounds good. So probably worth its cheap price if I can't download it?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 15:28
>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
> Disappearance
>
>
> P S - it is impressively documented. So if you are not successful in
> downloading, I can probably be persuaded to list the references (although
> maybe not all of them, since most pages also have footnotes to specific
> references.
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:26 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it's a country (copyright) restriction? I'm in the US, & my
> > screen says eBook free, so I just clicked on the pdf - et voila. Some of
> > my European colleagues on another list have been able to find a work
> > around, something involving mirror sites, perhaps? (Spoken like the true
> > computer-illiterate I am).
> >
> > Skimming the Preface is enough to make me gag, though. Perhaps I'd
> better
> > motor through to the end to see what sources are given, since that seems
> to
> > be how this thread started.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> How? It says no ebook available to me when I follow your links
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> >> To: "" <
> >> >
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 15:16
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
> >> Disappearance
> >>
> >>
> >> Or you can go to Google Books & download from there (at least I just
> did).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=l1ILAAAAYAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=reginald+illingworth+woodhouse&ots=U72DK76hOv&sig=43mpBVnMo49rKeR3_ufc5wfwxuY
> >>
> >> A J
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:50 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > **
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Donýt know what this is, but hereýs the link anyway.
> >> >
> >>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-John-Morton-Archbishop-Canterbury/dp/1103690094/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1368539271&sr=8-2&keywords=archbishop+mortonThere
> ýs
> >> only one at Amazon. If itýs something stupid, I didnýt tell anyone.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Sandra
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

That's interesting. When I "go" to www.archive.org, I get a whole slew of
options, including read online, pdf, epub, kindle, etc, & it's busy paging
through the book from a cut & paste I made into this e-mail. Since Yahoo
doesn't store attachments, I'm also sending this to your individual e-mail,
to see what comes through...

A J


[image: [item image]] <http://archive.org/stream/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog>

(~216 pg)Read Online <http://archive.org/stream/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog>
(3.7 M)PDF (Google.com)<http://books.google.com/books?id=l1ILAAAAYAAJ&oe=UTF-8>
(~216 pg)EPUB<http://archive.org/download/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog.epub>
(~216 pg)Kindle<http://archive.org/download/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog.mobi>
(~216 pg)Daisy<http://archive.org/download/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog_daisy.zip>
(271.8 K)Full Text<http://archive.org/stream/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog_djvu.txt>
(5.6 M)DjVu<http://archive.org/stream/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog.djvu>
(68.2 K)Metadata<http://archive.org/download/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog_desc.html>


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I've managed to read it from archive.org it by googling it. Not as good
> as downloading but fine. Thanks for your help.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 15:26
>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
> Disappearance
>
>
> Perhaps it's a country (copyright) restriction? I'm in the US, & my screen
> says eBook free, so I just clicked on the pdf - et voila. Some of my
> European colleagues on another list have been able to find a work around,
> something involving mirror sites, perhaps? (Spoken like the true
> computer-illiterate I am).
>
> Skimming the Preface is enough to make me gag, though. Perhaps I'd better
> motor through to the end to see what sources are given, since that seems to
> be how this thread started.
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > How? It says no ebook available to me when I follow your links
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> > To: "" <
> > >
> > Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 15:16
> >
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
> > Disappearance
> >
> >
> > Or you can go to Google Books & download from there (at least I just
> did).
> >
> >
> >
> http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=l1ILAAAAYAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=reginald+illingworth+woodhouse&ots=U72DK76hOv&sig=43mpBVnMo49rKeR3_ufc5wfwxuY
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:50 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > **
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Donýt know what this is, but hereýs the link anyway.
> > >
> >
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-John-Morton-Archbishop-Canterbury/dp/1103690094/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1368539271&sr=8-2&keywords=archbishop+mortonThere
> ýs
> > only one at Amazon. If itýs something stupid, I didnýt tell anyone.
> >
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks, AJ! I downloaded the kindle version, which appears to be one of
those versions that consists of scanned pages. Still, when I went to the
Google Books page, there was no option (that I could see) to download
anything. So I really appreciate you providing those links.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of A J Hibbard
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:48 AM
To: ; Hilary Jones
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
Disappearance

That's interesting. When I "go" to www.archive.org, I get a whole slew of
options, including read online, pdf, epub, kindle, etc, & it's busy paging
through the book from a cut & paste I made into this e-mail. Since Yahoo
doesn't store attachments, I'm also sending this to your individual e-mail,
to see what comes through...

A J


[image: [item image]] <http://archive.org/stream/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog>

(~216 pg)Read Online <http://archive.org/stream/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog>
(3.7 M)PDF
(Google.com)<http://books.google.com/books?id=l1ILAAAAYAAJ&oe=UTF-8>
(~216
pg)EPUB<http://archive.org/download/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog/lifejohnmorton
a00woodgoog.epub>
(~216
pg)Kindle<http://archive.org/download/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog/lifejohnmort
ona00woodgoog.mobi>
(~216
pg)Daisy<http://archive.org/download/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog/lifejohnmorto
na00woodgoog_daisy.zip>
(271.8 K)Full
Text<http://archive.org/stream/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog/lifejohnmortona00wo
odgoog_djvu.txt>
(5.6
M)DjVu<http://archive.org/stream/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog/lifejohnmortona00
woodgoog.djvu>
(68.2
K)Metadata<http://archive.org/download/lifejohnmortona00woodgoog/lifejohnmor
tona00woodgoog_desc.html>


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I've managed to read it from archive.org it by googling it. Not as
> good as downloading but fine. Thanks for your help.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To: "" <
> >
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 15:26
>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn -
> was Disappearance
>
>
> Perhaps it's a country (copyright) restriction? I'm in the US, & my
> screen says eBook free, so I just clicked on the pdf - et voila. Some
> of my European colleagues on another list have been able to find a
> work around, something involving mirror sites, perhaps? (Spoken like
> the true computer-illiterate I am).
>
> Skimming the Preface is enough to make me gag, though. Perhaps I'd
> better motor through to the end to see what sources are given, since
> that seems to be how this thread started.
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > How? It says no ebook available to me when I follow your links
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> > To: "" <
> > >
> > Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 15:16
> >
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn -
> > was Disappearance
> >
> >
> > Or you can go to Google Books & download from there (at least I just
> did).
> >
> >
> >
> http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=l1ILAAAAYAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&
> dq=reginald+illingworth+woodhouse&ots=U72DK76hOv&sig=43mpBVnMo49rKeR3_
> ufc5wfwxuY
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:50 AM, SandraMachin
> > <sandramachin@...
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > **
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't know what this is, but here's the link anyway.
> > >
> >
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Life-John-Morton-Archbishop-Canterbury/dp/1103
> 690094/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1368539271&sr=8-2&keywords=archbishop+mo
> rtonThere
> 's
> > only one at Amazon. If it's something stupid, I didn't tell anyone.
> >
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:05 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Disappearance


> Also the unlikelihood
of the princes' bones being found 10 feet deep under or alongside the stairs
going into the White Tower.

Quite apart from the fact that the depth suggests a Roman or Anglo-Saxon
burial, if the steps in question are on the *outside* of the White Tower,
which I hadn't realised, then they must be overlooked by the buildings all
around. Unless there were a lot more bushes around the tower than there are
now, anybody digging a 10ft hole there would be conspicuously visible for
hours. It would be a daft place to choose.

I've always understood More to mean that the bodies were temporarily
concealed at suface level under some builders' rubble which was already
there - which at least makes logical sense, even if it's almost certainly a
lie. To dig a grave-sized hole 10ft deep in a public space overlooked by
buildings all around makes much less sense. Even if the idea is supposed to
be that the 10ft hole was, or was presented as being, part of the work being
done on the stair, there must have been hordes of stonemasons there who
would notice if somebody had been buried in one of their holes.

wednesday_mc wrote:

"Ngh!
(NOTE: This is a word used when a Ricardian's brain hurts after she has
tried for days to make sense of the details surrounding the disappearance of
the Little Terrors in the Tower. Other words used are not suitable for use
here.)
After reading Carol's erudite post (per below) and literally screeching like
a barn owl in frustration at the tangle provided by the available resources,
and the unavailability of reliable resources regarding everything to do with
those Tower Brats, I've come to believe that what separates the
Traditionalist from the Ricardian is that the Traditionalist throws up
his/her hands when looking at anything pre-1485 and flees in horror back to
the plethora of Tudor documentation/propaganda -- and *not* because Richard
did it."

