Bosworth

Just been listening to Radio 4 in the car. They've just had an edition of
Country File from Bosworth.

The smart money among the local frmers seems to be on the action having
taken place close to Dadlington. This is the area where things get found in
the fields. Nothing apparently around Ambien Hill or the Battlefield Centre.

One farmer was interviewed who recounted how, many years ago, his father had
found what looked to be a bit of metal sticking up from the ground in a
copse. The experts were called in. It turned out to belong to a suit of
armour which was still intact with remains of skeleton - mostly decayed -
inside it. However, the armour turned out to be pretty well all rust and
collapsed to dust when it was exposed. So was this a knight of Richard's who
had crawled, probably wounded, into the copse in order to hide, and died
there?
This man also saw a group of 10 or 12 skeletons unearthed by the local
gravedigger in Dadlington churchyard in the 1930s.

There seems to be a lot of work going on now to establish where things
really happened, and the man from the visitor's centre says they're hoping
that ewithin 5 years they'll have a proper picture.

A fascinating programme, and the reporter was a Ricardian.

Marie

Thanks for that Marie. A friend phoned me to tell me I was missing the
programme<!> But didn¹t think to record it for me.
Maybe someone else taped it and can lend me a copy?
My Best
Paul

> From: "marie walsh" <marie@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:11:37 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Bosworth
>
>
>
> Just been listening to Radio 4 in the car. They've just had an edition of
> Country File from Bosworth.
>
> The smart money among the local frmers seems to be on the action having
> taken place close to Dadlington. This is the area where things get found in
> the fields. Nothing apparently around Ambien Hill or the Battlefield Centre.
>
> One farmer was interviewed who recounted how, many years ago, his father had
> found what looked to be a bit of metal sticking up from the ground in a
> copse. The experts were called in. It turned out to belong to a suit of
> armour which was still intact with remains of skeleton - mostly decayed -
> inside it. However, the armour turned out to be pretty well all rust and
> collapsed to dust when it was exposed. So was this a knight of Richard's who
> had crawled, probably wounded, into the copse in order to hide, and died
> there?
> This man also saw a group of 10 or 12 skeletons unearthed by the local
> gravedigger in Dadlington churchyard in the 1930s.
>
> There seems to be a lot of work going on now to establish where things
> really happened, and the man from the visitor's centre says they're hoping
> that ewithin 5 years they'll have a proper picture.
>
> A fascinating programme, and the reporter was a Ricardian.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Has anyone else seen the fascinating article by John D. Austin in the new
Ricardian Bulletin?

It is an update on discoveries made since MKJ's book in connection with his
new proposed battle site, and I thought anyone going to the Bosworth Sutdy
Day might want to hear.

He explains that "To the many local people who have an interest in our
history, life will never be quite the same again. The whole area, especially
Sheepy and Atterton where Jones suggests Richard III camped and the battle
was fought, has been searched as never before. Manor Court Rolls, deeds,
farm records, old maps, field and place names etc have been srutinsed and no
stones left unturned."

So far, to add to MKJ's King Dick's Hole (not another pet form here) & Royal
Meadow, we now have the following:
1) King Dick's Hole was associated with the Mythe Mill, and Mythe Manor
belonged to none other than Sir Humphrey Stafford of whom we have only just
been speaking. "Is this extraordinary coincidence, or did Stafford inform
the King of this ideal camp site? Dr Sean Cunningham. . . tells me that it
is likely that local knowledge would have been used by both commanders -
there is much evidence for Henry VII doing so before Stoke. . . "
Richard's likeliest route to Mythe Manor would have taken him through Sheepy
Magna. Here apparently there are:
2) a King Richard's Well, which once had an inscription identical to the one
originally placed on Dickon's Well by Dr Samuel Parr.
3) A field called King's Yard, marked on a plan of 1873 as "King's (Dick's)
Yard"
4) A King Richard's Bed, an ancient rope bedstead preserved in a farmhouse
and which (unlike the bed in Leicester), is said by the V & A to be possibly
as early as 1500.
5) A King Richard's Shield or buckler, sold at auction in 1950 and now lost
- locally believed to have been Richard's own shield
6) A local tradition that Richard sat by the fire at a certain farmhouse,
"that he gave the men the Freedom of the Village to allow them to fish in
the river, that they could sharpen their arrows on the church walls - you
can still see the deep marks"
7) Tales of lightweight horsehoes of the correct period being found in the
river
8) "Next week I am seeing another farmer who has some medieval buckles which
have been found on his land"

Also, to move to Tudor's end (would that it had been), in Merevale Hall are
some pieces of broken stained glass from c.1600 which when placed together
form a panel showing several blocks of pikemen in square formation (there is
an illustration of this panel with the article).This is the very 'pike
square', developed in the late 1470s to counter Burgundian cavalry, which
MKJ has claimed was used at Bosworth by Tudor's French mercenaries.

