The Winter King is on YouTube
The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-01 02:08:19
For those in the US if you want to watch The Winter King it is on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5_gcu9Boo
-Becky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5_gcu9Boo
-Becky
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-01 17:24:13
Becky wrote:
>
> For those in the US if you want to watch The Winter King it is on YouTube.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5_gcu9Boo
Carol responds:
thanks for that link, Becky. I hadn't expected to be able to see that program. I found it fascinating. One or two bits were standard traditionalist assumptions ("Lancaster" and York uniting England, "Princes" in the Tower never seen again), but he made Henry's shaky claim clear and disapproved of the usurping Henry's shabby treatment of the rightful king, Richard, as well as the backdating of Henry's reign and most if not all the reign itself.
I hadn't realized the extent of Henry's propaganda campaign, with Tudor roses and Beaufort portcullises everywhere. But even more enlightening was William Stanley's treason--not based solely on his statement that if Perkin Warbeck was Richard of York he would never oppose him but his possession of a Yorkist necklace and money evidently intended to help Warbeck's campaign (not that I forgive William Stanley for what he did to Richard III, but it shows that he really believed that Richard of York was alive and was ready to support him against the usurper he had helped put on the throne). And even more intriguing was the de la Pole role, showing their indubitable belief that Henry was a usurper and Richard III was the true Yorkist heir. (Sandra, I hope you caught that and plan to put it in your book!) Evidently--dare I say almost certainly--John of Lincoln's "serving" Henry was a pose disguising his true loyalties until he was ready to join his Aunt Margaret and the Yorkist fugitives in an attempt to overthrow the usurper. And it would not be only Lincoln but his father and mother and younger brothers who felt that way. A brother and sister chose the religious life, perhaps to escape becoming Henry's tools, but Edmund and Richard eventually claimed the kingship.
I would like to see that roll up close. Three things were clear: the Lancastrian line was extinct, the Tudor line was illegitimate and claimless, and the Yorkist line ended with Richard III. But did anyone see where, if at all, Edward's sons appeared? If they (Edward V in particular) weren't on there--and neither was Elizabeth as the rightful, legitimate heir if the boys were dead--that must mean that the de la Poles continued to accept Titulus Regius (except possibly the reversible attainder of Edward, Earl of Warwick) and that Lincoln intended either to take the throne himself or to place Warwick--not one of Edward IV's sons (assuming that they were alive)--on the throne.
But it seems clear that Richard's sister Elizabeth, like his sister Margaret and his mother, accepted his deposition of her nephew and the kingship of her brother. I've always believed that and now, at last, we have tangible proof. The program also quoted part of Sir Thomas More's poem celebrating the death of Henry VII, which I've mentioned before as proof that he did *not* see Henry Tudor as saving England from tyranny. I think that anyone reading More's so-called history of Richard III should bear that in mind.
In short, while I don't quite agree with Thomas Penn on all points (I think his view of Richard and of the "pretenders" is simplistic or at least appeared so thanks to the limited time frame and the focus on Henry), I am very glad that I took the time to watch the documentary. It's a shame that he didn't mention Morton at all and barely mentioned MB, whose influence should not be discounted, but I think he did an excellent job in the time available. Loved the sinister note at the end.
Carol
>
> For those in the US if you want to watch The Winter King it is on YouTube.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5_gcu9Boo
Carol responds:
thanks for that link, Becky. I hadn't expected to be able to see that program. I found it fascinating. One or two bits were standard traditionalist assumptions ("Lancaster" and York uniting England, "Princes" in the Tower never seen again), but he made Henry's shaky claim clear and disapproved of the usurping Henry's shabby treatment of the rightful king, Richard, as well as the backdating of Henry's reign and most if not all the reign itself.
I hadn't realized the extent of Henry's propaganda campaign, with Tudor roses and Beaufort portcullises everywhere. But even more enlightening was William Stanley's treason--not based solely on his statement that if Perkin Warbeck was Richard of York he would never oppose him but his possession of a Yorkist necklace and money evidently intended to help Warbeck's campaign (not that I forgive William Stanley for what he did to Richard III, but it shows that he really believed that Richard of York was alive and was ready to support him against the usurper he had helped put on the throne). And even more intriguing was the de la Pole role, showing their indubitable belief that Henry was a usurper and Richard III was the true Yorkist heir. (Sandra, I hope you caught that and plan to put it in your book!) Evidently--dare I say almost certainly--John of Lincoln's "serving" Henry was a pose disguising his true loyalties until he was ready to join his Aunt Margaret and the Yorkist fugitives in an attempt to overthrow the usurper. And it would not be only Lincoln but his father and mother and younger brothers who felt that way. A brother and sister chose the religious life, perhaps to escape becoming Henry's tools, but Edmund and Richard eventually claimed the kingship.
I would like to see that roll up close. Three things were clear: the Lancastrian line was extinct, the Tudor line was illegitimate and claimless, and the Yorkist line ended with Richard III. But did anyone see where, if at all, Edward's sons appeared? If they (Edward V in particular) weren't on there--and neither was Elizabeth as the rightful, legitimate heir if the boys were dead--that must mean that the de la Poles continued to accept Titulus Regius (except possibly the reversible attainder of Edward, Earl of Warwick) and that Lincoln intended either to take the throne himself or to place Warwick--not one of Edward IV's sons (assuming that they were alive)--on the throne.
But it seems clear that Richard's sister Elizabeth, like his sister Margaret and his mother, accepted his deposition of her nephew and the kingship of her brother. I've always believed that and now, at last, we have tangible proof. The program also quoted part of Sir Thomas More's poem celebrating the death of Henry VII, which I've mentioned before as proof that he did *not* see Henry Tudor as saving England from tyranny. I think that anyone reading More's so-called history of Richard III should bear that in mind.
In short, while I don't quite agree with Thomas Penn on all points (I think his view of Richard and of the "pretenders" is simplistic or at least appeared so thanks to the limited time frame and the focus on Henry), I am very glad that I took the time to watch the documentary. It's a shame that he didn't mention Morton at all and barely mentioned MB, whose influence should not be discounted, but I think he did an excellent job in the time available. Loved the sinister note at the end.
Carol
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-01 17:45:13
From: justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 5:24 PM
To:
Subject: Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
And even more intriguing was the de la Pole role, showing their indubitable belief that Henry was a usurper and Richard III was the true Yorkist heir. (Sandra, I hope you caught that and plan to put it in your book!)
Sandra: You can bet your last farthing, Carol in fact, it was already in the book, which is now finished and ready go off. Lincoln fascinates me and is brilliant to weave through a story. And to think he was buried on Stoke Field with a willow stave through his heart! Shame on you, Henry Tudor. Two brave and gallant Yorkist princes defeated on the battlefield, and you maltreated their bodies both times. Good job the White Rose haunted you.
.
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 5:24 PM
To:
Subject: Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
And even more intriguing was the de la Pole role, showing their indubitable belief that Henry was a usurper and Richard III was the true Yorkist heir. (Sandra, I hope you caught that and plan to put it in your book!)
Sandra: You can bet your last farthing, Carol in fact, it was already in the book, which is now finished and ready go off. Lincoln fascinates me and is brilliant to weave through a story. And to think he was buried on Stoke Field with a willow stave through his heart! Shame on you, Henry Tudor. Two brave and gallant Yorkist princes defeated on the battlefield, and you maltreated their bodies both times. Good job the White Rose haunted you.
.
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-01 17:48:09
I should add that, as someone has already said, I think (?), I do wish Thomas Penn would do' Richard. What a biography that would be.
Sandra
Sandra
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-01 19:34:10
> Becky wrote:
>> For those in the US if you want to watch The Winter King it is on YouTube.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5_gcu9Boo
Saw it on HD. Must look even better on You Tube........like a movie
looks better on my phone than it would on Imax!
Yes I know, better a crap copy than not see it, just that being in the
business it gets my goat that people see something for nothing so many
took so much time and effort to make look and sound the best it possibly
can.
Paul
ducking for cover.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
>> For those in the US if you want to watch The Winter King it is on YouTube.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5_gcu9Boo
Saw it on HD. Must look even better on You Tube........like a movie
looks better on my phone than it would on Imax!
Yes I know, better a crap copy than not see it, just that being in the
business it gets my goat that people see something for nothing so many
took so much time and effort to make look and sound the best it possibly
can.
Paul
ducking for cover.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-01 19:38:01
Carol, it just struck me today after wondering for years why Lincoln had supported Warwick as King when the Princes might have been alive.It just suddenly struck me as I was replying to Paul that he supported Warwick because the princes were illegitimate and therefore not eligible to be King and the next person in line was Warwick, give or take an attainder. Traditionalists have taken this to mean that Lincoln knew the Princes were dead and promoted Warwick fornthe throne. Lincoln obviously believed in the law of the land and supported therightful King. There only one problem that I can see regarding the validity of my speculation why did EW apparently support the "Lambert Simnel rebellion"?
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Becky wrote:
> >
> > For those in the US if you want to watch The Winter King it is on YouTube.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5_gcu9Boo
>
> Carol responds:
>
> thanks for that link, Becky. I hadn't expected to be able to see that program. I found it fascinating. One or two bits were standard traditionalist assumptions ("Lancaster" and York uniting England, "Princes" in the Tower never seen again), but he made Henry's shaky claim clear and disapproved of the usurping Henry's shabby treatment of the rightful king, Richard, as well as the backdating of Henry's reign and most if not all the reign itself.
>
> I hadn't realized the extent of Henry's propaganda campaign, with Tudor roses and Beaufort portcullises everywhere. But even more enlightening was William Stanley's treason--not based solely on his statement that if Perkin Warbeck was Richard of York he would never oppose him but his possession of a Yorkist necklace and money evidently intended to help Warbeck's campaign (not that I forgive William Stanley for what he did to Richard III, but it shows that he really believed that Richard of York was alive and was ready to support him against the usurper he had helped put on the throne). And even more intriguing was the de la Pole role, showing their indubitable belief that Henry was a usurper and Richard III was the true Yorkist heir. (Sandra, I hope you caught that and plan to put it in your book!) Evidently--dare I say almost certainly--John of Lincoln's "serving" Henry was a pose disguising his true loyalties until he was ready to join his Aunt Margaret and the Yorkist fugitives in an attempt to overthrow the usurper. And it would not be only Lincoln but his father and mother and younger brothers who felt that way. A brother and sister chose the religious life, perhaps to escape becoming Henry's tools, but Edmund and Richard eventually claimed the kingship.
>
> I would like to see that roll up close. Three things were clear: the Lancastrian line was extinct, the Tudor line was illegitimate and claimless, and the Yorkist line ended with Richard III. But did anyone see where, if at all, Edward's sons appeared? If they (Edward V in particular) weren't on there--and neither was Elizabeth as the rightful, legitimate heir if the boys were dead--that must mean that the de la Poles continued to accept Titulus Regius (except possibly the reversible attainder of Edward, Earl of Warwick) and that Lincoln intended either to take the throne himself or to place Warwick--not one of Edward IV's sons (assuming that they were alive)--on the throne.
>
> But it seems clear that Richard's sister Elizabeth, like his sister Margaret and his mother, accepted his deposition of her nephew and the kingship of her brother. I've always believed that and now, at last, we have tangible proof. The program also quoted part of Sir Thomas More's poem celebrating the death of Henry VII, which I've mentioned before as proof that he did *not* see Henry Tudor as saving England from tyranny. I think that anyone reading More's so-called history of Richard III should bear that in mind.
>
> In short, while I don't quite agree with Thomas Penn on all points (I think his view of Richard and of the "pretenders" is simplistic or at least appeared so thanks to the limited time frame and the focus on Henry), I am very glad that I took the time to watch the documentary. It's a shame that he didn't mention Morton at all and barely mentioned MB, whose influence should not be discounted, but I think he did an excellent job in the time available. Loved the sinister note at the end.
>
> Carol
>
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Becky wrote:
> >
> > For those in the US if you want to watch The Winter King it is on YouTube.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5_gcu9Boo
>
> Carol responds:
>
> thanks for that link, Becky. I hadn't expected to be able to see that program. I found it fascinating. One or two bits were standard traditionalist assumptions ("Lancaster" and York uniting England, "Princes" in the Tower never seen again), but he made Henry's shaky claim clear and disapproved of the usurping Henry's shabby treatment of the rightful king, Richard, as well as the backdating of Henry's reign and most if not all the reign itself.