Doug here:
Giving them (Trads) the benefit of the doubt, maybe it's because there's so
little solid, documentary proof that Richard *didn't* have his nephews
killed? Their reliance of More is less excusable as, to the best of my
knowledge, while the RCC might declare someone a saint, I've never heard of
*any* historian being required to take something the RCC says as, well,
dogma! I definitely don't mean that as an attack on the RCC (or and faith,
for that matter), but on those historians who seem to place too much
reliance on "who" wrote something rather than on *what* was written.

weds continues:
"By comparison, anyone loyal to Richard -- and like the most loyal horse or
dog imaginable -- keeps tracing and retracing what is available, no matter
how reliable/unreliable. There is something inside us that won't give up. We
continue hoping and believing if we just keep teasing through whatever we
have, we'll find something something -- anything -- we haven't seen or heard
or discovered before. Surely it's there...?
It has also occurred to me that the tangle of non-information may exist
precisely because Richard is innocent. Because heaven knows that the
documentation of the Tudors many judicial murders and off-with-their-heads
moments is solid and multiple and nauseatingly plentiful -- witness the many
books, textbooks, biographies, movies, romances, mini-series, documentaries
that make much money for their producers. And also because heaven knows if
The Tudor Company Ltd could have come up with any sort of original
documentation to damn Richard, they would have.
More and more, I'm thinking that we don't have proof of Richard's innocence
because the proof of his guilt was never there either. Because if Richard
were guilty, The Tudor Company Ltd would have seen it published in a hundred
gleeful, better forms than Vergil or More or Mancini or the Chronicles or
Old Bill.
I guess what I'm trying to say (and think) is that if Richard were guilty of
killing the littles, the proof should be there in spades. A murderer
*always* leaves evidence behind, but all we have evidence of is gossip.
That's not evidence of murder. Either Richard was the most gifted judicial
murderer ever (who managed to cover all his tracks and all the tracks of
those who helped him do this while he was on progress), or something's
rotten in the records.
Maybe we should do what criminal investigators in the U.S. do to determine
whether they have evidence that will stand in court. Per Wikipedia, in US
Criminal law, "means, motive, and opportunity" is a popular cultural
summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before
guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding.
Respectively, they refer to:
(1) the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means)
(2) the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime (motive)
(3) and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime
(opportunity)
Maybe we should list possible other suspects for the murder of the little
Brats? If none of those people had the means, motive and opportunity to kill
the darlings, then perhaps the argument of Richard having the means, motive
and opportunity to get them out of reach?"

Doug again:
Interestingly enough (to me anyway), is that I first came across Richard as
someone who likes mysteries. I spotted Audrey Williamson's book in a shop in
Cheltenham because of the little blurb on the cover saying it was winner of
the Crime Writers' Gold Dagger Award - usually a very good recommendation
for *any* mystery. That led to Tey's "The Daughter of Time" and finally
here.
Going by the criteria you've provided, Richard certainly had the means and
opportunity but, as we know now via Titulus Regius, he *didn't* have a
motive. Only psychopaths kill without a motive and neither the Tudor
propaganda machine nor Shakespeare ever stooped to that!
Buckingham, OTOH, certainly had a motive and possibly had the means and
opportunity. The attempt to get the boys out of the Tower would, if
Buckingham *was* involved in it, also have given him both the means and
opportunity.
After that, however, I start running short of suspects who even come near
meeting more than one of the requirements. There are lots of people who
benefited from the boy's disappearance, but who lacked means and opportunity
to see that they did.
Doug
(who personally is fond of "Gyack!", but more than happy to expand his
voabulary!)

As Eileen would say - DOH, yes, it is quite obvious now. Which once again begs to question, there needs to be a comprehensive look at all aspects of the last years of the Plantagenet Dynasty, from rivers to buildings, plotters and planners, documents, lands confiscated and bestowed, and on and on! Ah to be a young graduate student of unlimited means, with superb connections, and with the blessing of the Monarchy, the State, the Church, and whoever or whatever else is necessary to find the answers.

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:24 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance



From: Johanne Tournier
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:05 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Disappearance

> Also the unlikelihood
of the princes' bones being found 10 feet deep under or alongside the stairs
going into the White Tower.

Quite apart from the fact that the depth suggests a Roman or Anglo-Saxon
burial, if the steps in question are on the *outside* of the White Tower,
which I hadn't realised, then they must be overlooked by the buildings all
around. Unless there were a lot more bushes around the tower than there are
now, anybody digging a 10ft hole there would be conspicuously visible for
hours. It would be a daft place to choose.

I've always understood More to mean that the bodies were temporarily
concealed at suface level under some builders' rubble which was already
there - which at least makes logical sense, even if it's almost certainly a
lie. To dig a grave-sized hole 10ft deep in a public space overlooked by
buildings all around makes much less sense. Even if the idea is supposed to
be that the 10ft hole was, or was presented as being, part of the work being
done on the stair, there must have been hordes of stonemasons there who
would notice if somebody had been buried in one of their holes.

SandraMachin wrote:

"Still thinking, I'm afraid. Never a good sign. Did Buckingham's choice of
Gloucester indicate his initial intention to support Henry Tudor's claim?
And did the floods leave him with three choices - (1) Take the long detour
and still go to Henry, in the south of the realm, hoping not to be
side-swiped and skirmished by Richard before he got there. On the hoof, so
to speak. (2) Disband his army, call it a day and go home to Brecon in time
for tea and tiffin in front of the roaring log fire. (3) Make use of the
army to go after Richard on his own account? It was a more direct thing to
go north up the higher land on the west bank of the river, cross at the
first opportunity above Worcester, and go face to face in battle formation
with Richard in the centre of the kingdom. By then he certainly would not be
thinking of Henry Tudor, but of himself. Buckingham had the claim,
Buckingham raised the army, Buckingham had taken on Richard, and if
Buckingham won it would be to put Buckingham on the throne, not some
Lancastrian half-Beaufort upstart without a legitimate claim. It all went
pear-shaped, of course, but that is how I am beginning to view Buckingham's
actions. Whatever his motives, I cannot respect him. He was no adornment to
his family or dukedom. Richard, already embittered by his treachery, would
have made mincemeat of him on a battlefield."
//snip//

Doug here:
Buckingham's movements looked to me as if he didn't want (dare?) to risk
meeting Richard *before* his (B's) forces were united with Tudor's. Hence
his determination to cross the Severn as far south as, usually, possible
might have been due to his simply lacking enough men to resist Richard if
they met in battle.
Any move by Buckingham northwards then, towards crossings that *were*
usable, would have taken him *away* from the troops he desperately needed in
order to put up *any* resistance at all, let alone possibly defeat, Richard.
Do we know where Tudor was *supposed* to land? Could his original goal been
Bristol?
Doug

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 7:18 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance
Do we know where Tudor was *supposed* to land? Could his original goal been
Bristol?
Doug
Sandra: That's a good point, Doug. Hadn't thought of Bristol. Mind you, the weather would have made that destination difficult as well, since it's still in the Bristol Channel/Severn Sea, October 1483, with all the atrocious weather, floodwater, dangerous tides and so on. If Henry had made for there, it would be nice to think of him sinking to the bottom, into all that evil Severn mud. I'm inclined to think Henry would have intended somewhere along the south coast, but have no idea where. With the collapse of his plans, Buckingham did indeed ride north along the Severn  frantically, as I understand  and then days later is in Salisbury to be executed. So clearly he crossed somewhere. I hazard a guess at Shrewsbury. But getting one man/a few men across isn't quite the same as an army.
And I still find it hard to believe an English nobleman of Buckingham's vanity, status and lineage would be prepared to support the claim of the relatively obscure son of the Welsh Earl of Richmond. But who can say what the heck Buckingham thought?
Whatever, luck was still with Richard on this occasion. It certainly wasn't for the rest of his reign. I feeling like kicking fate' for turning upon him to such a cruel and monstrous degree  at the same time favouring Henry Tudor to the point of gross injustice. (spits teeth)

Hi, Claire & Everyone -



Annette Carson goes into a tremendous amount of detail about all the stories
about the discovery of children's bones in the Tower, as there is also the
tale that two sets of children's remains were found in a small walled-up
room inside the White Tower, as well as a few other instances (one of which
turned out to be the skeleton of a baboon that had escaped from the Tower
menagerie).



About the remains found under/next to the stairs, Carson provides a number
of diagrams and pictures illustrating the layout of the Tower, both the
outer perimeter wall with their towers and the White Tower itself. In the
earliest period, access to the Tower was by a defensible removable wooden
stairway that led to the main door on the first (i.e. second in North
America) floor. A squarish "forebuilding" was built (probably in the 12th.
century) which was attached to the South side of the White Tower and
included permanent stone steps in place of the removable wooden ones. Carson
also says that there was a small doorway added probably around 1350 that
gave onto the ground floor and a stairway near it extended in a spiral,
probably also in the 14th. century, to allow access to St. John's Chapel
from the exterior for the first time. It was under the exterior stone
stairway leading to the door that the bones were found in 1674.