John D. Austin is bringing out a book about now on the finds, entitled
'Merevale and Atherstone 1485: Recent Bosworth Discoveries'.

Marie

----- Original Message -----
From: marie walsh
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 4:41 PM
Subject: Bosworth


Has anyone else seen the fascinating article by John D. Austin in the new
Ricardian Bulletin?

It is an update on discoveries made since MKJ's book in connection with his
new proposed battle site, and I thought anyone going to the Bosworth Sutdy
Day might want to hear.

He explains that "To the many local people who have an interest in our
history, life will never be quite the same again. The whole area, especially
Sheepy and Atterton where Jones suggests Richard III camped and the battle
was fought, has been searched as never before. Manor Court Rolls, deeds,
farm records, old maps, field and place names etc have been srutinsed and no
stones left unturned."

So far, to add to MKJ's King Dick's Hole (not another pet form here) & Royal
Meadow, we now have the following:
1) King Dick's Hole was associated with the Mythe Mill, and Mythe Manor
belonged to none other than Sir Humphrey Stafford of whom we have only just
been speaking. "Is this extraordinary coincidence, or did Stafford inform
the King of this ideal camp site? Dr Sean Cunningham. . . tells me that it
is likely that local knowledge would have been used by both commanders -
there is much evidence for Henry VII doing so before Stoke. . . "
Richard's likeliest route to Mythe Manor would have taken him through Sheepy
Magna. Here apparently there are:
2) a King Richard's Well, which once had an inscription identical to the one
originally placed on Dickon's Well by Dr Samuel Parr.
3) A field called King's Yard, marked on a plan of 1873 as "King's (Dick's)
Yard"
4) A King Richard's Bed, an ancient rope bedstead preserved in a farmhouse
and which (unlike the bed in Leicester), is said by the V & A to be possibly
as early as 1500.
5) A King Richard's Shield or buckler, sold at auction in 1950 and now lost
- locally believed to have been Richard's own shield
6) A local tradition that Richard sat by the fire at a certain farmhouse,
"that he gave the men the Freedom of the Village to allow them to fish in
the river, that they could sharpen their arrows on the church walls - you
can still see the deep marks"
7) Tales of lightweight horsehoes of the correct period being found in the
river
8) "Next week I am seeing another farmer who has some medieval buckles which
have been found on his land"

Also, to move to Tudor's end (would that it had been), in Merevale Hall are
some pieces of broken stained glass from c.1600 which when placed together
form a panel showing several blocks of pikemen in square formation (there is
an illustration of this panel with the article).This is the very 'pike
square', developed in the late 1470s to counter Burgundian cavalry, which
MKJ has claimed was used at Bosworth by Tudor's French mercenaries.

John D. Austin is bringing out a book about now on the finds, entitled
'Merevale and Atherstone 1485: Recent Bosworth Discoveries'.

Marie

Fascinating. Yes, I have read it and it tends to support Jones' ideas.
Just to clarify: the Staffords of Grafton (eg Sir Humphrey) separated from the "Buckingham line" in about 1250.
I have just found a Complete peerage website and plan to explore the latter soon.





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

It was a good day but very "Curate's Egg" (Good in parts). Still too many theories being proposed with little real evidence although a lot of work is being done on the Battle Site - including by the Leic Archaeology Dept which will, I suspect, prove the Dadlington Site to be correct.

Excellent presentation with all (or a good number) of copies of the original documents on display - which is how such things should be done.

I have the full list of speakers if anyone is interested and there is another symposium on 2nd October in the Lord Leycester Hospital in Warwich (after Saturday I will certainly be at that one).