>
> I hadn't realized the extent of Henry's propaganda campaign, with Tudor roses and Beaufort portcullises everywhere. But even more enlightening was William Stanley's treason--not based solely on his statement that if Perkin Warbeck was Richard of York he would never oppose him but his possession of a Yorkist necklace and money evidently intended to help Warbeck's campaign (not that I forgive William Stanley for what he did to Richard III, but it shows that he really believed that Richard of York was alive and was ready to support him against the usurper he had helped put on the throne). And even more intriguing was the de la Pole role, showing their indubitable belief that Henry was a usurper and Richard III was the true Yorkist heir. (Sandra, I hope you caught that and plan to put it in your book!) Evidently--dare I say almost certainly--John of Lincoln's "serving" Henry was a pose disguising his true loyalties until he was ready to join his Aunt Margaret and the Yorkist fugitives in an attempt to overthrow the usurper. And it would not be only Lincoln but his father and mother and younger brothers who felt that way. A brother and sister chose the religious life, perhaps to escape becoming Henry's tools, but Edmund and Richard eventually claimed the kingship.
>
> I would like to see that roll up close. Three things were clear: the Lancastrian line was extinct, the Tudor line was illegitimate and claimless, and the Yorkist line ended with Richard III. But did anyone see where, if at all, Edward's sons appeared? If they (Edward V in particular) weren't on there--and neither was Elizabeth as the rightful, legitimate heir if the boys were dead--that must mean that the de la Poles continued to accept Titulus Regius (except possibly the reversible attainder of Edward, Earl of Warwick) and that Lincoln intended either to take the throne himself or to place Warwick--not one of Edward IV's sons (assuming that they were alive)--on the throne.
>
> But it seems clear that Richard's sister Elizabeth, like his sister Margaret and his mother, accepted his deposition of her nephew and the kingship of her brother. I've always believed that and now, at last, we have tangible proof. The program also quoted part of Sir Thomas More's poem celebrating the death of Henry VII, which I've mentioned before as proof that he did *not* see Henry Tudor as saving England from tyranny. I think that anyone reading More's so-called history of Richard III should bear that in mind.
>
> In short, while I don't quite agree with Thomas Penn on all points (I think his view of Richard and of the "pretenders" is simplistic or at least appeared so thanks to the limited time frame and the focus on Henry), I am very glad that I took the time to watch the documentary. It's a shame that he didn't mention Morton at all and barely mentioned MB, whose influence should not be discounted, but I think he did an excellent job in the time available. Loved the sinister note at the end.
>
> Carol
>
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-01 20:00:27
Sandra wrote:
> You can bet your last farthing, Carol in fact, it was already in the book, which is now finished and ready go off. Lincoln fascinates me and is brilliant to weave through a story. And to think he was buried on Stoke Field with a willow stave through his heart! Shame on you, Henry Tudor. Two brave and gallant Yorkist princes defeated on the battlefield, and you maltreated their bodies both times. Good job the White Rose haunted you.
Carol responds:
I'm also fascinated by Lincoln. Where did you read that he was buried with a willow stave through his heart (ad why willow, I wonder)?
Had you heard about the de la Pole roll from some other source (say, "The de la Poles of Hull") or did you read about it in "The Winter King"? Do you know of any photos of it? I wonder why it's so little publicized? The fact that they would have so elaborate and pro-Ricardian a roll made while Henry VII was on the throne is astounding.
What is the title of your novel again and do you already have a publisher?
Carol
> You can bet your last farthing, Carol in fact, it was already in the book, which is now finished and ready go off. Lincoln fascinates me and is brilliant to weave through a story. And to think he was buried on Stoke Field with a willow stave through his heart! Shame on you, Henry Tudor. Two brave and gallant Yorkist princes defeated on the battlefield, and you maltreated their bodies both times. Good job the White Rose haunted you.
Carol responds:
I'm also fascinated by Lincoln. Where did you read that he was buried with a willow stave through his heart (ad why willow, I wonder)?
Had you heard about the de la Pole roll from some other source (say, "The de la Poles of Hull") or did you read about it in "The Winter King"? Do you know of any photos of it? I wonder why it's so little publicized? The fact that they would have so elaborate and pro-Ricardian a roll made while Henry VII was on the throne is astounding.
What is the title of your novel again and do you already have a publisher?
Carol
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-01 20:11:59
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I should add that, as someone has already said, I think (?), I do wish Thomas Penn would do Richard. What a biography that would be.
Carol responds:
That would be great if he researched it as thoroughly as he researched Henry and took Mancini and Croyland as well as the Tudor chroniclers with a grain of salt. (I am so tired of reading paraphrases and summaries of Manicini, More, and Vergil, presented as fact that I'm almost ready to scream. It's as if humanist "history," with its tendency to dramatize events, dialogue and all, were irresistable to later historians, who are seduced by detailed verisimilitude into believing that these humanist dialogues and scenes are verbatim records of actual conversations and events.
Aside here--nothing to do with Thomas Penn or the Earl of Lincoln, but it's on my mind: Does anyone here know if the statement that Ralph Shaa took for the theme of his sermon "bastard slips shall not take root" appeared in any other source before More? Or is this one more statement accepted as true because it came from the sainted Sir Thomas?
Carol
>
> I should add that, as someone has already said, I think (?), I do wish Thomas Penn would do Richard. What a biography that would be.
Carol responds:
That would be great if he researched it as thoroughly as he researched Henry and took Mancini and Croyland as well as the Tudor chroniclers with a grain of salt. (I am so tired of reading paraphrases and summaries of Manicini, More, and Vergil, presented as fact that I'm almost ready to scream. It's as if humanist "history," with its tendency to dramatize events, dialogue and all, were irresistable to later historians, who are seduced by detailed verisimilitude into believing that these humanist dialogues and scenes are verbatim records of actual conversations and events.
Aside here--nothing to do with Thomas Penn or the Earl of Lincoln, but it's on my mind: Does anyone here know if the statement that Ralph Shaa took for the theme of his sermon "bastard slips shall not take root" appeared in any other source before More? Or is this one more statement accepted as true because it came from the sainted Sir Thomas?
Carol
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-01 20:33:40
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, it just struck me today after wondering for years why Lincoln had supported Warwick as King when the Princes might have been alive.It just suddenly struck me as I was replying to Paul that he supported Warwick because the princes were illegitimate and therefore not eligible to be King and the next person in line was Warwick, give or take an attainder. Traditionalists have taken this to mean that Lincoln knew the Princes were dead and promoted Warwick fornthe throne. Lincoln obviously believed in the law of the land and supported therightful King. There only one problem that I can see regarding the validity of my speculation why did EW apparently support the "Lambert Simnel rebellion"?
Carol responds:
Yes, exactly. That's what I've believed for some time. (I started off wondering why he didn't claim the throne for himself as Richard's heir; I think he concluded that someone in the direct male line would have a stronger claim and more popular support. Then I wondered why he would support a cousin whose deposition he supported and whose claim would make a lie of Richard's and decided that he wouldn't--whether Edward's sons were alive or not, he would vastly prefer his other cousin, Edward of Warwick, for a number of reasons that I've already listed in another post.) So I agree completely--his failure to support the restoration of Edward V had nothing to do with E 5's being dead and everything to do with self-preservation and principle.
The problem you point out is a tough one. Maybe there was more than one center of rebellion, with one group (the one she supported) hoping to restore E 5 and the other having no such aim. Or she thought that by overthrowing Henry VII, she could reinstitute her son and that the majority of Englishmen would prefer him (ignoring the stigma of illegitimacy) to little Warwick since he had already been king (though uncrowned and powerless). I do think she believed that her sons were alive and that she was placed in Bermondsey Abbey for her part in the plot. (Her son Dorset was also implicated.)
It's rather like the Woodvilles and Tudor (or Buckingham and Tudor) joining forces to topple Richard but with different ultimate goals, only this time the king to be deposed and killed was Henry. Once that goal was accomplished, they could settle their differences with yet another battle.
I agree with Henry on one point--if only John of Lincoln had survived the Battle of Stoke and we could ask him what he planned! Or better yet, failing Richard's winning Bosworth, if only Lincoln had won at Stoke.
Carol
>
> Carol, it just struck me today after wondering for years why Lincoln had supported Warwick as King when the Princes might have been alive.It just suddenly struck me as I was replying to Paul that he supported Warwick because the princes were illegitimate and therefore not eligible to be King and the next person in line was Warwick, give or take an attainder. Traditionalists have taken this to mean that Lincoln knew the Princes were dead and promoted Warwick fornthe throne. Lincoln obviously believed in the law of the land and supported therightful King. There only one problem that I can see regarding the validity of my speculation why did EW apparently support the "Lambert Simnel rebellion"?
Carol responds:
Yes, exactly. That's what I've believed for some time. (I started off wondering why he didn't claim the throne for himself as Richard's heir; I think he concluded that someone in the direct male line would have a stronger claim and more popular support. Then I wondered why he would support a cousin whose deposition he supported and whose claim would make a lie of Richard's and decided that he wouldn't--whether Edward's sons were alive or not, he would vastly prefer his other cousin, Edward of Warwick, for a number of reasons that I've already listed in another post.) So I agree completely--his failure to support the restoration of Edward V had nothing to do with E 5's being dead and everything to do with self-preservation and principle.
The problem you point out is a tough one. Maybe there was more than one center of rebellion, with one group (the one she supported) hoping to restore E 5 and the other having no such aim. Or she thought that by overthrowing Henry VII, she could reinstitute her son and that the majority of Englishmen would prefer him (ignoring the stigma of illegitimacy) to little Warwick since he had already been king (though uncrowned and powerless). I do think she believed that her sons were alive and that she was placed in Bermondsey Abbey for her part in the plot. (Her son Dorset was also implicated.)
It's rather like the Woodvilles and Tudor (or Buckingham and Tudor) joining forces to topple Richard but with different ultimate goals, only this time the king to be deposed and killed was Henry. Once that goal was accomplished, they could settle their differences with yet another battle.
I agree with Henry on one point--if only John of Lincoln had survived the Battle of Stoke and we could ask him what he planned! Or better yet, failing Richard's winning Bosworth, if only Lincoln had won at Stoke.
Carol
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-01 20:47:18
Carol, the willow stave through the heart/body' bit is apparently quite well-known. It turns up all over the place. I believe willow is supposed to protect from witchcraft, but I cannot see why that explanation would apply to Lincoln, unless to stop witchcraft being used ON him for some unknown reason, rather than any witchcraft emanating FROM him. However, green willow staves will catch root and grow into full trees, which would indeed mark his last resting place. Apparently he was buried with several of his officers, also with the willow staves, and until the 19th century there were two willow trees that were said to be the ones marking his grave. They grew near a spring called, among other names, Willow Rundle. It's still there, only dry now because of development. I found references about it all over the place, and if you try Google Street, you can drive' around quite a lot of the battlefield. I have used the spring and the willow staves in my story.
Anyway, here are some sites:-
http://www.elstonheritage.org.uk/index.php?id=23
http://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/Spring-that-ran-red-runs-dry
http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/warsoftheroses/battlepageview.asp?pageid=432&parentid=427
Yes, I have a publisher. Robert Hale are doing the books. There are three 125,000 word series' novels altogether, linked through one main character, and they will come out early next year, with a two-month interval between each title. They'll be softback and then ebook. I can't give the titles yet because they have not been finalised. Every time I decide on something, I then change my mind. The author name will be Sandra Heath Wilson, which is an amalgamation of other pseudonyms. The foregoing relies upon there being no Armageddon between now and then. <grin>
Sandra
From: justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 8:00 PM
To:
Subject: Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
Sandra wrote:
> You can bet your last farthing, Carol in fact, it was already in the book, which is now finished and ready go off. Lincoln fascinates me and is brilliant to weave through a story. And to think he was buried on Stoke Field with a willow stave through his heart! Shame on you, Henry Tudor. Two brave and gallant Yorkist princes defeated on the battlefield, and you maltreated their bodies both times. Good job the White Rose haunted you.
Carol responds:
I'm also fascinated by Lincoln. Where did you read that he was buried with a willow stave through his heart (ad why willow, I wonder)?