"Given that we cannot fault authoritative reports by Knight and Wren of the
bones being found 10 ft. in the ground while men were 'digging down' the
stairs that led to the chapel, with Gibbon confirming they were digging
foundations, it is surprising that opinions differ as to exactly where the
discovery took place. Can this be because the eyewitness descriptions are
impossible to reconcile with Thomas More?" (pg. 183, original edition)



Carson also discusses the forensics in detail, including the question of the
sex and ages of the bones, which were not definitely ascertained. She also
considers the question of the diseased jaw of the elder, noting that he may
have suffered from osteomyelitis, which very well could have been fatal, or
osteitis, which at the least would have caused excruciating pain. She notes
that no early observer noted that Edward suffered from any debilitating
condition, although it would have been significant if he had, thus making it
probable that he didn't suffer from any such condition.



Finally, there were some original evidences that were used to suggest
kinship between the two boys, especially some congenitally missing teeth in
both skulls, and large, similarly-shaped "Wormian bones," which are extra
bones in the skull. Carson says it is known now that such similarities don't
necessarily prove kinship, as the similarities in teeth (like missing wisdom
teeth) and Wormian bones are shared by a fairly high percentage of the
population.



Carson notes that Hicks, the only modern biographer of Edward V, although
seeming to accept that these are the bones of the boys, ". . . confines
himself to just two brief references to the bones. His stance as to their
identity even then is equivocal. Having wagged a metaphorical finger at
'those who do not wish to believe' in the face of 'the best medical opinion
of the day', the professor thereafter tells us that he himself has yet to be
convinced: 'If the bones were those of the princes, it remains to be
demonstrated' and later, 'The evidence, however, is far from conclusive.'
Sitting squarely on the fence, he opines: 'If they are the right bodies,
modern anatomical skills ought to locate their deaths within or beyond the
reign - where it already appears certain that they belong.' A safe assertion
if there ever was one!



"It is particularly revealing that Hicks omits any mention of the condition
of the jaw of the elder skull, thus failing to investigate the conspicuous
disease from which the young Edward, on the evidence of the bones, is
claimed to have suffered. Can it be that Professor Hicks is as skeptical
about the bones as are the revisionists he so disdains?" (pg. 191, original
edition)



I hope this is of some interest! I certainly believe that Hicks, from
Carson's description, seems to want to have his cake and eat it, too!



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:24 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance





From: Johanne Tournier
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:05 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Disappearance

> Also the unlikelihood
of the princes' bones being found 10 feet deep under or alongside the stairs
going into the White Tower.

Quite apart from the fact that the depth suggests a Roman or Anglo-Saxon
burial, if the steps in question are on the *outside* of the White Tower,
which I hadn't realised, then they must be overlooked by the buildings all
around. Unless there were a lot more bushes around the tower than there are
now, anybody digging a 10ft hole there would be conspicuously visible for
hours. It would be a daft place to choose.

I've always understood More to mean that the bodies were temporarily
concealed at suface level under some builders' rubble which was already
there - which at least makes logical sense, even if it's almost certainly a
lie. To dig a grave-sized hole 10ft deep in a public space overlooked by
buildings all around makes much less sense. Even if the idea is supposed to
be that the 10ft hole was, or was presented as being, part of the work being

done on the stair, there must have been hordes of stonemasons there who
would notice if somebody had been buried in one of their holes.

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
Disappearance


> OMG, Claire, what a disgusting thought. Imagine catching the royal eye and
> then seeing the ominously beckoning finger. One would just have to tell
> him it was the wrong time of the month and hope it put him off! He seems
> to have been so like Henry VIII it's incredible.

To be fair, he only doubled his wives up - he didn't judicially murder them.
But there seems to be more of Edward IV then Henry VII in Henry VIII, so in
effect York won - although not in a good way.

> How on earth could someone as elegant, refined and honest as Richard be
> Edward's brother???? I believe he was elegant. and refined. Both seem to
> be written right across his portraits. If he turned out to be a boor, I'd
> be truly astonished.

I could imagine him being rowdy if he'd had a skinfull, and if he was a
normal teenage boy he probably went through a phase when he had a face like
a pizza and thought that competition belching was the height of
sophisticated humour. But the fact that his books were second-hand
(suggesting he had them to read, not for show), and his possession of a
Wycliffe Bible, and his interest in the law and in hearing theological
debates, and his concern for women and for common soldiers, all suggest that
he was scholarly, thoughtful and considerate, so it's unlikely that he would
ever intentionally be crass or offensicve.

Richard also seems to have spent every minute he could away from Edward's court, so it seems doubtful they shared the same tastes in much of anything. Including selling out English honor for a French pension.

~Weds


--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> I could imagine him being rowdy if he'd had a skinfull, and if he was a normal teenage boy he probably went through a phase when he had a face like a pizza and thought that competition belching was the height of sophisticated humour. But the fact that his books were second-hand (suggesting he had them to read, not for show), and his possession of a Wycliffe Bible, and his interest in the law and in hearing theological debates, and his concern for women and for common soldiers, all suggest that he was scholarly, thoughtful and considerate, so it's unlikely that he would ever intentionally be crass or offensicve.

Judging by the position of the staircase indicated in Isolde Wigram's article it's quite possible that while outside now, in the 15th century it may very well have been inside: It looks to be located where the White Tower adjoined the royal apartments where from everything I've read the princes were housed. Much of what constituted the Tower of London in the 15th century no longer exists and that includes the royal apartments which was essentially a palace within the tower walls.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Scale_Model_Of_The_Tower_Of_London_In_The_Tower_Of_London.jpg

In the picture linked above the royal apartments are those from the south face of the White Tower to the wall that parallels the river (which includes the Wakefield Tower and the river gate later named Traitor's Gate).

James

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Johanne Tournier
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:05 PM
> Subject: RE: Re: Disappearance
>
>
> > Also the unlikelihood
> of the princes' bones being found 10 feet deep under or alongside the stairs
> going into the White Tower.
>
> Quite apart from the fact that the depth suggests a Roman or Anglo-Saxon
> burial, if the steps in question are on the *outside* of the White Tower,
> which I hadn't realised, then they must be overlooked by the buildings all
> around. Unless there were a lot more bushes around the tower than there are
> now, anybody digging a 10ft hole there would be conspicuously visible for
> hours. It would be a daft place to choose.
>
> I've always understood More to mean that the bodies were temporarily
> concealed at suface level under some builders' rubble which was already
> there - which at least makes logical sense, even if it's almost certainly a
> lie. To dig a grave-sized hole 10ft deep in a public space overlooked by
> buildings all around makes much less sense. Even if the idea is supposed to
> be that the 10ft hole was, or was presented as being, part of the work being
> done on the stair, there must have been hordes of stonemasons there who
> would notice if somebody had been buried in one of their holes.
>

Thanks for that, very interesting.  It begs the question as to where the boys were seen playing and who saw them.

 Poet <virginia_bard@...> wrote:



 
Judging by the position of the staircase indicated in Isolde Wigram's article it's quite possible that while outside now, in the 15th century it may very well have been inside: It looks to be located where the White Tower adjoined the royal apartments where from everything I've read the princes were housed. Much of what constituted the Tower of London in the 15th century no longer exists and that includes the royal apartments which was essentially a palace within the tower walls.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Scale_Model_Of_The_Tower_Of_London_In_The_Tower_Of_London.jpg

In the picture linked above the royal apartments are those from the south face of the White Tower to the wall that parallels the river (which includes the Wakefield Tower and the river gate later named Traitor's Gate).

James

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Johanne Tournier
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:05 PM
> Subject: RE: Re: Disappearance
>
>
> > Also the unlikelihood
> of the princes' bones being found 10 feet deep under or alongside the stairs
> going into the White Tower.
>
> Quite apart from the fact that the depth suggests a Roman or Anglo-Saxon
> burial, if the steps in question are on the *outside* of the White Tower,
> which I hadn't realised, then they must be overlooked by the buildings all
> around. Unless there were a lot more bushes around the tower than there are
> now, anybody digging a 10ft hole there would be conspicuously visible for
> hours. It would be a daft place to choose.
>
> I've always understood More to mean that the bodies were temporarily
> concealed at suface level under some builders' rubble which was already
> there - which at least makes logical sense, even if it's almost certainly a
> lie. To dig a grave-sized hole 10ft deep in a public space overlooked by
> buildings all around makes much less sense. Even if the idea is supposed to
> be that the 10ft hole was, or was presented as being, part of the work being
> done on the stair, there must have been hordes of stonemasons there who
> would notice if somebody had been buried in one of their holes.
>

Can anyone confirm that I am correct to believe that Lady Day 1487 would be New Year's Day? It seems fairly clear the two were the same, but I'd appreciate someone else telling me it is. Thank you.
Sandra

Yes.
----- Original Message -----
From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: Lady Day



Can anyone confirm that I am correct to believe that Lady Day 1487 would be New Year's Day? It seems fairly clear the two were the same, but I'd appreciate someone else telling me it is. Thank you.
Sandra

Yes I would agree with that. He was very hands on as an adminstrator, his annotations are on a lot of boring daily stuff (in fact one could say he was as hands on as H7). I have him as someone who would shine at the chamber of commerce meetings (ie the City of London merchant meetings) he hosted several of those. He was in many respects a modern man; modernity began with Edward, not Henry. And remember this image of him as the overweight eating, drinking man is as much propeganda as his brother's hump. He was a charismatic man, a kiss from him didn't make women recoil, it made them give him more money! He wasn't his grandson. A womaniser he might have been but that doesn't make him gross; think of that charmer Charles II (ah Rufus Sewall again).
 