Pikemen ? The stained glass window is 100% nothing to do with Bosworth - its almost certainly something like an Armada remembrance but it is a wonderful find whatever. It does not conform to 16th and 17th C representations of a battle in that all the troops are at rest (cf Speed, the Notts map which shows Stoke, etc) and the period is c.1600 which puts it right in the middle of a sequence from throughout the South and Midlands which commemorate the Armadas (and yes there is a deliberate 's' on that).

Hope all this waffle helps

Diomedes

--- In , diomedes5465@a...
wrote:
> It was a good day but very "Curate's Egg" (Good in parts). Still
too many theories being proposed with little real evidence although a
lot of work is being done on the Battle Site - including by the Leic
Archaeology Dept which will, I suspect, prove the Dadlington Site to
be correct.

I have my reservations about what you're saying here. I'm sure
everyone with a favoured site feels the other propositions are
superfluous to requirements, but it is surely far too early in the
day to rule any of them out. Also, I'm not sure how the case for
Dadlington can be properly said to be proved if no comparison will
have been made with the Atherstone site. And sadly that site, which
is partly in Warwickshire, is not as I understand within their remit.

>
> Excellent presentation with all (or a good number) of copies of the
original documents on display - which is how such things should be
done.
>
> I have the full list of speakers if anyone is interested and there
is another symposium on 2nd October in the Lord Leycester Hospital in
Warwich (after Saturday I will certainly be at that one).
>
> Pikemen ? The stained glass window is 100% nothing to do with
Bosworth - its almost certainly something like an Armada remembrance
but it is a wonderful find whatever. It does not conform to 16th and
17th C representations of a battle in that all the troops are at rest
(cf Speed, the Notts map which shows Stoke, etc) and the period is
c.1600 which puts it right in the middle of a sequence from
throughout the South and Midlands which commemorate the Armadas (and
yes there is a deliberate 's' on that).

That's extremely interesting. I'd come to the conclusion it was
nothing to do with Bosworth, but the Armada angle is very interesting.

Marie
>

.
Diomedes. Interesting name.
> Pikemen ? The stained glass window is 100% nothing to do with Bosworth - its
> almost certainly something like an Armada remembrance but it is a wonderful
> find whatever.
almost certainly? isn't that an oxymoron? Or Alison Weir speak more like!
:-)
Yet you are 100% certain it has nothing to do with Bosworth? How? Were you
there when the window was installed? What about the evidence linking it with
Henry Tudor? I would suggest you are speculating too in order for it to fit
into a personal theory

Speakers were incidentally Michael Hicks, Michael Jones, John Austin, Keith
Stenner, Ken Wright, David Hardwick and Paul Startin.
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:

> Yet you are 100% certain it has nothing to do with Bosworth? How?
Were you
> there when the window was installed? What about the evidence
linking it with
> Henry Tudor? I would suggest you are speculating too in order for
it to fit
> into a personal theory
>

We're speaking here, I assume, of the glass fragment pictured in the
most recent issue of the Ricardian Bulletin? The caption, of course,
prepared me to be skeptical of it as a Bosworth remembrance, but I
could swear I saw one of the guys in the foreground wearing (pardon
the imprecise term) those puffy pants they wore in Elizabethan times.

Who's sponsoring the October 2 study day in Warwick? The Society's
AGM is in Bristol, I think, and the Americans (U.S. and Canada) are
gathering together in Toronto. The Canadian branch is doing all the
heavy lifting, for which we are very grateful although it seems more
than a little unfair to them, and we'll have to find a good way to
reciprocate.

Hi Paul

Not at all a personal axe to grind (although it very much sounds like you
have) - it really makes no difference to me when the window was put in or what it
represents however it behoves us to be as objectionable in our reasoning as
possible.

I said it was NOT of Bosworth but an Armada remembrancer because

1. There was a convention, widely observed during the 16th C, and I know of
NO illustrations that break it, that "battles" were depicted with bodies of
pike (either in combat or going into combat) with their pikes angled, as I put
in the initial post the examples of this exist in multitudes - have a look at
the Tapestry Map in Nottingham Museum which shows Stoke, you'll then
understand. The window shows bodies of pike (and musket incidentally) at rest.

2. The window illustrates a costume type somewhere around 1600 (its hard to
be sure as the only figure easily discernible is an officer totally detached
from the scene at the right front) but his appearance, buff coat, etc. is
typical of that era - maybe as late as 1630 since older clothing is often shown.
The question that has to be asked is why would anyone put in a glass
commemorating Bosworth c.1600 ?