Had you heard about the de la Pole roll from some other source (say, "The de la Poles of Hull") or did you read about it in "The Winter King"? Do you know of any photos of it? I wonder why it's so little publicized? The fact that they would have so elaborate and pro-Ricardian a roll made while Henry VII was on the throne is astounding.
What is the title of your novel again and do you already have a publisher?
Carol
Anyway, here are some sites:-
http://www.elstonheritage.org.uk/index.php?id=23
http://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/Spring-that-ran-red-runs-dry
http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/warsoftheroses/battlepageview.asp?pageid=432&parentid=427
Yes, I have a publisher. Robert Hale are doing the books. There are three 125,000 word series' novels altogether, linked through one main character, and they will come out early next year, with a two-month interval between each title. They'll be softback and then ebook. I can't give the titles yet because they have not been finalised. Every time I decide on something, I then change my mind. The author name will be Sandra Heath Wilson, which is an amalgamation of other pseudonyms. The foregoing relies upon there being no Armageddon between now and then. <grin>
Sandra
From: justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 8:00 PM
To:
Subject: Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
Sandra wrote:
> You can bet your last farthing, Carol in fact, it was already in the book, which is now finished and ready go off. Lincoln fascinates me and is brilliant to weave through a story. And to think he was buried on Stoke Field with a willow stave through his heart! Shame on you, Henry Tudor. Two brave and gallant Yorkist princes defeated on the battlefield, and you maltreated their bodies both times. Good job the White Rose haunted you.
Carol responds:
I'm also fascinated by Lincoln. Where did you read that he was buried with a willow stave through his heart (ad why willow, I wonder)?
Had you heard about the de la Pole roll from some other source (say, "The de la Poles of Hull") or did you read about it in "The Winter King"? Do you know of any photos of it? I wonder why it's so little publicized? The fact that they would have so elaborate and pro-Ricardian a roll made while Henry VII was on the throne is astounding.
What is the title of your novel again and do you already have a publisher?
Carol
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-01 20:55:31
I echo that. And after Henry I think no-one could accuse him of being a biased historian.
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 1 June 2013, 17:48
Subject: Re: Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
I should add that, as someone has already said, I think (?), I do wish Thomas Penn would do' Richard. What a biography that would be.
Sandra
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 1 June 2013, 17:48
Subject: Re: Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
I should add that, as someone has already said, I think (?), I do wish Thomas Penn would do' Richard. What a biography that would be.
Sandra
John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
2013-06-01 21:39:23
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, the ‘willow stave through the heart/body’ bit is apparently quite well-known. It turns up all over the place. I believe willow is supposed to protect from witchcraft, but I cannot see why that explanation would apply to Lincoln, unless to stop witchcraft being used ON him for some unknown reason, rather than any witchcraft emanating FROM him. However, green willow staves will catch root and grow into full trees, which would indeed mark his last resting place. Apparently he was buried with several of his officers, also with the willow staves, and until the 19th century there were two willow trees that were said to be the ones marking his grave. They grew near a spring called, among other names, Willow Rundle. It’s still there, only dry now because of development. I found references about it all over the place, and if you try Google Street, you can ‘drive’ around quite a lot of the battlefield. I have used the spring and the willow staves in my story.
>
> Anyway, here are some sites:-
>
> http://www.elstonheritage.org.uk/index.php?id=23
Carol responds:
Thanks. I'd love to explore these sites later to see if I can learn anything new, but the only one I've looked at so far (the Elston Heritage site) not only doesn't cite any sources but makes some glaring errors--Henry VI's son is "Edward Tudor" rather than Edward of Lancaster and the Duke of Burgundy's new bride is *Warwick's* sister Margaret rather than Edward's. Not very promising in terms of reliability.
Do you know offhand which primary source recounts the story of the willow branch? Croyland only goes up to April 1486 and the Vergil extract on the American branch site covers only Richard III, so I can't tell whether he's the source.
I wonder if the willow stake is one of those "facts" like the crown-on-the-hawthorn-bush story that few people question because it's been repeated so often (though I've never heard it). Then, again, you and I can probably count the number of people seriously interested in the Earl of Lincoln (sorry, John!) on our combined fingers and toes.
Carol
>
> Carol, the ‘willow stave through the heart/body’ bit is apparently quite well-known. It turns up all over the place. I believe willow is supposed to protect from witchcraft, but I cannot see why that explanation would apply to Lincoln, unless to stop witchcraft being used ON him for some unknown reason, rather than any witchcraft emanating FROM him. However, green willow staves will catch root and grow into full trees, which would indeed mark his last resting place. Apparently he was buried with several of his officers, also with the willow staves, and until the 19th century there were two willow trees that were said to be the ones marking his grave. They grew near a spring called, among other names, Willow Rundle. It’s still there, only dry now because of development. I found references about it all over the place, and if you try Google Street, you can ‘drive’ around quite a lot of the battlefield. I have used the spring and the willow staves in my story.
>
> Anyway, here are some sites:-
>
> http://www.elstonheritage.org.uk/index.php?id=23
Carol responds:
Thanks. I'd love to explore these sites later to see if I can learn anything new, but the only one I've looked at so far (the Elston Heritage site) not only doesn't cite any sources but makes some glaring errors--Henry VI's son is "Edward Tudor" rather than Edward of Lancaster and the Duke of Burgundy's new bride is *Warwick's* sister Margaret rather than Edward's. Not very promising in terms of reliability.
Do you know offhand which primary source recounts the story of the willow branch? Croyland only goes up to April 1486 and the Vergil extract on the American branch site covers only Richard III, so I can't tell whether he's the source.
I wonder if the willow stake is one of those "facts" like the crown-on-the-hawthorn-bush story that few people question because it's been repeated so often (though I've never heard it). Then, again, you and I can probably count the number of people seriously interested in the Earl of Lincoln (sorry, John!) on our combined fingers and toes.
Carol
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-01 21:57:18
Just finished watching it. It mentioned Dudley, but not Empson who was also quite the boy. And I've always been intrigued by John de la Pole. I wonder how he would have gotten rid of Lambert Simnel after Stoke. He would have had to do so some how, since John and not Lambert was the one in line for the throne. Almost a Buckingham twist in a Tudor reign.
________________________________
From: missijacks <missijacks@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 9:08:16 PM
Subject: The Winter King is on YouTube
For those in the US if you want to watch The Winter King it is on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5_gcu9Boo
-Becky
________________________________
From: missijacks <missijacks@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 9:08:16 PM
Subject: The Winter King is on YouTube
For those in the US if you want to watch The Winter King it is on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5_gcu9Boo
-Becky
Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
2013-06-01 22:06:03
Yes, the Elston Heritage site isn't brilliant, I just added it because it does mention the relevant bits, even if with mixed names. Local legends are as likely to be based on truth as invention. Who knows, maybe there was indeed once a race of Giants in Britain! <grin> However, for all I know, the willow staves may indeed be only a legend, except that it seems a little specific. Well, it does to me. Willow staves through the heart/body? I haven't heard of it before, except with things like wooden stakes through Dracula and other vampires. The only reason I find plausible for this particular 1487 incident is that they were intended to root and mark the spot in the future, especially in soft ground near a spring. The only traceable reference to the staves that I have is from David Baldwin's Stoke Field, The Last Battle of the Wars of the Roses, in which he quotes from R.P. Shilton The Battle of Stoke or Burham Fight (1828) that two willow trees reputedly growing from these stakes were near the spot, i.e. Willow Rundle spring. 1828 isn't far back, and I know nothing of R.P. Shilton. More than that I cannot say. It is, of course, a tempting little anecdote for someone like me, adding a little colour' to my book. Always with an it is said that', of course.
Sandra
From: justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 9:39 PM
To:
Subject: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
Carol responds:
Thanks. I'd love to explore these sites later to see if I can learn anything new, but the only one I've looked at so far (the Elston Heritage site) not only doesn't cite any sources but makes some glaring errors--Henry VI's son is "Edward Tudor" rather than Edward of Lancaster and the Duke of Burgundy's new bride is *Warwick's* sister Margaret rather than Edward's. Not very promising in terms of reliability.
Do you know offhand which primary source recounts the story of the willow branch? Croyland only goes up to April 1486 and the Vergil extract on the American branch site covers only Richard III, so I can't tell whether he's the source.
I wonder if the willow stake is one of those "facts" like the crown-on-the-hawthorn-bush story that few people question because it's been repeated so often (though I've never heard it). Then, again, you and I can probably count the number of people seriously interested in the Earl of Lincoln (sorry, John!) on our combined fingers and toes.
Carol
Sandra
From: justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 9:39 PM
To:
Subject: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
Carol responds:
Thanks. I'd love to explore these sites later to see if I can learn anything new, but the only one I've looked at so far (the Elston Heritage site) not only doesn't cite any sources but makes some glaring errors--Henry VI's son is "Edward Tudor" rather than Edward of Lancaster and the Duke of Burgundy's new bride is *Warwick's* sister Margaret rather than Edward's. Not very promising in terms of reliability.
Do you know offhand which primary source recounts the story of the willow branch? Croyland only goes up to April 1486 and the Vergil extract on the American branch site covers only Richard III, so I can't tell whether he's the source.
I wonder if the willow stake is one of those "facts" like the crown-on-the-hawthorn-bush story that few people question because it's been repeated so often (though I've never heard it). Then, again, you and I can probably count the number of people seriously interested in the Earl of Lincoln (sorry, John!) on our combined fingers and toes.
Carol
Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
2013-06-01 23:11:06
From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The
Winter King is on YouTube)
> Yes, the Elston Heritage site isn't brilliant, I just added it because it
> does mention the relevant bits, even if with mixed names. Local legends
> are as likely to be based on truth as invention.
The idea of plants growing out of the hearts of the dead is a meme which
occurs in English folksong, so it may well be that willow saplings were
planted to mark the graves, and that the idea that they were actually
planted in the hearts of the corpses is a bit of later embroidery.
> Who knows, maybe there was indeed once a race of Giants in Britain! <grin>
Well, they say Dark Ages people were pretty tall, but probably not tall
enough to be considered giants. Stories of giants in antiquity are usually
the result of people finding fossil mammoth and dinosaur bones. In 1676 the
knobbly bit on the end of the femur of a megalosaurus was interpreted as an
intimate bit of an anti-Deluvian giant: since it is a scientific rule that
the earliest scientific name given to a specimen takes precedence, there are
scientists who assert semi-seriously that the proper scientific name of
megalosaurus is Scrotum humanum.
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The
Winter King is on YouTube)
> Yes, the Elston Heritage site isn't brilliant, I just added it because it
> does mention the relevant bits, even if with mixed names. Local legends
> are as likely to be based on truth as invention.
The idea of plants growing out of the hearts of the dead is a meme which
occurs in English folksong, so it may well be that willow saplings were
planted to mark the graves, and that the idea that they were actually
planted in the hearts of the corpses is a bit of later embroidery.
> Who knows, maybe there was indeed once a race of Giants in Britain! <grin>
Well, they say Dark Ages people were pretty tall, but probably not tall
enough to be considered giants. Stories of giants in antiquity are usually
the result of people finding fossil mammoth and dinosaur bones. In 1676 the
knobbly bit on the end of the femur of a megalosaurus was interpreted as an
intimate bit of an anti-Deluvian giant: since it is a scientific rule that
the earliest scientific name given to a specimen takes precedence, there are
scientists who assert semi-seriously that the proper scientific name of
megalosaurus is Scrotum humanum.
Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
2013-06-02 00:50:29
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, the Elston Heritage site isn’t brilliant, I just added it because it does mention the relevant bits, even if with mixed names. Local legends are as likely to be based on truth as invention. Who knows, maybe there was indeed once a race of Giants in Britain! <grin> However, for all I know, the willow staves may indeed be only a legend, except that it seems a little specific. Well, it does to me. Willow staves through the heart/body? I haven’t heard of it before, except with things like wooden stakes through Dracula and other vampires. The only reason I find plausible for this particular 1487 incident is that they were intended to root and mark the spot in the future, especially in soft ground near a spring. The only traceable reference to the staves that I have is from David Baldwin’s Stoke Field, The Last Battle of the Wars of the Roses, in which he quotes from R.P. Shilton The Battle of Stoke or Burham Fight (1828) that two willow trees reputedly growing from these stakes were near the spot, i.e. Willow Rundle spring. 1828 isn’t far back, and I know nothing of R.P. Shilton. More than that I cannot say. It is, of course, a tempting little anecdote for someone like me, adding a little ‘colour’ to my book. Always with an ‘it is said that’, of course.