Where did he go wrong? He arguably married the wrong woman (though she was not a bad queen) and he dabbled in land like a nobleman, not a king.


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 19:58
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

 

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
Disappearance

> OMG, Claire, what a disgusting thought. Imagine catching the royal eye and
> then seeing the ominously beckoning finger. One would just have to tell
> him it was the wrong time of the month and hope it put him off! He seems
> to have been so like Henry VIII it's incredible.

To be fair, he only doubled his wives up - he didn't judicially murder them.
But there seems to be more of Edward IV then Henry VII in Henry VIII, so in
effect York won - although not in a good way.

> How on earth could someone as elegant, refined and honest as Richard be
> Edward's brother???? I believe he was elegant. and refined. Both seem to
> be written right across his portraits. If he turned out to be a boor, I'd
> be truly astonished.

I could imagine him being rowdy if he'd had a skinfull, and if he was a
normal teenage boy he probably went through a phase when he had a face like
a pizza and thought that competition belching was the height of
sophisticated humour. But the fact that his books were second-hand
(suggesting he had them to read, not for show), and his possession of a
Wycliffe Bible, and his interest in the law and in hearing theological
debates, and his concern for women and for common soldiers, all suggest that
he was scholarly, thoughtful and considerate, so it's unlikely that he would
ever intentionally be crass or offensicve.

On 13/05/2013 18:23, wednesday_mc wrote:
> Was MB actually on the progress? Because Kendall has her staying behind in London when the progress set out from Windsor. He has MB sending Reginald Bray to Morton/Buckingham when the latter needed him (to carry messages?) Perhaps she was on the progress until Anne left Richard? (See below.)
A bit delayed in getting back to you.
I wasn't saying that MB was for certain on the progress, but was
wondering why, as her husband had for some reason I fail to understand,
been taken back into favour by Richard, why his wife, as a former lady
in waiting to the queen, not also been taken back into favour. She was
at the coronation after all. Something I have always questioned Kendall
about [not literally of course!]
Paul


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Regarding Lady Day. I have come upon a problem in David Baldwin's Stoke Field book. In it (p. 22, published Pen & Sword Military, chapter entitled The Lambert Simnel Conspiracy) he identifies Lady Day by the modern date, 25th March, which is clearly wrong. But even so I cannot understand the dates of the Earl of Lincoln's pre-defection weeks. A party of Lincoln's men was apparently intercepted near Doncaster on Lady Day by Henry's agent, Tait, who identified them because they had Lincoln's recognisable white horse with them - or his rare white hobby falcon, not entirely sure which. Tait learned they were conveying much gold and silver on the earl's business, and by some things they said Tait gained the impression they were up to no good on Lincoln's behalf. He duly reported this to Henry. Presumably fairly quickly? Lady Day to March 9th is two months, surely Tait would not have dithered that long? Not much of an agent if that were the case. OK, so this is Lady Day, January 1st. Lincoln apparently remained unsuspected of anything until he defected on March 9th. So where was Tait's information in the meantime? Surely Henry would have learned of it before Lincoln's departure for Malines? Yet most accounts state that Henry was taken by surprise by Lincoln's abrupt departure.

Am I misunderstanding something here? Has anyone any thoughts on this?

Sandra

From: Stephen Lark
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:10 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Lady Day

Yes.
----- Original Message -----
From: SandraMachin
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: Lady Day

Can anyone confirm that I am correct to believe that Lady Day 1487 would be New Year's Day? It seems fairly clear the two were the same, but I'd appreciate someone else telling me it is. Thank you.
Sandra

Well said Pammy. Too many traditionalist have been able to get away with minimal research for too long.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> As Eileen would say - DOH, yes, it is quite obvious now. Which once again begs to question, there needs to be a comprehensive look at all aspects of the last years of the Plantagenet Dynasty, from rivers to buildings, plotters and planners, documents, lands confiscated and bestowed, and on and on! Ah to be a young graduate student of unlimited means, with superb connections, and with the blessing of the Monarchy, the State, the Church, and whoever or whatever else is necessary to find the answers.
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:24 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance
>
>
>
> From: Johanne Tournier
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:05 PM
> Subject: RE: Re: Disappearance
>
> > Also the unlikelihood
> of the princes' bones being found 10 feet deep under or alongside the stairs
> going into the White Tower.
>
> Quite apart from the fact that the depth suggests a Roman or Anglo-Saxon
> burial, if the steps in question are on the *outside* of the White Tower,
> which I hadn't realised, then they must be overlooked by the buildings all
> around. Unless there were a lot more bushes around the tower than there are
> now, anybody digging a 10ft hole there would be conspicuously visible for
> hours. It would be a daft place to choose.
>
> I've always understood More to mean that the bodies were temporarily
> concealed at suface level under some builders' rubble which was already
> there - which at least makes logical sense, even if it's almost certainly a
> lie. To dig a grave-sized hole 10ft deep in a public space overlooked by
> buildings all around makes much less sense. Even if the idea is supposed to
> be that the 10ft hole was, or was presented as being, part of the work being
> done on the stair, there must have been hordes of stonemasons there who
> would notice if somebody had been buried in one of their holes.
>
>
>
>
>

Lovely, thanks....

On May 14, 2013, at 10:50 PM, "Poet" <virginia_bard@...<mailto:virginia_bard@...>> wrote:



Judging by the position of the staircase indicated in Isolde Wigram's article it's quite possible that while outside now, in the 15th century it may very well have been inside: It looks to be located where the White Tower adjoined the royal apartments where from everything I've read the princes were housed. Much of what constituted the Tower of London in the 15th century no longer exists and that includes the royal apartments which was essentially a palace within the tower walls.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Scale_Model_Of_The_Tower_Of_London_In_The_Tower_Of_London.jpg

In the picture linked above the royal apartments are those from the south face of the White Tower to the wall that parallels the river (which includes the Wakefield Tower and the river gate later named Traitor's Gate).

James

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Johanne Tournier
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:05 PM
> Subject: RE: Re: Disappearance
>
>
> > Also the unlikelihood
> of the princes' bones being found 10 feet deep under or alongside the stairs
> going into the White Tower.
>
> Quite apart from the fact that the depth suggests a Roman or Anglo-Saxon
> burial, if the steps in question are on the *outside* of the White Tower,
> which I hadn't realised, then they must be overlooked by the buildings all
> around. Unless there were a lot more bushes around the tower than there are
> now, anybody digging a 10ft hole there would be conspicuously visible for
> hours. It would be a daft place to choose.
>
> I've always understood More to mean that the bodies were temporarily
> concealed at suface level under some builders' rubble which was already
> there - which at least makes logical sense, even if it's almost certainly a
> lie. To dig a grave-sized hole 10ft deep in a public space overlooked by
> buildings all around makes much less sense. Even if the idea is supposed to
> be that the 10ft hole was, or was presented as being, part of the work being
> done on the stair, there must have been hordes of stonemasons there who
> would notice if somebody had been buried in one of their holes.
>

Also Doug, having lived near the River Severn, the river after heavy rain is pretty high and floods, but then it gets worse as days go by because the water from above Shrewsbury starts comming down and making the flooding even worse in places like Bridgnorth, Bewdley and Worcester. Water coming down the hills alongside the Severn drains into the River and makes the flooding worse. What I am trying to say is that if Buckingham had decided to go North he probably would have met with worse conditions.

I agree with you about him wanting to meet up with Tudor and taking the quickest route. Another reason for him not wanting to go north as far as Bewdley for instance could have been that he would then have been in Richard's "territory". The Bowmen of Bewdley fought for Richard at Tewkesbury and he was responsible for Edward giving them a Charter in 1472 allowing them to have a market, which made Bewdley a prosperous town. Added to that Tickenhill Palace in Bewdley was part of Edward's Mortimer inheritance and was then owned by Richard as King. I am not sure about allegiance of the people of Worcester but Richard had just been there on his progress so it is possible that they were loyal too As possibly the people of Tewkesbury. Just some thoughts to add to the mix.