3. As I said the style and period fits exactly into a wide sequence of
similar glasses and paintings of Armada commemoration.

4. Of course I wasn''t there - such a comment is plainly puerile however I
was taught to look for the strongest evidence and that suggests an Armada
piece. Apart from its location in the area of The Battle of Bosworth there is
nothing to suggest it has anything to do with that battle. No Arms represented,
no obvious "King" character, no fighting, no bows (although anachronistic
representation is common at this period.

To argue for Bosworth is like arguing that the Essex window might show
Caesar's invasion or that the Farndon window (known to be c.1647 or slightly later)
represents the Stanleys coming from Man.

What evidence is there to link this window to Henry VII ? Yes, he passed
through but then again so did a lot of other people. To connect a Window to
someone who was there over a Century earlier is stretching the imagination more
than a little.

Now IF you have some evidence that the window has anything at all to do with
Bosworth Field, that the artist somehow was massively out of time with the way
he represented combat, that there is some evidence on the window of late
Renaissance Men at Arms and commanders in full plate, then I would love to hear
it.

Any by the way the positioning of the colours, and the numbers, fit exactly
with the style of the "Armada" (and I use that term only as a way of suggesting
a time period) Trained Bandes and is a duplicate of the painting of Elizabeth
I at the Tilbury Muster - near enough to suggest that the artist may even
have seen the painting.

A good line of investigation that would help would be to know who owned the
Abbey c.1600 and whether he, or his father, held any commission in the Trained
Bandes and whether any of the family had been influential in the County Bandes
c.1588-1598.

Now that's my evidence - over to you. Not guesswork that fits a pet theory -
evidence


Yet you are 100% certain it has nothing to do with Bosworth? How? Were you
there when the window was installed? What about the evidence linking it with
Henry Tudor? I would suggest you are speculating too in order for it to fit
into a personal theory

--- In , diomedes5465@a...
wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
> Not at all a personal axe to grind (although it very much sounds
like you
> have) - it really makes no difference to me when the window was put
in or what it
> represents however it behoves us to be as objectionable in our
reasoning as
> possible.
>
> I said it was NOT of Bosworth but an Armada remembrancer because
>
> 1. There was a convention, widely observed during the 16th C, and
I know of
> NO illustrations that break it, that "battles" were depicted with
bodies of
> pike (either in combat or going into combat) with their pikes
angled, as I put
> in the initial post the examples of this exist in multitudes - have
a look at
> the Tapestry Map in Nottingham Museum which shows Stoke, you'll
then
> understand. The window shows bodies of pike (and musket
incidentally) at rest.
>
> 2. The window illustrates a costume type somewhere around 1600
(its hard to
> be sure as the only figure easily discernible is an officer totally
detached
> from the scene at the right front) but his appearance, buff coat,
etc. is
> typical of that era - maybe as late as 1630 since older clothing is
often shown.
> The question that has to be asked is why would anyone put in a
glass
> commemorating Bosworth c.1600 ?
>
> 3. As I said the style and period fits exactly into a wide sequence
of
> similar glasses and paintings of Armada commemoration.
>
> 4. Of course I wasn''t there - such a comment is plainly puerile
however I
> was taught to look for the strongest evidence and that suggests an
Armada
> piece. Apart from its location in the area of The Battle of
Bosworth there is
> nothing to suggest it has anything to do with that battle. No Arms
represented,
> no obvious "King" character, no fighting, no bows (although
anachronistic
> representation is common at this period.
>
> To argue for Bosworth is like arguing that the Essex window might
show
> Caesar's invasion or that the Farndon window (known to be c.1647 or
slightly later)
> represents the Stanleys coming from Man.
>
> What evidence is there to link this window to Henry VII ? Yes, he
passed
> through but then again so did a lot of other people. To connect a
Window to
> someone who was there over a Century earlier is stretching the
imagination more
> than a little.
>
> Now IF you have some evidence that the window has anything at all
to do with
> Bosworth Field, that the artist somehow was massively out of time
with the way
> he represented combat, that there is some evidence on the window of
late
> Renaissance Men at Arms and commanders in full plate, then I would
love to hear
> it.