Carol responds:
I'm doing a little checking on my own. I haven't found Shilton or anything on the willow stave, but I did find a book that may interest you (and me when I get around to it), Richard Brooke's 1825 "Observations Illustrative of the Accounts Given by Ancient Historical Writers of the Battle of Stoke Field":
http://books.google.com/books?id=LgUHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA67&dq=%22Battle+of+Stoke+Field%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iH6qUZqNK8WbigKnr4GQDA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Lincoln&f=false
Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/ls3v99r
The book contains the attainders of Lincoln and Lovell and paradoxically describes Richard as "an excellent Monarch and valiant Soldier, but an ambitious and wicked man." Nevertheless, the author states matter-of-factly that Cecily Neville must have "expected the honour of being the ancestress [through Richard and his son, Edward] of a long line of English Monarchs" and that she was saved yet another grief (he lists all her losses, including some she probably didn't care about, like the execution of Thomas St. Leger) by predeceasing her nephew Edward of Warwick, "who was doomed to imprisonment for life, and was, at length, inhumanly put to death, under the colour of a judicial proceeding, in 1499, by that cold, mean, and heartless usurper, Henry VII."
Too bad Brooke didn't have a little more information on which to base his judgment of Richard. I think he had the heart of a Ricardian!
Haven't read the whole book yet, but I rather like the guy despite his partial mischaracterization of Richard (which seems very similar to Bacon's).
Carol
>
> Yes, the Elston Heritage site isn’t brilliant, I just added it because it does mention the relevant bits, even if with mixed names. Local legends are as likely to be based on truth as invention. Who knows, maybe there was indeed once a race of Giants in Britain! <grin> However, for all I know, the willow staves may indeed be only a legend, except that it seems a little specific. Well, it does to me. Willow staves through the heart/body? I haven’t heard of it before, except with things like wooden stakes through Dracula and other vampires. The only reason I find plausible for this particular 1487 incident is that they were intended to root and mark the spot in the future, especially in soft ground near a spring. The only traceable reference to the staves that I have is from David Baldwin’s Stoke Field, The Last Battle of the Wars of the Roses, in which he quotes from R.P. Shilton The Battle of Stoke or Burham Fight (1828) that two willow trees reputedly growing from these stakes were near the spot, i.e. Willow Rundle spring. 1828 isn’t far back, and I know nothing of R.P. Shilton. More than that I cannot say. It is, of course, a tempting little anecdote for someone like me, adding a little ‘colour’ to my book. Always with an ‘it is said that’, of course.
Carol responds:
I'm doing a little checking on my own. I haven't found Shilton or anything on the willow stave, but I did find a book that may interest you (and me when I get around to it), Richard Brooke's 1825 "Observations Illustrative of the Accounts Given by Ancient Historical Writers of the Battle of Stoke Field":
http://books.google.com/books?id=LgUHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA67&dq=%22Battle+of+Stoke+Field%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iH6qUZqNK8WbigKnr4GQDA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Lincoln&f=false
Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/ls3v99r
The book contains the attainders of Lincoln and Lovell and paradoxically describes Richard as "an excellent Monarch and valiant Soldier, but an ambitious and wicked man." Nevertheless, the author states matter-of-factly that Cecily Neville must have "expected the honour of being the ancestress [through Richard and his son, Edward] of a long line of English Monarchs" and that she was saved yet another grief (he lists all her losses, including some she probably didn't care about, like the execution of Thomas St. Leger) by predeceasing her nephew Edward of Warwick, "who was doomed to imprisonment for life, and was, at length, inhumanly put to death, under the colour of a judicial proceeding, in 1499, by that cold, mean, and heartless usurper, Henry VII."
Too bad Brooke didn't have a little more information on which to base his judgment of Richard. I think he had the heart of a Ricardian!
Haven't read the whole book yet, but I rather like the guy despite his partial mischaracterization of Richard (which seems very similar to Bacon's).
Carol
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-02 03:48:31
Another question raised by my viewing (don't know whether I can make it all
the way through) but Penn talks about dis-affected Yorkists coming to
Henry's cause before he invaded - were there such who were not closely
allied with the Woodvilles?
A J
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:47 PM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> Carol, the ýwillow stave through the heart/bodyý bit is apparently quite
> well-known. It turns up all over the place. I believe willow is supposed to
> protect from witchcraft, but I cannot see why that explanation would apply
> to Lincoln, unless to stop witchcraft being used ON him for some unknown
> reason, rather than any witchcraft emanating FROM him. However, green
> willow staves will catch root and grow into full trees, which would indeed
> mark his last resting place. Apparently he was buried with several of his
> officers, also with the willow staves, and until the 19th century there
> were two willow trees that were said to be the ones marking his grave. They
> grew near a spring called, among other names, Willow Rundle. Itýs still
> there, only dry now because of development. I found references about it all
> over the place, and if you try Google Street, you can ýdriveý around quite
> a lot of the battlefield. I have used the spring and the willow staves in
> my story.
>
> Anyway, here are some sites:-
>
> http://www.elstonheritage.org.uk/index.php?id=23
>
>
> http://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/Spring-that-ran-red-runs-dry
>
>
> http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/warsoftheroses/battlepageview.asp?pageid=432&parentid=427
>
> Yes, I have a publisher. Robert Hale are doing the books. There are three
> 125,000 word ýseriesý novels altogether, linked through one main character,
> and they will come out early next year, with a two-month interval between
> each title. Theyýll be softback and then ebook. I canýt give the titles yet
> because they have not been finalised. Every time I decide on something, I
> then change my mind. The author name will be Sandra Heath Wilson, which is
> an amalgamation of other pseudonyms. The foregoing relies upon there being
> no Armageddon between now and then. <grin>
>
> Sandra
>
> From: justcarol67
> Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 8:00 PM
>
> To:
> Subject: Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
>
> Sandra wrote:
>
> > You can bet your last farthing, Carol in fact, it was already in the
> book, which is now finished and ready go off. Lincoln fascinates me and is
> brilliant to weave through a story. And to think he was buried on Stoke
> Field with a willow stave through his heart! Shame on you, Henry Tudor. Two
> brave and gallant Yorkist princes defeated on the battlefield, and you
> maltreated their bodies both times. Good job the White Rose haunted you.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm also fascinated by Lincoln. Where did you read that he was buried with
> a willow stave through his heart (ad why willow, I wonder)?
>
> Had you heard about the de la Pole roll from some other source (say, "The
> de la Poles of Hull") or did you read about it in "The Winter King"? Do you
> know of any photos of it? I wonder why it's so little publicized? The fact
> that they would have so elaborate and pro-Ricardian a roll made while Henry
> VII was on the throne is astounding.
>
> What is the title of your novel again and do you already have a publisher?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
the way through) but Penn talks about dis-affected Yorkists coming to
Henry's cause before he invaded - were there such who were not closely
allied with the Woodvilles?
A J
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 2:47 PM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> Carol, the ýwillow stave through the heart/bodyý bit is apparently quite
> well-known. It turns up all over the place. I believe willow is supposed to
> protect from witchcraft, but I cannot see why that explanation would apply
> to Lincoln, unless to stop witchcraft being used ON him for some unknown
> reason, rather than any witchcraft emanating FROM him. However, green
> willow staves will catch root and grow into full trees, which would indeed
> mark his last resting place. Apparently he was buried with several of his
> officers, also with the willow staves, and until the 19th century there
> were two willow trees that were said to be the ones marking his grave. They
> grew near a spring called, among other names, Willow Rundle. Itýs still
> there, only dry now because of development. I found references about it all
> over the place, and if you try Google Street, you can ýdriveý around quite
> a lot of the battlefield. I have used the spring and the willow staves in
> my story.
>
> Anyway, here are some sites:-
>
> http://www.elstonheritage.org.uk/index.php?id=23
>
>
> http://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/Spring-that-ran-red-runs-dry
>
>
> http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/warsoftheroses/battlepageview.asp?pageid=432&parentid=427
>
> Yes, I have a publisher. Robert Hale are doing the books. There are three
> 125,000 word ýseriesý novels altogether, linked through one main character,
> and they will come out early next year, with a two-month interval between
> each title. Theyýll be softback and then ebook. I canýt give the titles yet
> because they have not been finalised. Every time I decide on something, I
> then change my mind. The author name will be Sandra Heath Wilson, which is
> an amalgamation of other pseudonyms. The foregoing relies upon there being
> no Armageddon between now and then. <grin>
>
> Sandra
>
> From: justcarol67
> Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 8:00 PM
>
> To:
> Subject: Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
>
> Sandra wrote:
>
> > You can bet your last farthing, Carol in fact, it was already in the
> book, which is now finished and ready go off. Lincoln fascinates me and is
> brilliant to weave through a story. And to think he was buried on Stoke
> Field with a willow stave through his heart! Shame on you, Henry Tudor. Two
> brave and gallant Yorkist princes defeated on the battlefield, and you
> maltreated their bodies both times. Good job the White Rose haunted you.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm also fascinated by Lincoln. Where did you read that he was buried with
> a willow stave through his heart (ad why willow, I wonder)?
>
> Had you heard about the de la Pole roll from some other source (say, "The
> de la Poles of Hull") or did you read about it in "The Winter King"? Do you
> know of any photos of it? I wonder why it's so little publicized? The fact
> that they would have so elaborate and pro-Ricardian a roll made while Henry
> VII was on the throne is astounding.
>
> What is the title of your novel again and do you already have a publisher?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-02 04:34:40
My thoughts were on the White Rose haunting Henry Tudor when watching the Winter King. I just wish I could paint. I pictured Henry locked away in his dark, little lair, safe from the world, surrounded by everything that was important to him but behind him is a malevolent looking spirit of Richard III and he'll never escape from him...
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 5:24 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
> And even more intriguing was the de la Pole role, showing their indubitable belief that Henry was a usurper and Richard III was the true Yorkist heir. (Sandra, I hope you caught that and plan to put it in your book!)
> Sandra: You can bet your last farthing, Carol â€" in fact, it was already in the book, which is now finished and ready go off. Lincoln fascinates me and is brilliant to weave through a story. And to think he was buried on Stoke Field with a willow stave through his heart! Shame on you, Henry Tudor. Two brave and gallant Yorkist princes defeated on the battlefield, and you maltreated their bodies both times. Good job the White Rose haunted you.
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 5:24 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
> And even more intriguing was the de la Pole role, showing their indubitable belief that Henry was a usurper and Richard III was the true Yorkist heir. (Sandra, I hope you caught that and plan to put it in your book!)
> Sandra: You can bet your last farthing, Carol â€" in fact, it was already in the book, which is now finished and ready go off. Lincoln fascinates me and is brilliant to weave through a story. And to think he was buried on Stoke Field with a willow stave through his heart! Shame on you, Henry Tudor. Two brave and gallant Yorkist princes defeated on the battlefield, and you maltreated their bodies both times. Good job the White Rose haunted you.
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
2013-06-02 04:35:30
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 12:50 AM
Subject: Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The
Winter King is on YouTube)
> The book contains the attainders of Lincoln and Lovell and paradoxically
> describes Richard as "an excellent Monarch and valiant Soldier, but an
> ambitious and wicked man."
Since this was published in 1825, I bet you he was thinking of Napoleon when
he wrote that.
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 12:50 AM
Subject: Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The
Winter King is on YouTube)
> The book contains the attainders of Lincoln and Lovell and paradoxically
> describes Richard as "an excellent Monarch and valiant Soldier, but an
> ambitious and wicked man."
Since this was published in 1825, I bet you he was thinking of Napoleon when
he wrote that.
Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
2013-06-02 08:02:24
Carol responds:
I'm doing a little checking on my own. I haven't found Shilton or anything on the willow stave, but I did find a book that may interest you (and me when I get around to it), Richard Brooke's 1825 "Observations Illustrative of the Accounts Given by Ancient Historical Writers of the Battle of Stoke Field": http://books.google.com/books?id=LgUHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA67&dq=%22Battle+of+Stoke+Field%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iH6qUZqNK8WbigKnr4GQDA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Lincoln&f=false Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/ls3v99r ......Too bad Brooke didn't have a little more information on which to base his judgment of Richard. I think he had the heart of a Ricardian!