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> SandraMachin wrote:
>
> "Still thinking, I'm afraid. Never a good sign. Did Buckingham's choice of
> Gloucester indicate his initial intention to support Henry Tudor's claim?
> And did the floods leave him with three choices - (1) Take the long detour
> and still go to Henry, in the south of the realm, hoping not to be
> side-swiped and skirmished by Richard before he got there. On the hoof, so
> to speak. (2) Disband his army, call it a day and go home to Brecon in time
> for tea and tiffin in front of the roaring log fire. (3) Make use of the
> army to go after Richard on his own account? It was a more direct thing to
> go north up the higher land on the west bank of the river, cross at the
> first opportunity above Worcester, and go face to face in battle formation
> with Richard in the centre of the kingdom. By then he certainly would not be
> thinking of Henry Tudor, but of himself. Buckingham had the claim,
> Buckingham raised the army, Buckingham had taken on Richard, and if
> Buckingham won it would be to put Buckingham on the throne, not some
> Lancastrian half-Beaufort upstart without a legitimate claim. It all went
> pear-shaped, of course, but that is how I am beginning to view Buckingham's
> actions. Whatever his motives, I cannot respect him. He was no adornment to
> his family or dukedom. Richard, already embittered by his treachery, would
> have made mincemeat of him on a battlefield."
> //snip//
>
> Doug here:
> Buckingham's movements looked to me as if he didn't want (dare?) to risk
> meeting Richard *before* his (B's) forces were united with Tudor's. Hence
> his determination to cross the Severn as far south as, usually, possible
> might have been due to his simply lacking enough men to resist Richard if
> they met in battle.
> Any move by Buckingham northwards then, towards crossings that *were*
> usable, would have taken him *away* from the troops he desperately needed in
> order to put up *any* resistance at all, let alone possibly defeat, Richard.
> Do we know where Tudor was *supposed* to land? Could his original goal been
> Bristol?
> Doug
>

From: Poet
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: Disappearance

> Judging by the position of the staircase indicated in Isolde Wigram's
> article it's quite possible that while outside now, in the 15th century it
> may very well have been inside: It looks to be located where the White
> Tower adjoined the royal apartments

Whereabouts are you placing it on this model? In those little external
add-on towers at near-left of the White Tower?

> In the picture linked above the royal apartments are those from the south
> face of the White Tower to the wall that parallels the river (which
> includes the Wakefield Tower and the river gate later named Traitor's
> Gate).

If they were already living in that little area at bottom right, which is a
courtyard within a courtyard, again I wonder what moving "deeper" into the
Tower could mean.

As for how they were seen playing and shooting, I wonder if there were
archery butts on one of the long strips of grass between the outer and inner
walls. They would provide a good long line-of-sight in an area where
passing men at arms weren't likely to walk in front of the target and get
spiked, and because the outer wall isn't all that high it might be possible
for people on the upper floors of nearby houses to see over the top of the
wall and catch a glimpse of the archers.

I can testify that the elevation of the top floor of a double-decker bus,
for example, is enough to give one a view of the tops of the outer
corner-towers: I once saw somebody's washing flapping on a line up there,
invisible from the street but clearly visible from the bus. A two-storey
building might enable one to look over the wall, and a three-storey one
almsot certainly would.

See an earlier reply to Doug re riding North up the Severn and why the flood water would be worse further North. I did not realise that he had rode North, so could he have arrived in say Shrewsbury after the flood water subsided and then crossed. I have read about Buckingham rebellion but many years ago so not really up to speed on all of it.

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 7:18 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance
> Do we know where Tudor was *supposed* to land? Could his original goal been
> Bristol?
> Doug
> Sandra: That’s a good point, Doug. Hadn’t thought of Bristol. Mind you, the weather would have made that destination difficult as well, since it’s still in the Bristol Channel/Severn Sea, October 1483, with all the atrocious weather, floodwater, dangerous tides and so on. If Henry had made for there, it would be nice to think of him sinking to the bottom, into all that evil Severn mud. I’m inclined to think Henry would have intended somewhere along the south coast, but have no idea where. With the collapse of his plans, Buckingham did indeed ride north along the Severn â€" frantically, as I understand â€" and then days later is in Salisbury to be executed. So clearly he crossed somewhere. I hazard a guess at Shrewsbury. But getting one man/a few men across isn’t quite the same as an army.
> And I still find it hard to believe an English nobleman of Buckingham’s vanity, status and lineage would be prepared to support the claim of the relatively obscure son of the Welsh Earl of Richmond. But who can say what the heck Buckingham thought?
> Whatever, luck was still with Richard on this occasion. It certainly wasn’t for the rest of his reign. I feeling like kicking ‘fate’ for turning upon him to such a cruel and monstrous degree â€" at the same time favouring Henry Tudor to the point of gross injustice. (spits teeth)
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reggie Bray hails from there - say no more! From the murky waters I'm dabbling in the 'West Country' (if you can just about put Worcester in with that) is a seething mass of complexity. Which is not surprising seeing that it borders on Wales. See my earlier note about funds from Gloucester going to our Jasper. 



________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 13:10
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance

 

Also Doug, having lived near the River Severn, the river after heavy rain is pretty high and floods, but then it gets worse as days go by because the water from above Shrewsbury starts comming down and making the flooding even worse in places like Bridgnorth, Bewdley and Worcester. Water coming down the hills alongside the Severn drains into the River and makes the flooding worse. What I am trying to say is that if Buckingham had decided to go North he probably would have met with worse conditions.

I agree with you about him wanting to meet up with Tudor and taking the quickest route. Another reason for him not wanting to go north as far as Bewdley for instance could have been that he would then have been in Richard's "territory". The Bowmen of Bewdley fought for Richard at Tewkesbury and he was responsible for Edward giving them a Charter in 1472 allowing them to have a market, which made Bewdley a prosperous town. Added to that Tickenhill Palace in Bewdley was part of Edward's Mortimer inheritance and was then owned by Richard as King. I am not sure about allegiance of the people of Worcester but Richard had just been there on his progress so it is possible that they were loyal too As possibly the people of Tewkesbury. Just some thoughts to add to the mix.

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> SandraMachin wrote:
>
> "Still thinking, I'm afraid. Never a good sign. Did Buckingham's choice of
> Gloucester indicate his initial intention to support Henry Tudor's claim?
> And did the floods leave him with three choices - (1) Take the long detour
> and still go to Henry, in the south of the realm, hoping not to be
> side-swiped and skirmished by Richard before he got there. On the hoof, so
> to speak. (2) Disband his army, call it a day and go home to Brecon in time
> for tea and tiffin in front of the roaring log fire. (3) Make use of the
> army to go after Richard on his own account? It was a more direct thing to
> go north up the higher land on the west bank of the river, cross at the
> first opportunity above Worcester, and go face to face in battle formation
> with Richard in the centre of the kingdom. By then he certainly would not be
> thinking of Henry Tudor, but of himself. Buckingham had the claim,
> Buckingham raised the army, Buckingham had taken on Richard, and if
> Buckingham won it would be to put Buckingham on the throne, not some
> Lancastrian half-Beaufort upstart without a legitimate claim. It all went
> pear-shaped, of course, but that is how I am beginning to view Buckingham's
> actions. Whatever his motives, I cannot respect him. He was no adornment to
> his family or dukedom. Richard, already embittered by his treachery, would
> have made mincemeat of him on a battlefield."
> //snip//
>
> Doug here:
> Buckingham's movements looked to me as if he didn't want (dare?) to risk
> meeting Richard *before* his (B's) forces were united with Tudor's. Hence
> his determination to cross the Severn as far south as, usually, possible
> might have been due to his simply lacking enough men to resist Richard if
> they met in battle.
> Any move by Buckingham northwards then, towards crossings that *were*
> usable, would have taken him *away* from the troops he desperately needed in
> order to put up *any* resistance at all, let alone possibly defeat, Richard.
> Do we know where Tudor was *supposed* to land? Could his original goal been
> Bristol?
> Doug
>

The New Year began on 25 March until the calendar changed in 1752. The Gregorian equivalent is 6 April when the UK tax year still begins.
----- Original Message -----
From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Lady Day



Regarding Lady Day. I have come upon a problem in David Baldwin's Stoke Field book. In it (p. 22, published Pen & Sword Military, chapter entitled The Lambert Simnel Conspiracy) he identifies Lady Day by the modern date, 25th March, which is clearly wrong. But even so I cannot understand the dates of the Earl of Lincoln's pre-defection weeks. A party of Lincoln's men was apparently intercepted near Doncaster on Lady Day by Henry's agent, Tait, who identified them because they had Lincoln's recognisable white horse with them - or his rare white hobby falcon, not entirely sure which. Tait learned they were conveying much gold and silver on the earl's business, and by some things they said Tait gained the impression they were up to no good on Lincoln's behalf. He duly reported this to Henry. Presumably fairly quickly? Lady Day to March 9th is two months, surely Tait would not have dithered that long? Not much of an agent if that were the case. OK, so this is Lady Day, January 1st. Lincoln apparently remained unsuspected of anything until he defected on March 9th. So where was Tait's information in the meantime? Surely Henry would have learned of it before Lincoln's departure for Malines? Yet most accounts state that Henry was taken by surprise by Lincoln's abrupt departure.

Am I misunderstanding something here? Has anyone any thoughts on this?