I'd just like to add to this that the Bosworth link has really been
suggested by the 'pike squares'. However, these had I believe become
common by the 17th century, and if we argue that it represents
Bosworth (and at that, specifically Bosworth a la MKJ) because it
illustrates pike squares, we cannot simultaneously explain away the
many muskets on the grounds that the 1600-1650 artist just depicted
the armies as they would have been in his own day.
There is a possibility that this is meant to represent Bosworth, but
on current evidence this cannot be put at the top of the list. The
dating of the panel is so uncertain at the moment that I believe the
Civil War has also been suggested as a candidate.

Marie

PS. I do not argue thus because I wish to denigrate the Atherstone
site or MKJ's vision of the battle. Far from it. That does not rest
on the evidence of this glass panel.

> Not at all a personal axe to grind (although it very much sounds like you
> have) - it really makes no difference to me when the window was put in or what
> it
> represents however it behoves us to be as objectionable in our reasoning as
> possible

No axe to grind except with anybody who says they "KNOW" with 100 per cent
certainty that something did or did not happen 500 years ago. e can't even
be that certain about things that happened 50 years ago, as records, even
film and photographic images, can be manipulated!
Being 100% certain I would respectfully suggest, is not retaining one's
objectivity in the least?
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > Not at all a personal axe to grind (although it very much sounds
like you
> > have) - it really makes no difference to me when the window was
put in or what
> > it
> > represents however it behoves us to be as objectionable in our
reasoning as
> > possible
>
> No axe to grind except with anybody who says they "KNOW" with 100
per cent
> certainty that something did or did not happen 500 years ago. e
can't even
> be that certain about things that happened 50 years ago, as
records, even
> film and photographic images, can be manipulated!
> Being 100% certain I would respectfully suggest, is not retaining
one's
> objectivity in the least?
> Paul

So you are not 100% certain that Henry Tudor wasn't actually an
avenging angel rescuing England from a psychopathic child-murdering
monster? Come on, Paul, give the guy a break.

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > Not at all a personal axe to grind (although it very much sounds
like you
> > have) - it really makes no difference to me when the window was
put in or what
> > it
> > represents however it behoves us to be as objectionable in our
reasoning as
> > possible
>
> No axe to grind except with anybody who says they "KNOW" with 100
per cent
> certainty that something did or did not happen 500 years ago.

Hold on at this point. Since the panel is unquestionably 1600 to
perhaps 1650 (as you will no doubt know from John Austin's lecture,
Paul) this is not an issue of what did or what didn't happen 500
years ago, rather a question of the fine details of a small event 350-
400 years ago: ie what it was that this early-17th century stained-
glass artist was attempting to depict. It may be that Diomedes is
happy to have the knowledge to enable him to discount the Merevale
panel because he personally is unimpressed by the general arguments
for the Atherstone site, but really each of these issues has to be
taken separately. After all, Austin himself is very uncommitted as to
the panel's likely relevance to Bosworth, so it really isn't
appropriate for us to be getting ourselves worked up over people
suggesting alternative explanations. Surely?
Personally, I'd be interested to understand more about these Armada
memorials and hope Diomedes will not be put off following up on this.

Surely we have to make allowances with each other for these posts
being written at speed. If listers felt they had to spend valuable
time agonising over wording as if theses were official published
articles we would be lucky to see one new post a week. And wouldn't
that be a shame?

Marie


We can't even
> be that certain about things that happened 50 years ago, as
records, even
> film and photographic images, can be manipulated!
> Being 100% certain I would respectfully suggest, is not retaining
one's
> objectivity in the least?
> Paul

--- In , diomedes5465@a...
wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
> Not at all a personal axe to grind (although it very much sounds
like you
> have) - it really makes no difference to me when the window was put
in or what it
> represents however it behoves us to be as objectionable in our
reasoning as
> possible.
>
> I said it was NOT of Bosworth but an Armada remembrancer because
>
> 1. There was a convention, widely observed during the 16th C, and
I know of
> NO illustrations that break it, that "battles" were depicted with
bodies of
> pike (either in combat or going into combat) with their pikes
angled, as I put
> in the initial post the examples of this exist in multitudes - have
a look at
> the Tapestry Map in Nottingham Museum which shows Stoke, you'll
then
> understand. The window shows bodies of pike (and musket
incidentally) at rest.
>
> 2. The window illustrates a costume type somewhere around 1600
(its hard to
> be sure as the only figure easily discernible is an officer totally
detached
> from the scene at the right front) but his appearance, buff coat,
etc. is
> typical of that era - maybe as late as 1630 since older clothing is
often shown.
> The question that has to be asked is why would anyone put in a
glass
> commemorating Bosworth c.1600 ?
>
> 3. As I said the style and period fits exactly into a wide sequence
of
> similar glasses and paintings of Armada commemoration.