Sandra answers.:
Oh, what a great find, Carol. Thank you. Richard Brooke is certainly interesting and yes, he is inclined heap praise and then add a sting in the tail. A little like stating the fors and againsts and saying both sides are 100% correct. He praises both Richard and Lincoln, and then accuses them of grave faults of character. So far I've only found criticism for Henry. Perhaps there's a eulogy later on. Anyway, I haven't read it all by any means, but I enjoyed this bit:-
.....King Henry VII (for so we are in the habit of calling the tyrannical and unprincipled usurper who then exercised the regal functions, but who, in the present enlightened age, would, after his marriage with Elizabeth Plantagenet, only be considered as the husband of a queen regnant).....
The mere husband of a queen regnant???? Exercised the regal functions? I think Our Enery would have been a little more animated than usual after being told this. Richard would have curled up with amusement.
If you Google R.P. Shilton you get https://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&q=%22R.+P.+Shilton%22&oq=%22R.+P.+Shilton%22&gs_l=serp.12...4643.7173.0.9456.2.2.0.0.0.0.100.177.1j1.2.0...0.0...1c.1.15.psy-ab.bJcKaaOK7Mg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=4098dd5bcc32702b&biw=947&bih=500 which shows he was a well known writer from the Newark/Southwell area of Nottinghamshire, first quarter of the 19th century. Nothing really biographical, however.
But we're still no closer to the real John of Lincoln, are we? No likenesses. Nuffink. Not even the darned willow stave! But...what if his burial place were to be pinpointed and a dig were to be commenced....? No, I won't go there.
I'm doing a little checking on my own. I haven't found Shilton or anything on the willow stave, but I did find a book that may interest you (and me when I get around to it), Richard Brooke's 1825 "Observations Illustrative of the Accounts Given by Ancient Historical Writers of the Battle of Stoke Field": http://books.google.com/books?id=LgUHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA67&dq=%22Battle+of+Stoke+Field%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iH6qUZqNK8WbigKnr4GQDA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Lincoln&f=false Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/ls3v99r ......Too bad Brooke didn't have a little more information on which to base his judgment of Richard. I think he had the heart of a Ricardian!
Sandra answers.:
Oh, what a great find, Carol. Thank you. Richard Brooke is certainly interesting and yes, he is inclined heap praise and then add a sting in the tail. A little like stating the fors and againsts and saying both sides are 100% correct. He praises both Richard and Lincoln, and then accuses them of grave faults of character. So far I've only found criticism for Henry. Perhaps there's a eulogy later on. Anyway, I haven't read it all by any means, but I enjoyed this bit:-
.....King Henry VII (for so we are in the habit of calling the tyrannical and unprincipled usurper who then exercised the regal functions, but who, in the present enlightened age, would, after his marriage with Elizabeth Plantagenet, only be considered as the husband of a queen regnant).....
The mere husband of a queen regnant???? Exercised the regal functions? I think Our Enery would have been a little more animated than usual after being told this. Richard would have curled up with amusement.
If you Google R.P. Shilton you get https://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy-ab&q=%22R.+P.+Shilton%22&oq=%22R.+P.+Shilton%22&gs_l=serp.12...4643.7173.0.9456.2.2.0.0.0.0.100.177.1j1.2.0...0.0...1c.1.15.psy-ab.bJcKaaOK7Mg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=4098dd5bcc32702b&biw=947&bih=500 which shows he was a well known writer from the Newark/Southwell area of Nottinghamshire, first quarter of the 19th century. Nothing really biographical, however.
But we're still no closer to the real John of Lincoln, are we? No likenesses. Nuffink. Not even the darned willow stave! But...what if his burial place were to be pinpointed and a dig were to be commenced....? No, I won't go there.
Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
2013-06-02 09:55:15
Regarding the R. P. Shilton who mentioned the willow stave story of
Lincoln's burial. He was Richard Phillips Shilton, and one of his other
books, The History of the Town of Newark upon Trent', can be found at
http://archive.org/stream/historyoftownofn00shil#page/n5/mode/2up
It doesn't cover much of our' time, but apparently King John was five feet six and a
half inches tall, according to his remains! Probably a well-known fact, but I hadn't realised.
Otherwise, the book is full of interesting information, just not of particular concern to us. Well, to me,
anyway, I cannot speak for anyone else, of course.
I haven't time to trawl through the whole book, so may well have missed some nugget or other.
All I've come across after a quick search is:-
page 253 mentions a codicil to Henry VII's will.
page 260 mentions Henry passing through Newark after Stoke Field, and Francis
Lovell's parents' marriage, and the story that Francis tried to escape
across the Trent after Stoke, and was drowned. This page (unless I've
somehow misread it) is very discourteous toward Our Enery. Utterly bereft of
compliments, one might say.
page 467 some 1485 conveyances concerning the Saracen's Head inn, from
Henry's reign.
No discovered mention of John of Lincoln.
Sandra
Lincoln's burial. He was Richard Phillips Shilton, and one of his other
books, The History of the Town of Newark upon Trent', can be found at
http://archive.org/stream/historyoftownofn00shil#page/n5/mode/2up
It doesn't cover much of our' time, but apparently King John was five feet six and a
half inches tall, according to his remains! Probably a well-known fact, but I hadn't realised.
Otherwise, the book is full of interesting information, just not of particular concern to us. Well, to me,
anyway, I cannot speak for anyone else, of course.
I haven't time to trawl through the whole book, so may well have missed some nugget or other.
All I've come across after a quick search is:-
page 253 mentions a codicil to Henry VII's will.
page 260 mentions Henry passing through Newark after Stoke Field, and Francis
Lovell's parents' marriage, and the story that Francis tried to escape
across the Trent after Stoke, and was drowned. This page (unless I've
somehow misread it) is very discourteous toward Our Enery. Utterly bereft of
compliments, one might say.
page 467 some 1485 conveyances concerning the Saracen's Head inn, from
Henry's reign.
No discovered mention of John of Lincoln.
Sandra
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-02 11:38:31
I agree with what you are saying about EW and her involvement in the "Simnel rebellion". I think that she would clutch at any straw to get the Woodvilles back into real power. Though that would have been at the expense of her daughter and her husband. Another thing to wonder at. I am glad that someone with your knowledge of the period has also come to the same conclusion regarding E5 not necessarily being dead for Lincoln to support Warwick. Another small piece in the jigsaw.
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol, it just struck me today after wondering for years why Lincoln had supported Warwick as King when the Princes might have been alive.It just suddenly struck me as I was replying to Paul that he supported Warwick because the princes were illegitimate and therefore not eligible to be King and the next person in line was Warwick, give or take an attainder. Traditionalists have taken this to mean that Lincoln knew the Princes were dead and promoted Warwick fornthe throne. Lincoln obviously believed in the law of the land and supported therightful King. There only one problem that I can see regarding the validity of my speculation why did EW apparently support the "Lambert Simnel rebellion"?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes, exactly. That's what I've believed for some time. (I started off wondering why he didn't claim the throne for himself as Richard's heir; I think he concluded that someone in the direct male line would have a stronger claim and more popular support. Then I wondered why he would support a cousin whose deposition he supported and whose claim would make a lie of Richard's and decided that he wouldn't--whether Edward's sons were alive or not, he would vastly prefer his other cousin, Edward of Warwick, for a number of reasons that I've already listed in another post.) So I agree completely--his failure to support the restoration of Edward V had nothing to do with E 5's being dead and everything to do with self-preservation and principle.
>
> The problem you point out is a tough one. Maybe there was more than one center of rebellion, with one group (the one she supported) hoping to restore E 5 and the other having no such aim. Or she thought that by overthrowing Henry VII, she could reinstitute her son and that the majority of Englishmen would prefer him (ignoring the stigma of illegitimacy) to little Warwick since he had already been king (though uncrowned and powerless). I do think she believed that her sons were alive and that she was placed in Bermondsey Abbey for her part in the plot. (Her son Dorset was also implicated.)
>
> It's rather like the Woodvilles and Tudor (or Buckingham and Tudor) joining forces to topple Richard but with different ultimate goals, only this time the king to be deposed and killed was Henry. Once that goal was accomplished, they could settle their differences with yet another battle.
>
> I agree with Henry on one point--if only John of Lincoln had survived the Battle of Stoke and we could ask him what he planned! Or better yet, failing Richard's winning Bosworth, if only Lincoln had won at Stoke.
>
> Carol
>
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol, it just struck me today after wondering for years why Lincoln had supported Warwick as King when the Princes might have been alive.It just suddenly struck me as I was replying to Paul that he supported Warwick because the princes were illegitimate and therefore not eligible to be King and the next person in line was Warwick, give or take an attainder. Traditionalists have taken this to mean that Lincoln knew the Princes were dead and promoted Warwick fornthe throne. Lincoln obviously believed in the law of the land and supported therightful King. There only one problem that I can see regarding the validity of my speculation why did EW apparently support the "Lambert Simnel rebellion"?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes, exactly. That's what I've believed for some time. (I started off wondering why he didn't claim the throne for himself as Richard's heir; I think he concluded that someone in the direct male line would have a stronger claim and more popular support. Then I wondered why he would support a cousin whose deposition he supported and whose claim would make a lie of Richard's and decided that he wouldn't--whether Edward's sons were alive or not, he would vastly prefer his other cousin, Edward of Warwick, for a number of reasons that I've already listed in another post.) So I agree completely--his failure to support the restoration of Edward V had nothing to do with E 5's being dead and everything to do with self-preservation and principle.
>
> The problem you point out is a tough one. Maybe there was more than one center of rebellion, with one group (the one she supported) hoping to restore E 5 and the other having no such aim. Or she thought that by overthrowing Henry VII, she could reinstitute her son and that the majority of Englishmen would prefer him (ignoring the stigma of illegitimacy) to little Warwick since he had already been king (though uncrowned and powerless). I do think she believed that her sons were alive and that she was placed in Bermondsey Abbey for her part in the plot. (Her son Dorset was also implicated.)
>
> It's rather like the Woodvilles and Tudor (or Buckingham and Tudor) joining forces to topple Richard but with different ultimate goals, only this time the king to be deposed and killed was Henry. Once that goal was accomplished, they could settle their differences with yet another battle.
>
> I agree with Henry on one point--if only John of Lincoln had survived the Battle of Stoke and we could ask him what he planned! Or better yet, failing Richard's winning Bosworth, if only Lincoln had won at Stoke.
>
> Carol
>
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-02 16:13:24
I wonder what sort of time in purgatory Henry and his minions earned by deliberately blackening Richard. Is the murder of an anointed king or systematic lying and deceit for gain the sort of thing one confesses on their deathbed? And if one doesn't, what's one's fate per medieval church law? 2000 years in purgatory and even longer if those monks fail to deliver those prayers Henry and his minions bought for themselves?
Maybe that's why MB became so very devout later in her life. Then again, I'm reminded of the pious painting featuring her in a nun's cell, her hands clasped devoutly before her, her book of hours (or the one she stole from Richard) open before her...with a cloth of gold canopy over her head and every luxury known to 16th-century royalty surrounding her.
As for Henry, I don't think he ever felt safe or secure. He knew very well what he'd done to get where he was, and how a great many people felt about him.
~Weds
--- In , "Ms Jones" <mhairigibbons2006@...> wrote:
>
> My thoughts were on the White Rose haunting Henry Tudor when watching the Winter King. I just wish I could paint. I pictured Henry locked away in his dark, little lair, safe from the world, surrounded by everything that was important to him but behind him is a malevolent looking spirit of Richard III and he'll never escape from him...
>
Maybe that's why MB became so very devout later in her life. Then again, I'm reminded of the pious painting featuring her in a nun's cell, her hands clasped devoutly before her, her book of hours (or the one she stole from Richard) open before her...with a cloth of gold canopy over her head and every luxury known to 16th-century royalty surrounding her.
As for Henry, I don't think he ever felt safe or secure. He knew very well what he'd done to get where he was, and how a great many people felt about him.
~Weds
--- In , "Ms Jones" <mhairigibbons2006@...> wrote:
>
> My thoughts were on the White Rose haunting Henry Tudor when watching the Winter King. I just wish I could paint. I pictured Henry locked away in his dark, little lair, safe from the world, surrounded by everything that was important to him but behind him is a malevolent looking spirit of Richard III and he'll never escape from him...