Sandra

From: Stephen Lark
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:10 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Lady Day

Yes.
----- Original Message -----
From: SandraMachin
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: Lady Day

Can anyone confirm that I am correct to believe that Lady Day 1487 would be New Year's Day? It seems fairly clear the two were the same, but I'd appreciate someone else telling me it is. Thank you.
Sandra

Now I understand. I just could not put the dates together. Dumbo, especially as I think there has been something about it on-list recently. How aggravatingly confusing it all is. Thank you again, Stephen.

From: Stephen Lark
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Lady Day

The New Year began on 25 March until the calendar changed in 1752. The Gregorian equivalent is 6 April when the UK tax year still begins.

........ and the conception date of a child with a 25 December birthday is traditionally 25 March.

----- Original Message -----
From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Lady Day



Now I understand. I just could not put the dates together. Dumbo, especially as I think there has been something about it on-list recently. How aggravatingly confusing it all is. Thank you again, Stephen.

From: Stephen Lark
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Lady Day

The New Year began on 25 March until the calendar changed in 1752. The Gregorian equivalent is 6 April when the UK tax year still begins.

SandraMachin wrote:


"That's a good point, Doug. Hadn't thought of Bristol. Mind you, the weather
would have made that destination difficult as well, since it's still in the
Bristol Channel/Severn Sea, October 1483, with all the atrocious weather,
floodwater, dangerous tides and so on. If Henry had made for there, it would
be nice to think of him sinking to the bottom, into all that evil Severn
mud. I'm inclined to think Henry would have intended somewhere along the
south coast, but have no idea where. With the collapse of his plans,
Buckingham did indeed ride north along the Severn  frantically, as I
understand  and then days later is in Salisbury to be executed. So clearly
he crossed somewhere. I hazard a guess at Shrewsbury. But getting one man/a
few men across isn't quite the same as an army.
And I still find it hard to believe an English nobleman of Buckingham's
vanity, status and lineage would be prepared to support the claim of the
relatively obscure son of the Welsh Earl of Richmond. But who can say what
the heck Buckingham thought?
Whatever, luck was still with Richard on this occasion. It certainly wasn't
for the rest of his reign. I feeling like kicking fate' for turning upon
him to such a cruel and monstrous degree  at the same time favouring Henry
Tudor to the point of gross injustice. (spits teeth)"

Doug here:
I thought of Bristol because of its size and being near to Gloucester.
There's also the fact that Bristol was the second biggest, and richest, city
in the kingdom. It may very well just be me, but I tend to think that the
original plan *must* have intended for Buckingham and Tudor to meet up as
quickly as possible and so the landing would *have* to be somewhere closer
than the south coast ports. There's also the point that *one* army of 5-6000
men would be a much better recruiting tool than *two* widely separated bands
of 1-2000 men; each of which ran the risk of possibly having to fight a
battle *before* they could unite.
I've also wondered if the whole affair wasn't supposed to have started off a
month or so earlier, say in early September? Even if Tudor wasn't aware of
the problems that the weather would likely cause in October, whether in the
Bristol Channel or along the south coast, surely his advisors would? Do we
know when Tudor began his preparations?
A final thought: could, weather permitting, Gloucester itself have been the
*original* intended landing place? IOW, was Gloucester capable of handling
the shipping involved in the projected "invasion"?
Doug

The stair were in a 'forebuilding' alright...This is from Maligned King..."In 1674 some workmen were removing a forebuilding and stairs *adjoining* the White Tower.....in the course of the digging down to the foundations they came across some bones at a depth of about 10"...eileen

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for that, very interesting.  It begs the question as to where the boys were seen playing and who saw them.
>
>  Poet <virginia_bard@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>  
> Judging by the position of the staircase indicated in Isolde Wigram's article it's quite possible that while outside now, in the 15th century it may very well have been inside: It looks to be located where the White Tower adjoined the royal apartments where from everything I've read the princes were housed. Much of what constituted the Tower of London in the 15th century no longer exists and that includes the royal apartments which was essentially a palace within the tower walls.
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Scale_Model_Of_The_Tower_Of_London_In_The_Tower_Of_London.jpg
>
> In the picture linked above the royal apartments are those from the south face of the White Tower to the wall that parallels the river (which includes the Wakefield Tower and the river gate later named Traitor's Gate).
>
> James
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Johanne Tournier
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:05 PM
> > Subject: RE: Re: Disappearance
> >
> >
> > > Also the unlikelihood
> > of the princes' bones being found 10 feet deep under or alongside the stairs
> > going into the White Tower.
> >
> > Quite apart from the fact that the depth suggests a Roman or Anglo-Saxon
> > burial, if the steps in question are on the *outside* of the White Tower,
> > which I hadn't realised, then they must be overlooked by the buildings all
> > around. Unless there were a lot more bushes around the tower than there are
> > now, anybody digging a 10ft hole there would be conspicuously visible for
> > hours. It would be a daft place to choose.
> >
> > I've always understood More to mean that the bodies were temporarily
> > concealed at suface level under some builders' rubble which was already
> > there - which at least makes logical sense, even if it's almost certainly a
> > lie. To dig a grave-sized hole 10ft deep in a public space overlooked by
> > buildings all around makes much less sense. Even if the idea is supposed to
> > be that the 10ft hole was, or was presented as being, part of the work being
> > done on the stair, there must have been hordes of stonemasons there who
> > would notice if somebody had been buried in one of their holes.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ah, well that one I can more or less get to grips with. Nine months is nine months. Having just read Bacon recording that Henry VII kept Christmas in Norwich in April 1487 (when I'm led by others to understand it was Easter) and that he then went to Cambridge and straight back to London, without any mention of Coventry or Kenilworth, I'm not sure of anything. There are times when I want to throw everything at the nearest wall. You're going to tell me I shouldn't trust Bacon to spell his name right, aren't you? I can feel it.

From: Stephen Lark
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Lady Day

........ and the conception date of a child with a 25 December birthday is traditionally 25 March.

Doug here:
A final thought: could, weather permitting, Gloucester itself have been the
*original* intended landing place? IOW, was Gloucester capable of handling
the shipping involved in the projected "invasion"?

Sandra here:
As I have always understood, the only time it is possible to sail up from the estuary to Gloucester in one go is on the Bore, and it's a very dodgy, skilled business. Otherwise it has to be done in stages, waiting for tides and so on. So Gloucester would not, IMHO, have been viable at all. And the original quay would not have accommodated the numbers of vessels, personnel involved. The floods simply would not make it possible anyway, even in the unlikely event that the pre-storm plans had been to make for Gloucester.

I'm still mystified by Buckingham. I wonder if he was drunk all the time and only sobered up when he saw the Severn in full flood. Surely a sight to clear the head.

ricard1an wrote:

"Also Doug, having lived near the River Severn, the river after heavy rain
is pretty high and floods, but then it gets worse as days go by because the
water from above Shrewsbury starts comming down and making the flooding even
worse in places like Bridgnorth, Bewdley and Worcester. Water coming down
the hills alongside the Severn drains into the River and makes the flooding
worse. What I am trying to say is that if Buckingham had decided to go North
he probably would have met with worse conditions."

Doug here:
If the Severn was in flood though, wouldn't the *only* chance Buckingham had
of getting his men on its' eastern shore was to march north until a
crossing, any crossing, could be found, cross *there*, and then march back
south? Even though it would take him further away from his intended goal
(Gloucester) in the short term, did he have any other option?
If Buckingham just sat and waited for the waters to recede, he had no chance
of uniteing his forces with Tudor's. And without Tudor's additional forces,
Buckingham knew he faced certain defeat.
Which is exactly what did happen.

"I agree with you about him wanting to meet up with Tudor and taking the
quickest route. Another reason for him not wanting to go north as far as
Bewdley for instance could have been that he would then have been in
Richard's "territory". The Bowmen of Bewdley fought for Richard at
Tewkesbury and he was responsible for Edward giving them a Charter in 1472
allowing them to have a market, which made Bewdley a prosperous town. Added
to that Tickenhill Palace in Bewdley was part of Edward's Mortimer
inheritance and was then owned by Richard as King. I am not sure about
allegiance of the people of Worcester but Richard had just been there on
his progress so it is possible that they were loyal too As possibly the
people of Tewkesbury. Just some thoughts to add to the mix."

Doug again:
Yes, that "meeting up with Tudor" is why I think Gloucester was originally
chosen as the crossing point but, because the weather proved unsuitable, (to
say the least), Buckingham was forced to try and find a ford further north.
And even if Tudor wasn't expected to land there or at Bristol (supposition
on my part), but was supposed to land at Weymouth. Bournemouth,
Southampton, or even Portsmouth, isn't there a Roman road that runs
northwards from one of them and intersects another Roamn road (Watling
Street?) running eastwards towards London?
I quite agree that Buckingham most certainly did *not* want to go northwards
but, because of the weather, it was only by going northwards and finding a
fordable crossing, that he stood any chance of getting into England, joining
his forces with Tudor's, and surviving.
Doug
(Sorry if my geography is off, I'm relying on a 1988 road atlas!)

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: Disappearance


> The stair were in a 'forebuilding' alright...This is from Maligned
> King..."In 1674 some workmen were removing a forebuilding and stairs
> *adjoining* the White Tower.....in the course of the digging down to the
> foundations they came across some bones at a depth of about 10"...eileen

OK, then it was probably undercover. Even so, if they dug a 10ft hole to
put them in that would take hours, and if they put them in a 10ft hole
already dug by workmen - even if they dug it a bit deeper and then covered
them well - they'd be running a major risk that the workmen would find them
within a few days. It really doesn't make much sense as a means of
disposing of bodies in such a public place (unless the workmen were in on
it) - it's far more likely that the bodies were there before the
foundations.

It was the thought of a vomit-flavoured kiss that repulsed me (thank you, Claire, for putting such a prospect in my mind). Edward could be as charismatic as he liked, but a bit of mouth hygiene first, please. A rinse and then a chew on a clove. Whatever. Just not the vomit. Otherwise, yes, he was clearly something else. But I'd rather have his little brother.

Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance


Yes I would agree with that. He was very hands on as an adminstrator, his annotations are on a lot of boring daily stuff (in fact one could say he was as hands on as H7). I have him as someone who would shine at the chamber of commerce meetings (ie the City of London merchant meetings) he hosted several of those. He was in many respects a modern man; modernity began with Edward, not Henry. And remember this image of him as the overweight eating, drinking man is as much propeganda as his brother's hump. He was a charismatic man, a kiss from him didn't make women recoil, it made them give him more money! He wasn't his grandson. A womaniser he might have been but that doesn't make him gross; think of that charmer Charles II (ah Rufus Sewall again).

Where did he go wrong? He arguably married the wrong woman (though she was not a bad queen) and he dabbled in land like a nobleman, not a king.


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013, 19:58
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was Disappearance



From: SandraMachin
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: Buckingham and the Severn - was
Disappearance

> OMG, Claire, what a disgusting thought. Imagine catching the royal eye and
> then seeing the ominously beckoning finger. One would just have to tell
> him it was the wrong time of the month and hope it put him off! He seems
> to have been so like Henry VIII it's incredible.

To be fair, he only doubled his wives up - he didn't judicially murder them.
But there seems to be more of Edward IV then Henry VII in Henry VIII, so in
effect York won - although not in a good way.

> How on earth could someone as elegant, refined and honest as Richard be
> Edward's brother???? I believe he was elegant. and refined. Both seem to
> be written right across his portraits. If he turned out to be a boor, I'd
> be truly astonished.

I could imagine him being rowdy if he'd had a skinfull, and if he was a
normal teenage boy he probably went through a phase when he had a face like
a pizza and thought that competition belching was the height of
sophisticated humour. But the fact that his books were second-hand
(suggesting he had them to read, not for show), and his possession of a
Wycliffe Bible, and his interest in the law and in hearing theological
debates, and his concern for women and for common soldiers, all suggest that
he was scholarly, thoughtful and considerate, so it's unlikely that he would
ever intentionally be crass or offensicve.

SandraMachin wrote:


"As I have always understood, the only time it is possible to sail up from
the estuary to Gloucester in one go is on the Bore, and it's a very dodgy,
skilled business. Otherwise it has to be done in stages, waiting for tides
and so on. So Gloucester would not, IMHO, have been viable at all. And the
original quay would not have accommodated the numbers of vessels, personnel
involved. The floods simply would not make it possible anyway, even in the
unlikely event that the pre-storm plans had been to make for Gloucester.
I'm still mystified by Buckingham. I wonder if he was drunk all the time and
only sobered up when he saw the Severn in full flood. Surely a sight to
clear the head."

Doug here:
Well, that rules Gloucester out as the original intended meeting place then!
Of course, there's still Bristol...
As for Buckingham himself, I think his opinion of his own abilities far
out-weighed the reality and it was that ego Morton played on. After all,
this was a period when kings wielded power directly and the closer to the
monarch one was, the more power one likely held, And Richard had sent
Buckingham off to Wales...
It could very well be that originally Buckingham *did* plan on restoring
Edward to the throne, replacing a Ricardian Protectorate with a Henrician
one; followed, of course, by years and years of Buckingham being the second
most powerful person in the kingdom because E(V) was sooo grateful. Morton
would certainly have supported that idea, if only because of the further
divisions it would cause among Yorkists, whether it succeeded or failed.
And then, sometime before the rescue attempt fails, that ego (aided by a few
well-chosen words from Morton?) came to the fore and Buckingham asks
himself: "Well, why *not* me on the throne?" and the next thing one knows,
Buckingham is deep in plans for a rebellion, still ostensibly to restore
E(V) because that would draw more support.
And then to discover after ousting Richard that the usurper had the boys
killed to prevent their being freed...
Doug
(who *can* be very cynical at times)

In this picture the staircase in question would be on the right side of the White Tower close to the fore corner: Right on the line where a long building run from the White Tower to the outer wall on the right of the picture. It's at a spot where that long building, the Royal apartments, and the White Tower meet.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Poet
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Disappearance
>
> > Judging by the position of the staircase indicated in Isolde Wigram's
> > article it's quite possible that while outside now, in the 15th century it
> > may very well have been inside: It looks to be located where the White
> > Tower adjoined the royal apartments
>
> Whereabouts are you placing it on this model? In those little external
> add-on towers at near-left of the White Tower?
>
> > In the picture linked above the royal apartments are those from the south
> > face of the White Tower to the wall that parallels the river (which
> > includes the Wakefield Tower and the river gate later named Traitor's
> > Gate).
>
> If they were already living in that little area at bottom right, which is a
> courtyard within a courtyard, again I wonder what moving "deeper" into the
> Tower could mean.
>
> As for how they were seen playing and shooting, I wonder if there were
> archery butts on one of the long strips of grass between the outer and inner
> walls. They would provide a good long line-of-sight in an area where
> passing men at arms weren't likely to walk in front of the target and get
> spiked, and because the outer wall isn't all that high it might be possible
> for people on the upper floors of nearby houses to see over the top of the
> wall and catch a glimpse of the archers.
>
> I can testify that the elevation of the top floor of a double-decker bus,
> for example, is enough to give one a view of the tops of the outer
> corner-towers: I once saw somebody's washing flapping on a line up there,
> invisible from the street but clearly visible from the bus. A two-storey
> building might enable one to look over the wall, and a three-storey one
> almsot certainly would.
>

Wednesday wrote:
>
> You asked when Buckingham was in London in relation to Richard's progress. Kendall has Buckingham "apparently" remaining behind in London (perhaps to make arrangements for Morton's transport with him to Brecon?) when Richard left Windsor to begin his progress.
>
> Richard saw Buckingham for the last time in Gloucester (this is before the King's arrival in York) when the Duke was "riding home to Brecon by the main road." This is the last time they saw each other. (Anybody have a date for this?) [snip]

Carol responds:

As Kendall states in a note, he conjectures that Buckingham stayed behind in London because his name is not included in a list of Richard's companions during his visit to Magdalen College in Oxford on July 24-25, so he speculates that Buckingham must have briefly encountered Richard in Gloucester on his way to Brecon.

The problem with Kendall and anyone else who says that Richard met Buckingham in Gloucester (or stayed with him on progress until Gloucester) is that they are relying on More and Vergil. *No contemporary source states that such a meeting (or departure) occurred.* The Register of Magdalen College indicates, as Kendall states, that Buckingham was not with Richard on the progress at all, which would mean that either Buckingham remained in London at that point or was already on his way to Brecon but provides no evidence with regard to a meeting in Gloucester.

Mancini, of course, had left England before Richard left on his progress, so he is no help here. The Croyland chronicler says nothing about Buckingham being on the progress with Richard or meeting him at Gloucester, only that "Henry, duke of Buckingham, *who at this time was living at Brecknock in Wales*," became the "chief mover" in the rebellion against Richard, presumably some time after the investiture of EoM (September 8), when the chronicler states that the boys were definitely alive and in the Tower. The rumors appear to have been spread at about this same time, perhaps October. But *there is no date for a meeting between Buckingham and Richard because the chronicler does not mention any such meeting or give any indication that Buckingham was with Richard on his progress.

Neither, as far as I know, does Rous, but I can't check it to be sure. I don't think his "Historia Regum Angliae" is available in a full translation, only snippets in various biographies of Richard. (The Latin version is available on Google Books if anyone wants to attempt an unofficial translation!)