>
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-02 19:25:09
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Another question raised by my viewing (don't know whether I can make it all the way through) but Penn talks about dis-affected Yorkists coming to Henry's cause before he invaded - were there such who were not closely allied with the Woodvilles?
Carol responds:
As I understand it, the first batch of Yorkist exiles to join Tudor were Woodvilles and their followers--Sir Edward and Dorset--who were fleeing Richard as Protector (either because they feared retribution for being Woodvilles or because they really had plotted treason against him). This batch certainly had no intention of putting Tudor on the throne at that point--Edward V was still king. They simply wanted to get E 5 back in their control and may simply have been waiting, at first, for E 5 to be crowned before returning to England. E 5's deposition and Richard's crowning changed their goal to deposing (and no doubt killing) Richard to restore E 5.
There were separate, non-Woodville risings in Southern England, mostly involving people who had held minor offices under Edward IV who had either lost those offices under Richard or feared they would lose them (and by rebelling brought about the thing they feared). That group, like the Woodvilles, wanted the restoration of E 5. That's the group at whom the rumors that the boys were dead was aimed and whom Buckingham, for whatever addle-brained reason, attempted to lead or join. (His own followers probably should not be included since they all deserted him. I don't know of any who fought against Richard at Bosworth.)
These two groups, after the supposed deaths of E 5 and his brother, supported Henry Tudor only provisionally, looking forward to the mythical union of the Houses of York (via a legitimized EoY) and "Lancaster" (via the son of a Beaufort).
As far as I know, the people who were attainted for involvement in "Buckingham's" Rebellion (very few were executed) joined Tudor and the Woodvilles in exile, expanding Henry's band to a few hundred. (Someone else may have a more accurate figure.) The only new English recruit of any importance before Bosworth was Sir Gilbert Talbot, who added perhaps two hundred men. The rest were Welsh followers of Rhys ap Thomas or Continental mercenaries.
Doesn't Penn (correctly) classify Tudor's landing as a foreign invasion? But most Tudor historians overlook or deny that inconvenient fact. And also, of course, they tend to act as if the dissident Yorkists supported Henry's kingship from the beginning, which is, of course, absurd. From the time of Sir Edward's flight in, I think, April to E5's deposition in late June, their goal was to wrest control of E 5 from Richard as Protector. At that point and until the rumors of the boys' deaths were planted, both among the dissident Yorkists in England and among the exiles, their goal was to restore E 5. Only when they believed that E 5 was dead did they agree to support Tudor if and only if he promised to marry EoY. It was that or acquiesce to Richard as king. (Whether any of them did that, I don't know. Probably not as they had forfeited whatever positions they held under him as well as their lands and goods.) It doesn't appear that anyone supported Buckingham as a contingency plan.
Carol
>
> Another question raised by my viewing (don't know whether I can make it all the way through) but Penn talks about dis-affected Yorkists coming to Henry's cause before he invaded - were there such who were not closely allied with the Woodvilles?
Carol responds:
As I understand it, the first batch of Yorkist exiles to join Tudor were Woodvilles and their followers--Sir Edward and Dorset--who were fleeing Richard as Protector (either because they feared retribution for being Woodvilles or because they really had plotted treason against him). This batch certainly had no intention of putting Tudor on the throne at that point--Edward V was still king. They simply wanted to get E 5 back in their control and may simply have been waiting, at first, for E 5 to be crowned before returning to England. E 5's deposition and Richard's crowning changed their goal to deposing (and no doubt killing) Richard to restore E 5.
There were separate, non-Woodville risings in Southern England, mostly involving people who had held minor offices under Edward IV who had either lost those offices under Richard or feared they would lose them (and by rebelling brought about the thing they feared). That group, like the Woodvilles, wanted the restoration of E 5. That's the group at whom the rumors that the boys were dead was aimed and whom Buckingham, for whatever addle-brained reason, attempted to lead or join. (His own followers probably should not be included since they all deserted him. I don't know of any who fought against Richard at Bosworth.)
These two groups, after the supposed deaths of E 5 and his brother, supported Henry Tudor only provisionally, looking forward to the mythical union of the Houses of York (via a legitimized EoY) and "Lancaster" (via the son of a Beaufort).
As far as I know, the people who were attainted for involvement in "Buckingham's" Rebellion (very few were executed) joined Tudor and the Woodvilles in exile, expanding Henry's band to a few hundred. (Someone else may have a more accurate figure.) The only new English recruit of any importance before Bosworth was Sir Gilbert Talbot, who added perhaps two hundred men. The rest were Welsh followers of Rhys ap Thomas or Continental mercenaries.
Doesn't Penn (correctly) classify Tudor's landing as a foreign invasion? But most Tudor historians overlook or deny that inconvenient fact. And also, of course, they tend to act as if the dissident Yorkists supported Henry's kingship from the beginning, which is, of course, absurd. From the time of Sir Edward's flight in, I think, April to E5's deposition in late June, their goal was to wrest control of E 5 from Richard as Protector. At that point and until the rumors of the boys' deaths were planted, both among the dissident Yorkists in England and among the exiles, their goal was to restore E 5. Only when they believed that E 5 was dead did they agree to support Tudor if and only if he promised to marry EoY. It was that or acquiesce to Richard as king. (Whether any of them did that, I don't know. Probably not as they had forfeited whatever positions they held under him as well as their lands and goods.) It doesn't appear that anyone supported Buckingham as a contingency plan.
Carol
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-02 19:50:07
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with what you are saying about EW and her involvement in the "Simnel rebellion". I think that she would clutch at any straw to get the Woodvilles back into real power. Though that would have been at the expense of her daughter and her husband. Another thing to wonder at. I am glad that someone with your knowledge of the period has also come to the same conclusion regarding E5 not necessarily being dead for Lincoln to support Warwick. Another small piece in the jigsaw.
Carol responds:
Thanks, Mary. It seems so obvious that Lincoln wouldn't support an imposter with the intent of putting that imposter on the throne. (I'm sure he wouldn't have let any harm come to poor Lambert; he would simply let him serve as a page boy or something when he had served his purpose as decoy (which I prefer to "stalking horse"). So either he intended to take the throne himself as Richard's heir or he intended to play Kingmaker and regent by putting his little cousin on the throne. While he *could* have done the same thing for E5, I don't think it would have worked out very well, especially as E5 would have been about fourteen by that time and in no mood to have a cousin who had supported Uncle Richard as his mentor.
But nobody, or almost nobody, thinks to question the Tudor accounts of either the Simnel rising or the Perkin Warbeck affair, just as they keep repeating the same old formulas about Richard's Protectorate and reign.
I think that Marie is or was working on an article about the "feigned boys." I hope it will be ready for publication soon!
Carol
>
> I agree with what you are saying about EW and her involvement in the "Simnel rebellion". I think that she would clutch at any straw to get the Woodvilles back into real power. Though that would have been at the expense of her daughter and her husband. Another thing to wonder at. I am glad that someone with your knowledge of the period has also come to the same conclusion regarding E5 not necessarily being dead for Lincoln to support Warwick. Another small piece in the jigsaw.
Carol responds:
Thanks, Mary. It seems so obvious that Lincoln wouldn't support an imposter with the intent of putting that imposter on the throne. (I'm sure he wouldn't have let any harm come to poor Lambert; he would simply let him serve as a page boy or something when he had served his purpose as decoy (which I prefer to "stalking horse"). So either he intended to take the throne himself as Richard's heir or he intended to play Kingmaker and regent by putting his little cousin on the throne. While he *could* have done the same thing for E5, I don't think it would have worked out very well, especially as E5 would have been about fourteen by that time and in no mood to have a cousin who had supported Uncle Richard as his mentor.
But nobody, or almost nobody, thinks to question the Tudor accounts of either the Simnel rising or the Perkin Warbeck affair, just as they keep repeating the same old formulas about Richard's Protectorate and reign.
I think that Marie is or was working on an article about the "feigned boys." I hope it will be ready for publication soon!
Carol
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-02 20:13:06
I will look forward to Marie's article. It is so annoying that traditionalists just accept the Tudor accounts. I am glad to say that the people on this forum do not accept those accounts at face value and hopefully someday we will be able to re-write Richard's story.
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with what you are saying about EW and her involvement in the "Simnel rebellion". I think that she would clutch at any straw to get the Woodvilles back into real power. Though that would have been at the expense of her daughter and her husband. Another thing to wonder at. I am glad that someone with your knowledge of the period has also come to the same conclusion regarding E5 not necessarily being dead for Lincoln to support Warwick. Another small piece in the jigsaw.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Mary. It seems so obvious that Lincoln wouldn't support an imposter with the intent of putting that imposter on the throne. (I'm sure he wouldn't have let any harm come to poor Lambert; he would simply let him serve as a page boy or something when he had served his purpose as decoy (which I prefer to "stalking horse"). So either he intended to take the throne himself as Richard's heir or he intended to play Kingmaker and regent by putting his little cousin on the throne. While he *could* have done the same thing for E5, I don't think it would have worked out very well, especially as E5 would have been about fourteen by that time and in no mood to have a cousin who had supported Uncle Richard as his mentor.
>
> But nobody, or almost nobody, thinks to question the Tudor accounts of either the Simnel rising or the Perkin Warbeck affair, just as they keep repeating the same old formulas about Richard's Protectorate and reign.
>
> I think that Marie is or was working on an article about the "feigned boys." I hope it will be ready for publication soon!
>
> Carol
>
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with what you are saying about EW and her involvement in the "Simnel rebellion". I think that she would clutch at any straw to get the Woodvilles back into real power. Though that would have been at the expense of her daughter and her husband. Another thing to wonder at. I am glad that someone with your knowledge of the period has also come to the same conclusion regarding E5 not necessarily being dead for Lincoln to support Warwick. Another small piece in the jigsaw.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Mary. It seems so obvious that Lincoln wouldn't support an imposter with the intent of putting that imposter on the throne. (I'm sure he wouldn't have let any harm come to poor Lambert; he would simply let him serve as a page boy or something when he had served his purpose as decoy (which I prefer to "stalking horse"). So either he intended to take the throne himself as Richard's heir or he intended to play Kingmaker and regent by putting his little cousin on the throne. While he *could* have done the same thing for E5, I don't think it would have worked out very well, especially as E5 would have been about fourteen by that time and in no mood to have a cousin who had supported Uncle Richard as his mentor.
>
> But nobody, or almost nobody, thinks to question the Tudor accounts of either the Simnel rising or the Perkin Warbeck affair, just as they keep repeating the same old formulas about Richard's Protectorate and reign.
>
> I think that Marie is or was working on an article about the "feigned boys." I hope it will be ready for publication soon!
>
> Carol
>
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-02 20:21:31
Thanks yes. It all pretty much makes sense then, we don't have any
examples of people (other than Buckingham) who had been aligned with
Richard to begin with, to point to as so disturbed by EV being removed from
the succession that they switched to the Henry / Woodville / Lancastrian
cause.
And yes, Penn did begin immediately by calling Henry's landing a foreign
invasion.
A J
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:25 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > Another question raised by my viewing (don't know whether I can make it
> all the way through) but Penn talks about dis-affected Yorkists coming to
> Henry's cause before he invaded - were there such who were not closely
> allied with the Woodvilles?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> As I understand it, the first batch of Yorkist exiles to join Tudor were
> Woodvilles and their followers--Sir Edward and Dorset--who were fleeing
> Richard as Protector (either because they feared retribution for being
> Woodvilles or because they really had plotted treason against him). This
> batch certainly had no intention of putting Tudor on the throne at that
> point--Edward V was still king. They simply wanted to get E 5 back in their
> control and may simply have been waiting, at first, for E 5 to be crowned
> before returning to England. E 5's deposition and Richard's crowning
> changed their goal to deposing (and no doubt killing) Richard to restore E
> 5.
>
> There were separate, non-Woodville risings in Southern England, mostly
> involving people who had held minor offices under Edward IV who had either
> lost those offices under Richard or feared they would lose them (and by
> rebelling brought about the thing they feared). That group, like the
> Woodvilles, wanted the restoration of E 5. That's the group at whom the
> rumors that the boys were dead was aimed and whom Buckingham, for whatever
> addle-brained reason, attempted to lead or join. (His own followers
> probably should not be included since they all deserted him. I don't know
> of any who fought against Richard at Bosworth.)
>
> These two groups, after the supposed deaths of E 5 and his brother,
> supported Henry Tudor only provisionally, looking forward to the mythical
> union of the Houses of York (via a legitimized EoY) and "Lancaster" (via
> the son of a Beaufort).
>
> As far as I know, the people who were attainted for involvement in
> "Buckingham's" Rebellion (very few were executed) joined Tudor and the
> Woodvilles in exile, expanding Henry's band to a few hundred. (Someone else
> may have a more accurate figure.) The only new English recruit of any
> importance before Bosworth was Sir Gilbert Talbot, who added perhaps two
> hundred men. The rest were Welsh followers of Rhys ap Thomas or Continental
> mercenaries.
>
> Doesn't Penn (correctly) classify Tudor's landing as a foreign invasion?
> But most Tudor historians overlook or deny that inconvenient fact. And
> also, of course, they tend to act as if the dissident Yorkists supported
> Henry's kingship from the beginning, which is, of course, absurd. From the
> time of Sir Edward's flight in, I think, April to E5's deposition in late
> June, their goal was to wrest control of E 5 from Richard as Protector. At
> that point and until the rumors of the boys' deaths were planted, both
> among the dissident Yorkists in England and among the exiles, their goal
> was to restore E 5. Only when they believed that E 5 was dead did they
> agree to support Tudor if and only if he promised to marry EoY. It was that
> or acquiesce to Richard as king. (Whether any of them did that, I don't
> know. Probably not as they had forfeited whatever positions they held under
> him as well as their lands and goods.) It doesn't appear that anyone
> supported Buckingham as a contingency plan.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
examples of people (other than Buckingham) who had been aligned with
Richard to begin with, to point to as so disturbed by EV being removed from
the succession that they switched to the Henry / Woodville / Lancastrian
cause.
And yes, Penn did begin immediately by calling Henry's landing a foreign
invasion.
A J
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:25 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > Another question raised by my viewing (don't know whether I can make it
> all the way through) but Penn talks about dis-affected Yorkists coming to
> Henry's cause before he invaded - were there such who were not closely
> allied with the Woodvilles?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> As I understand it, the first batch of Yorkist exiles to join Tudor were
> Woodvilles and their followers--Sir Edward and Dorset--who were fleeing
> Richard as Protector (either because they feared retribution for being
> Woodvilles or because they really had plotted treason against him). This
> batch certainly had no intention of putting Tudor on the throne at that
> point--Edward V was still king. They simply wanted to get E 5 back in their
> control and may simply have been waiting, at first, for E 5 to be crowned
> before returning to England. E 5's deposition and Richard's crowning
> changed their goal to deposing (and no doubt killing) Richard to restore E
> 5.
>
> There were separate, non-Woodville risings in Southern England, mostly
> involving people who had held minor offices under Edward IV who had either
> lost those offices under Richard or feared they would lose them (and by
> rebelling brought about the thing they feared). That group, like the
> Woodvilles, wanted the restoration of E 5. That's the group at whom the
> rumors that the boys were dead was aimed and whom Buckingham, for whatever
> addle-brained reason, attempted to lead or join. (His own followers
> probably should not be included since they all deserted him. I don't know
> of any who fought against Richard at Bosworth.)
>
> These two groups, after the supposed deaths of E 5 and his brother,
> supported Henry Tudor only provisionally, looking forward to the mythical
> union of the Houses of York (via a legitimized EoY) and "Lancaster" (via
> the son of a Beaufort).
>
> As far as I know, the people who were attainted for involvement in
> "Buckingham's" Rebellion (very few were executed) joined Tudor and the
> Woodvilles in exile, expanding Henry's band to a few hundred. (Someone else
> may have a more accurate figure.) The only new English recruit of any
> importance before Bosworth was Sir Gilbert Talbot, who added perhaps two
> hundred men. The rest were Welsh followers of Rhys ap Thomas or Continental
> mercenaries.
>
> Doesn't Penn (correctly) classify Tudor's landing as a foreign invasion?
> But most Tudor historians overlook or deny that inconvenient fact. And
> also, of course, they tend to act as if the dissident Yorkists supported
> Henry's kingship from the beginning, which is, of course, absurd. From the
> time of Sir Edward's flight in, I think, April to E5's deposition in late
> June, their goal was to wrest control of E 5 from Richard as Protector. At
> that point and until the rumors of the boys' deaths were planted, both
> among the dissident Yorkists in England and among the exiles, their goal
> was to restore E 5. Only when they believed that E 5 was dead did they
> agree to support Tudor if and only if he promised to marry EoY. It was that
> or acquiesce to Richard as king. (Whether any of them did that, I don't
> know. Probably not as they had forfeited whatever positions they held under
> him as well as their lands and goods.) It doesn't appear that anyone
> supported Buckingham as a contingency plan.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
2013-06-02 23:35:21
"SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Regarding the R. P. Shilton who mentioned the willow stave story of
> Lincoln's burial. He was Richard Phillips Shilton, and one of his other books, ‘The History of the Town of Newark upon Trent’, can be found at
> http://archive.org/stream/historyoftownofn00shil#page/n5/mode/2up [snip]
Carol responds:
I couldn't find Shilton's Stoke Field book, either, and nothing except the one site you linked to about willow staves or stakes through the bodies of Lincoln and his followers. I did find a reference to stakes through the hearts of bodies as a means of punishing "deviants" (Saxon times) or preventing suicides from rising up as ghosts, a practice not legally banned in England until 1823. (I didn't copy those URLs as they didn't seem to be what you're looking for.) It appears that misinformation on the Battle of Stoke is rather prevalent, with huge discrepancies in the number of dead. (I don't know which is right, 3,000 dead on Henry's side or a few hundred; all accounts agree that the poor Irish were slaughtered.) The most glaring error I encountered was Lambert Simnel posing as "Edward, Earl of Lincoln." (At least, it's easy to see where that error came from, but it doesn't say much for the reliability of the source.)
http://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/print/news/87250805-0c94-102e-8a0f-e3f31baa0312
Another has the Earl of Warwick, who was only twelve in 1487, as fifteen, but provides other, more accurate information that you may find useful:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/p-t/stoke.pdf
Interestingly, one quoted source, Molinet, says that Lincoln's brother (presumably Edmund) was in the vanguard of Henry's army, but I think that may be an error because he was too young and in any case, it calls him the son of the Duke of Norfolk rather than Suffolk, an indication of unreliability. Molinet also has Lord Hastings in the vanguard, quite a feat for a man four years dead unless there's another Lord Hastings that I'm unaware of.
The author also quotes the sickening hypocrisy of the Tudor sycophant Bernard Andre, who treats Henry's victory as the result of God's intervention to punish the impious rebels for daring to oppose an anointed king. Needless to say, that image would hardly work for Bosworth, where Henry was the impious rebel!
The article mentions the "legend" (source's word) that Lincoln was buried at Willow Rundle but says nothing about stakes or staves.
At any rate, except for the error about Warwick's age, this article is very informative about the Battle of Stoke, twice pointing out that it, not Bosworth, is the last battle in the Wars of the Roses. But with regard to the willow stave or stake, I think your best bet would be to find Shilton's book in a university library (or through ILL) and see what his source was. It doesn't seem to be a well-known legend (unlike the legend of the spring sprouting at the prayer of a dying soldier).
Carol
>
> Regarding the R. P. Shilton who mentioned the willow stave story of
> Lincoln's burial. He was Richard Phillips Shilton, and one of his other books, ‘The History of the Town of Newark upon Trent’, can be found at
> http://archive.org/stream/historyoftownofn00shil#page/n5/mode/2up [snip]
Carol responds:
I couldn't find Shilton's Stoke Field book, either, and nothing except the one site you linked to about willow staves or stakes through the bodies of Lincoln and his followers. I did find a reference to stakes through the hearts of bodies as a means of punishing "deviants" (Saxon times) or preventing suicides from rising up as ghosts, a practice not legally banned in England until 1823. (I didn't copy those URLs as they didn't seem to be what you're looking for.) It appears that misinformation on the Battle of Stoke is rather prevalent, with huge discrepancies in the number of dead. (I don't know which is right, 3,000 dead on Henry's side or a few hundred; all accounts agree that the poor Irish were slaughtered.) The most glaring error I encountered was Lambert Simnel posing as "Edward, Earl of Lincoln." (At least, it's easy to see where that error came from, but it doesn't say much for the reliability of the source.)
http://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/print/news/87250805-0c94-102e-8a0f-e3f31baa0312
Another has the Earl of Warwick, who was only twelve in 1487, as fifteen, but provides other, more accurate information that you may find useful:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/p-t/stoke.pdf
Interestingly, one quoted source, Molinet, says that Lincoln's brother (presumably Edmund) was in the vanguard of Henry's army, but I think that may be an error because he was too young and in any case, it calls him the son of the Duke of Norfolk rather than Suffolk, an indication of unreliability. Molinet also has Lord Hastings in the vanguard, quite a feat for a man four years dead unless there's another Lord Hastings that I'm unaware of.
The author also quotes the sickening hypocrisy of the Tudor sycophant Bernard Andre, who treats Henry's victory as the result of God's intervention to punish the impious rebels for daring to oppose an anointed king. Needless to say, that image would hardly work for Bosworth, where Henry was the impious rebel!
The article mentions the "legend" (source's word) that Lincoln was buried at Willow Rundle but says nothing about stakes or staves.
At any rate, except for the error about Warwick's age, this article is very informative about the Battle of Stoke, twice pointing out that it, not Bosworth, is the last battle in the Wars of the Roses. But with regard to the willow stave or stake, I think your best bet would be to find Shilton's book in a university library (or through ILL) and see what his source was. It doesn't seem to be a well-known legend (unlike the legend of the spring sprouting at the prayer of a dying soldier).
Carol
Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
2013-06-03 03:25:02
The participants could have included:
The "son of the Duke of Norfolk" ie the Earl of Surrey, who was restored after Flodden.
"Lord Hastings" would be William's son - Edward, iirc.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
"SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Regarding the R. P. Shilton who mentioned the willow stave story of
> Lincoln's burial. He was Richard Phillips Shilton, and one of his other books, â?~The History of the Town of Newark upon Trentâ?T, can be found at
> http://archive.org/stream/historyoftownofn00shil#page/n5/mode/2up [snip]
Carol responds:
I couldn't find Shilton's Stoke Field book, either, and nothing except the one site you linked to about willow staves or stakes through the bodies of Lincoln and his followers. I did find a reference to stakes through the hearts of bodies as a means of punishing "deviants" (Saxon times) or preventing suicides from rising up as ghosts, a practice not legally banned in England until 1823. (I didn't copy those URLs as they didn't seem to be what you're looking for.) It appears that misinformation on the Battle of Stoke is rather prevalent, with huge discrepancies in the number of dead. (I don't know which is right, 3,000 dead on Henry's side or a few hundred; all accounts agree that the poor Irish were slaughtered.) The most glaring error I encountered was Lambert Simnel posing as "Edward, Earl of Lincoln." (At least, it's easy to see where that error came from, but it doesn't say much for the reliability of the source.)
http://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/print/news/87250805-0c94-102e-8a0f-e3f31baa0312
Another has the Earl of Warwick, who was only twelve in 1487, as fifteen, but provides other, more accurate information that you may find useful:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/p-t/stoke.pdf
Interestingly, one quoted source, Molinet, says that Lincoln's brother (presumably Edmund) was in the vanguard of Henry's army, but I think that may be an error because he was too young and in any case, it calls him the son of the Duke of Norfolk rather than Suffolk, an indication of unreliability. Molinet also has Lord Hastings in the vanguard, quite a feat for a man four years dead unless there's another Lord Hastings that I'm unaware of.
The author also quotes the sickening hypocrisy of the Tudor sycophant Bernard Andre, who treats Henry's victory as the result of God's intervention to punish the impious rebels for daring to oppose an anointed king. Needless to say, that image would hardly work for Bosworth, where Henry was the impious rebel!
The article mentions the "legend" (source's word) that Lincoln was buried at Willow Rundle but says nothing about stakes or staves.
At any rate, except for the error about Warwick's age, this article is very informative about the Battle of Stoke, twice pointing out that it, not Bosworth, is the last battle in the Wars of the Roses. But with regard to the willow stave or stake, I think your best bet would be to find Shilton's book in a university library (or through ILL) and see what his source was. It doesn't seem to be a well-known legend (unlike the legend of the spring sprouting at the prayer of a dying soldier).