Since we have only unreliable Tudor sources for this meeting, we can't even be sure that it occurred. However, for what it's worth, Vergil has Buckingham accompanying Richard "as he journeyed towardes Yorke unto glocester, from thence with his [Richard's] consent he [Buckingham] repayred into Wales . . . . Heare . . . , provokyd partly by freshe memory of the late receavyd injury, partly repenting that hitherto of himself hee had not resystyd king Richardes evell enterpryse . . . he began to discover [reveal] his intent [to separate from Richard] to John bishop of Ely, whom . . . he had in Brechnoch castle." In other words, Vergil's Buckingham is already discontented when he leaves the progress and is ready to be stirred up by Morton. Vergil gives no date, but it can be determined by Richard's arrival in Gloucester. Soon after Buckingham's departure, Vergil's Richard, tormented by guilt for having usurped the kingdom, writes to Brackenbury from Gloucester with the order to kill his nephews. (Yes, Vergil, that will really help the king's "haynous guylt of wicked conscyence"!)

Sorry--too many details. In short, Vergil has Buckingham riding with Richard from London to Gloucester and leaving the progress at that point to go to Brecon, where Morton has already been taken, just before Richard writes his (imaginary) letter to Brackenbury.

More has a similar chronology, many more (imaginary) details, and two versions of Buckingham leaving Richard in Gloucester. In the first, he has Richard order Buckingham to accompany him on his progress, but since both of them hate and fear each other (according to some of More's informants), B. leaves the progress at Gloucester for fear of being murdered. More then denies this version of events given "the depe dissimuling nature of those bothe men" and suggests instead that Buckingham left the progress at Gloucester "in most louing trusty maner," apparently grateful for the "gret giftes & high behests" that Richard had given him, but after his return to Brecknock, his ostensible prisoner Morton "waxed with him familiar [and] abused his pride to his own [Morton's] deilueraunce & the dukes destruccion." So More has two versions of Buckingham's departure, one of which he rejects, but both have Buckingham going with Richard as far as Gloucester--the same version of events (except for motives) as Vergil. The stories diverge when Richard starts plotting to kill his nephews after B's departure, but that's irrelevant here.

If anyone has a copy of Richard's itinerary, we could determine the date of Buckingham's supposed departure from Richard's progress (the same in both chronicles), but *there's no contemporary evidence that any such meeting occurred*. It looks as if Buckingham remained in London for awhile or (if we look at various commissions that Richard sent him on) was on business for Richard, still seemingly deserving of his trust, until he arrived in Brecon where he was apparently seduced into rebellion by the manipulative Morton. I can find no *reliable* evidence that he was on progress with Richard (More and Vergil) *or* that he briefly encountered Richard at Gloucester (Kendall's way of reconciling Croyland and the Magdalen College register with More and Vergil).

By the way, I just noticed another glaring error in More along the lines of Edward IV's age being wrong by more than thirteen years, a reference to "Edwarde Duke of Buckingham, and Richard Lord Hastinges and chaumberlayn"--both first names are wrong! Surely, this error is another signal that either the whole "history" is false or that More's research is worse than inadequate. The wonder is that *anyone* has accepted a single word of his "historie" as true.

Sorry this post is so long. You should have seen it before I cut two paragraphs!

Carol

Dear Eileen & Claire -



Whatever you may think, Annette Carson, who has studied this at much greater
length than I have, indicates that the bones were found on the outside of
the White Tower, under the stone stairs which provided access to the White
Tower. She also indicates that Charles II ordered a mulberry tree to be
planted on the spot where the bones were found, but that another set of
stairs was built too close to the tree, which killed it. She further states
that an old warder in 1853 was able to remember a time when the stump of the
tree still protruded from the landing of the replacement stairs. Carson
thus concludes that this proves that the old plaque which used to hang by
the internal, spiral staircase within the White Tower proper, was in error.
The plaque stated incorrectly that the bones were found under the spiral
staircase inside the White Tower.



Ms. Carson appears to be quite adamant that, whether the bones were found
*under* the foundations of the stone stairs, or just *beside* it in 1674,
they were definitely found outside the White Tower and 10 feet down. She
notes the reason the builders were digging that far down was that it was
necessary to get to the level of the foundations of the Tower, in order to
erect the new set of stairs, and she says the builders were experienced
enough that they would have been able to measure the depth quite easily.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 1:24 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance





From: EileenB
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: Disappearance

> The stair were in a 'forebuilding' alright...This is from Maligned
> King..."In 1674 some workmen were removing a forebuilding and stairs
> *adjoining* the White Tower.....in the course of the digging down to the
> foundations they came across some bones at a depth of about 10"...eileen

OK, then it was probably undercover. Even so, if they dug a 10ft hole to
put them in that would take hours, and if they put them in a 10ft hole
already dug by workmen - even if they dug it a bit deeper and then covered
them well - they'd be running a major risk that the workmen would find them
within a few days. It really doesn't make much sense as a means of
disposing of bodies in such a public place (unless the workmen were in on
it) - it's far more likely that the bodies were there before the
foundations.

Yes...that is what I said...I was quoting from Annette's book Maligned King. The stairs were in a forebuilding *adjoining* the White Tower...It was when this forebuilding and the stairs therein were being demolished that the bones were discovered...eileen

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Eileen & Claire -
>
>
>
> Whatever you may think, Annette Carson, who has studied this at much greater
> length than I have, indicates that the bones were found on the outside of
> the White Tower, under the stone stairs which provided access to the White
> Tower. She also indicates that Charles II ordered a mulberry tree to be
> planted on the spot where the bones were found, but that another set of
> stairs was built too close to the tree, which killed it. She further states
> that an old warder in 1853 was able to remember a time when the stump of the
> tree still protruded from the landing of the replacement stairs. Carson
> thus concludes that this proves that the old plaque which used to hang by
> the internal, spiral staircase within the White Tower proper, was in error.
> The plaque stated incorrectly that the bones were found under the spiral
> staircase inside the White Tower.
>
>
>
> Ms. Carson appears to be quite adamant that, whether the bones were found
> *under* the foundations of the stone stairs, or just *beside* it in 1674,
> they were definitely found outside the White Tower and 10 feet down. She
> notes the reason the builders were digging that far down was that it was
> necessary to get to the level of the foundations of the Tower, in order to
> erect the new set of stairs, and she says the builders were experienced
> enough that they would have been able to measure the depth quite easily.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 1:24 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance
>
>
>
>
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Disappearance
>
> > The stair were in a 'forebuilding' alright...This is from Maligned
> > King..."In 1674 some workmen were removing a forebuilding and stairs
> > *adjoining* the White Tower.....in the course of the digging down to the
> > foundations they came across some bones at a depth of about 10"...eileen
>
> OK, then it was probably undercover. Even so, if they dug a 10ft hole to
> put them in that would take hours, and if they put them in a 10ft hole
> already dug by workmen - even if they dug it a bit deeper and then covered
> them well - they'd be running a major risk that the workmen would find them
> within a few days. It really doesn't make much sense as a means of
> disposing of bodies in such a public place (unless the workmen were in on
> it) - it's far more likely that the bodies were there before the
> foundations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I believe the royal apartments had already been demolished at the time of Charles II so it IS possible that the staircase "outside" when the bones were found (depending on how many and which building had by that time been demolished). In the 1400s when the alleged deed went down that staircase most definitely would have been indoors.

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Eileen & Claire -
>
>
>
> Whatever you may think, Annette Carson, who has studied this at much greater
> length than I have, indicates that the bones were found on the outside of
> the White Tower, under the stone stairs which provided access to the White
> Tower. She also indicates that Charles II ordered a mulberry tree to be
> planted on the spot where the bones were found, but that another set of
> stairs was built too close to the tree, which killed it. She further states
> that an old warder in 1853 was able to remember a time when the stump of the
> tree still protruded from the landing of the replacement stairs. Carson
> thus concludes that this proves that the old plaque which used to hang by
> the internal, spiral staircase within the White Tower proper, was in error.
> The plaque stated incorrectly that the bones were found under the spiral
> staircase inside the White Tower.
>
>
>
> Ms. Carson appears to be quite adamant that, whether the bones were found
> *under* the foundations of the stone stairs, or just *beside* it in 1674,
> they were definitely found outside the White Tower and 10 feet down. She
> notes the reason the builders were digging that far down was that it was
> necessary to get to the level of the foundations of the Tower, in order to
> erect the new set of stairs, and she says the builders were experienced
> enough that they would have been able to measure the depth quite easily.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 1:24 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Disappearance
>
>
>
>
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Disappearance
>
> > The stair were in a 'forebuilding' alright...This is from Maligned
> > King..."In 1674 some workmen were removing a forebuilding and stairs
> > *adjoining* the White Tower.....in the course of the digging down to the
> > foundations they came across some bones at a depth of about 10"...eileen
>
> OK, then it was probably undercover. Even so, if they dug a 10ft hole to
> put them in that would take hours, and if they put them in a 10ft hole
> already dug by workmen - even if they dug it a bit deeper and then covered
> them well - they'd be running a major risk that the workmen would find them
> within a few days. It really doesn't make much sense as a means of
> disposing of bodies in such a public place (unless the workmen were in on
> it) - it's far more likely that the bodies were there before the
> foundations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>