Carol
The "son of the Duke of Norfolk" ie the Earl of Surrey, who was restored after Flodden.
"Lord Hastings" would be William's son - Edward, iirc.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
"SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Regarding the R. P. Shilton who mentioned the willow stave story of
> Lincoln's burial. He was Richard Phillips Shilton, and one of his other books, â?~The History of the Town of Newark upon Trentâ?T, can be found at
> http://archive.org/stream/historyoftownofn00shil#page/n5/mode/2up [snip]
Carol responds:
I couldn't find Shilton's Stoke Field book, either, and nothing except the one site you linked to about willow staves or stakes through the bodies of Lincoln and his followers. I did find a reference to stakes through the hearts of bodies as a means of punishing "deviants" (Saxon times) or preventing suicides from rising up as ghosts, a practice not legally banned in England until 1823. (I didn't copy those URLs as they didn't seem to be what you're looking for.) It appears that misinformation on the Battle of Stoke is rather prevalent, with huge discrepancies in the number of dead. (I don't know which is right, 3,000 dead on Henry's side or a few hundred; all accounts agree that the poor Irish were slaughtered.) The most glaring error I encountered was Lambert Simnel posing as "Edward, Earl of Lincoln." (At least, it's easy to see where that error came from, but it doesn't say much for the reliability of the source.)
http://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/print/news/87250805-0c94-102e-8a0f-e3f31baa0312
Another has the Earl of Warwick, who was only twelve in 1487, as fifteen, but provides other, more accurate information that you may find useful:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/p-t/stoke.pdf
Interestingly, one quoted source, Molinet, says that Lincoln's brother (presumably Edmund) was in the vanguard of Henry's army, but I think that may be an error because he was too young and in any case, it calls him the son of the Duke of Norfolk rather than Suffolk, an indication of unreliability. Molinet also has Lord Hastings in the vanguard, quite a feat for a man four years dead unless there's another Lord Hastings that I'm unaware of.
The author also quotes the sickening hypocrisy of the Tudor sycophant Bernard Andre, who treats Henry's victory as the result of God's intervention to punish the impious rebels for daring to oppose an anointed king. Needless to say, that image would hardly work for Bosworth, where Henry was the impious rebel!
The article mentions the "legend" (source's word) that Lincoln was buried at Willow Rundle but says nothing about stakes or staves.
At any rate, except for the error about Warwick's age, this article is very informative about the Battle of Stoke, twice pointing out that it, not Bosworth, is the last battle in the Wars of the Roses. But with regard to the willow stave or stake, I think your best bet would be to find Shilton's book in a university library (or through ILL) and see what his source was. It doesn't seem to be a well-known legend (unlike the legend of the spring sprouting at the prayer of a dying soldier).
Carol
Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
2013-06-03 09:51:39
On 02/06/2013 09:55, SandraMachin wrote:
> Regarding the R. P. Shilton who mentioned the willow stave story of
> Lincoln's burial. He was Richard Phillips Shilton, and one of his other
> books, The History of the Town of Newark upon Trent', can be found at
> http://archive.org/stream/historyoftownofn00shil#page/n5/mode/2up
>
> It doesn't cover much of our' time, but apparently King John was five feet six and a
>
> half inches tall, according to his remains! Probably a well-known fact, but I hadn't realised.
He was also very fond of greyhounds, and very young women, his second
wife was 14 when he married her! He was also the best administrator
England had seen, putting into practice the laws his father had put on
the statute books but which his brother Richard couldn't be bothered to
put into practice. John, for good or bad, founded the civil service.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
> Regarding the R. P. Shilton who mentioned the willow stave story of
> Lincoln's burial. He was Richard Phillips Shilton, and one of his other
> books, The History of the Town of Newark upon Trent', can be found at
> http://archive.org/stream/historyoftownofn00shil#page/n5/mode/2up
>
> It doesn't cover much of our' time, but apparently King John was five feet six and a
>
> half inches tall, according to his remains! Probably a well-known fact, but I hadn't realised.
He was also very fond of greyhounds, and very young women, his second
wife was 14 when he married her! He was also the best administrator
England had seen, putting into practice the laws his father had put on
the statute books but which his brother Richard couldn't be bothered to
put into practice. John, for good or bad, founded the civil service.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: The Winter King is on YouTube
2013-06-03 09:56:23
On 02/06/2013 20:21, A J Hibbard wrote:
> Thanks yes. It all pretty much makes sense then, we don't have any
> examples of people (other than Buckingham) who had been aligned with
> Richard to begin with, to point to as so disturbed by EV being removed from
> the succession that they switched to the Henry / Woodville / Lancastrian
> cause.
>
> And yes, Penn did begin immediately by calling Henry's landing a foreign
> invasion.
>
> A J
>
Which it was. Shakespeare's "scum of Bretons".
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
> Thanks yes. It all pretty much makes sense then, we don't have any
> examples of people (other than Buckingham) who had been aligned with
> Richard to begin with, to point to as so disturbed by EV being removed from
> the succession that they switched to the Henry / Woodville / Lancastrian
> cause.
>
> And yes, Penn did begin immediately by calling Henry's landing a foreign
> invasion.
>
> A J
>
Which it was. Shakespeare's "scum of Bretons".
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: OT - King John
2013-06-03 10:29:02
Paul, if supporters of Richard are called Ricardians, what do supporters of
John call themselves? Johannians? He was another younger brother always
compared unfavourably with his dazzling (if absentee) sibling, yes?
Paul wrote about King John:
He was also very fond of greyhounds, and very young women, his second
wife was 14 when he married her! He was also the best administrator
England had seen, putting into practice the laws his father had put on
the statute books but which his brother Richard couldn't be bothered to
put into practice. John, for good or bad, founded the civil service.
John call themselves? Johannians? He was another younger brother always
compared unfavourably with his dazzling (if absentee) sibling, yes?
Paul wrote about King John:
He was also very fond of greyhounds, and very young women, his second
wife was 14 when he married her! He was also the best administrator
England had seen, putting into practice the laws his father had put on
the statute books but which his brother Richard couldn't be bothered to
put into practice. John, for good or bad, founded the civil service.
Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
2013-06-03 15:31:50
"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> The participants could have included:
> The "son of the Duke of Norfolk" ie the Earl of Surrey, who was restored after Flodden.
> "Lord Hastings" would be William's son - Edward, iirc.
Carol responds:
Thanks, but the Battle of Flodden was fought in 1513 and Stoke in 1487 while Surrey was still in the Tower. (Surrey apparently had an opportunity to escape the Tower and join the rebellion but refused, leading Henry to release him in 1489.)
The passage reads "the son of the Duke of Norfolk [Suffolk], brother of the Earl of Lincoln," with the bracketed correction being that of the unnamed author of the English Heritage, so either Edmund, despite his youth and Yorkist affinities, was present in the battle against his older brother and Molinet is simply wrong in calling him the son of the Duke of Norfolk or Molinet is wrong on two counts and neither the son of the Duke of Norfolk (Surrey) nor the brother of the Earl of Lincoln was present.
As for "Lord Hastings," you're probably right that it refers to William Hastings's son Edward. I hadn't realized that Hastings's barony was inheritable. Edward Hastings would have been twenty in June 1487, more than old enough to fight in a battle, and I can understand his fighting against Lincoln and Lovell, supporters of the man (Richard) who had executed his father.
Is Wikipedia right that his (Edward's) son married Buckingham's (*Henry* Stafford's) daughter, Stephen? Seems like the wrong generation.
Carol
>
> The participants could have included:
> The "son of the Duke of Norfolk" ie the Earl of Surrey, who was restored after Flodden.
> "Lord Hastings" would be William's son - Edward, iirc.
Carol responds:
Thanks, but the Battle of Flodden was fought in 1513 and Stoke in 1487 while Surrey was still in the Tower. (Surrey apparently had an opportunity to escape the Tower and join the rebellion but refused, leading Henry to release him in 1489.)
The passage reads "the son of the Duke of Norfolk [Suffolk], brother of the Earl of Lincoln," with the bracketed correction being that of the unnamed author of the English Heritage, so either Edmund, despite his youth and Yorkist affinities, was present in the battle against his older brother and Molinet is simply wrong in calling him the son of the Duke of Norfolk or Molinet is wrong on two counts and neither the son of the Duke of Norfolk (Surrey) nor the brother of the Earl of Lincoln was present.
As for "Lord Hastings," you're probably right that it refers to William Hastings's son Edward. I hadn't realized that Hastings's barony was inheritable. Edward Hastings would have been twenty in June 1487, more than old enough to fight in a battle, and I can understand his fighting against Lincoln and Lovell, supporters of the man (Richard) who had executed his father.
Is Wikipedia right that his (Edward's) son married Buckingham's (*Henry* Stafford's) daughter, Stephen? Seems like the wrong generation.
Carol
Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
2013-06-03 17:44:59
On the Duke's son, I must have tried the wrong correction to the contradiction.
Anyway, the third Baron Hastings was George, noting that Richard never found time to attaint his grandfather:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hastings,_1st_Earl_of_Huntingdon
Indeed he married Anne Stafford, daughter of "Harre Bokyngham". Note that two of their sons married Clarence's great-granddaughters and a daughter became Robert of Essex's grandmother.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> The participants could have included:
> The "son of the Duke of Norfolk" ie the Earl of Surrey, who was restored after Flodden.
> "Lord Hastings" would be William's son - Edward, iirc.
Carol responds:
Thanks, but the Battle of Flodden was fought in 1513 and Stoke in 1487 while Surrey was still in the Tower. (Surrey apparently had an opportunity to escape the Tower and join the rebellion but refused, leading Henry to release him in 1489.)
The passage reads "the son of the Duke of Norfolk [Suffolk], brother of the Earl of Lincoln," with the bracketed correction being that of the unnamed author of the English Heritage, so either Edmund, despite his youth and Yorkist affinities, was present in the battle against his older brother and Molinet is simply wrong in calling him the son of the Duke of Norfolk or Molinet is wrong on two counts and neither the son of the Duke of Norfolk (Surrey) nor the brother of the Earl of Lincoln was present.
As for "Lord Hastings," you're probably right that it refers to William Hastings's son Edward. I hadn't realized that Hastings's barony was inheritable. Edward Hastings would have been twenty in June 1487, more than old enough to fight in a battle, and I can understand his fighting against Lincoln and Lovell, supporters of the man (Richard) who had executed his father.
Is Wikipedia right that his (Edward's) son married Buckingham's (*Henry* Stafford's) daughter, Stephen? Seems like the wrong generation.
Carol
Anyway, the third Baron Hastings was George, noting that Richard never found time to attaint his grandfather:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hastings,_1st_Earl_of_Huntingdon
Indeed he married Anne Stafford, daughter of "Harre Bokyngham". Note that two of their sons married Clarence's great-granddaughters and a daughter became Robert of Essex's grandmother.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: John, Earl of Lincoln (Was: The Winter King is on YouTube)
"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> The participants could have included:
> The "son of the Duke of Norfolk" ie the Earl of Surrey, who was restored after Flodden.
> "Lord Hastings" would be William's son - Edward, iirc.
Carol responds:
Thanks, but the Battle of Flodden was fought in 1513 and Stoke in 1487 while Surrey was still in the Tower. (Surrey apparently had an opportunity to escape the Tower and join the rebellion but refused, leading Henry to release him in 1489.)
The passage reads "the son of the Duke of Norfolk [Suffolk], brother of the Earl of Lincoln," with the bracketed correction being that of the unnamed author of the English Heritage, so either Edmund, despite his youth and Yorkist affinities, was present in the battle against his older brother and Molinet is simply wrong in calling him the son of the Duke of Norfolk or Molinet is wrong on two counts and neither the son of the Duke of Norfolk (Surrey) nor the brother of the Earl of Lincoln was present.
As for "Lord Hastings," you're probably right that it refers to William Hastings's son Edward. I hadn't realized that Hastings's barony was inheritable. Edward Hastings would have been twenty in June 1487, more than old enough to fight in a battle, and I can understand his fighting against Lincoln and Lovell, supporters of the man (Richard) who had executed his father.
Is Wikipedia right that his (Edward's) son married Buckingham's (*Henry* Stafford's) daughter, Stephen? Seems like the wrong generation.
Carol
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.