Just to throw some more info into the pot. I have been reading
through john Austin's book now. When he wrote his basic summary of
the window it was in the belief that it dated from c.1600. Merevale
church, where the panel was originally placed, was connected with the
Devereux family (Ferrers of Chartley), and indeed Austin believes the
panel was probably placed in the north aisle, where there seems to
have been a Devereux memorial window. The Lord Ferrers of C of
Richard's day died on the Yorkist side at Bosworth, so as Austin
admits, a commemoration by the family of Tudor's army seems
inherently unlikely.
The Devereux' in 1600 were represented by Lady Jane Devereux. Austin
gives a few known facts of her life, which interestingly include a
contribution in 1588 to a national fund to help fight the Spanish
Armada (although I guess that wouldn't make her unsuaal).
However, before going to press Austin received a report back
from "Bill Harriman, who is an acknowleged expert in all firearms,
ballistics and general weapons modern and atique. . . He says that
the two formations to the right of the pikes are separate units of
musketeers, in a formation used from the 1640s. . . He thinks that
the panel shows pikes and muskets in a Civil War setting. This is
especially interesting as the Earl of Essex, the last Deveraux to own
the Merevale estates, was the general of Cromwell's Parliamentary
Army . . . Bill Harriman. . . concludes by saying that he considers
the Merevale panel is very rare and may be unique. He is not aware of
weaponry in any other church stained glass. . . "

Would the Armada memorials you refer to include stained glass windows
showing weaponry?

Marie

PS. Has anyone else tried the PCC wills online at the PRO website?
You can search on name and download for £3.50 each (I must admit I
had problem downloading and had to get my son to help). I have just
downloaded & printed off Cecily Neville's will, so will be
transcribing it as fast as time allows. One hint - searching on
Christian name is not very helpful for that period as the spellings
differed so much and the search engine doesn't seem to be set up to
recognise variants. They do offer a 'fuzzy search' but so far I've
found the best way for anyone with a title is just to put in the
title place (eg 'Exeter', 'York') as a keyword, with a vague date
range, and nothing else.

>

--- In , diomedes5465@a...
wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
> Not at all a personal axe to grind (although it very much sounds
like you
> have) - it really makes no difference to me when the window was
put in or what it
> represents however it behoves us to be as objectionable in our
reasoning as
> possible.

I tell you what, you be as objectionable as you like and we will try
and be objective! ;-)
>
> I said it was NOT of Bosworth but an Armada remembrancer because
>
> 1. There was a convention, widely observed during the 16th C, and
I know of
> NO illustrations that break it, that "battles" were depicted with
bodies of
> pike (either in combat or going into combat) with their pikes
angled, as I put
> in the initial post the examples of this exist in multitudes -
have a look at
> the Tapestry Map in Nottingham Museum which shows Stoke, you'll
then
> understand. The window shows bodies of pike (and musket
incidentally) at rest.

Suggestive of 1600 but not yet conclusive.
>
> 2. The window illustrates a costume type somewhere around 1600
(its hard to
> be sure as the only figure easily discernible is an officer
totally detached
> from the scene at the right front) but his appearance, buff coat,
etc. is
> typical of that era - maybe as late as 1630 since older clothing
is often shown.
> The question that has to be asked is why would anyone put in a
glass
> commemorating Bosworth c.1600 ?

Why would anyone paint Empson and Dudley in the 1540s? They did.
Just like they painted the princes inthe Tower in the 19thC, and
just about every other historical character you could choose. How
about Bacon being at this time and being interested in the battle
and Henry VII in general? Suppose this were his local church and he
had the window put in? Far fetched, but something of the sort could
happen, so again suggestive but not conclusive.
>
> 3. As I said the style and period fits exactly into a wide
sequence of
> similar glasses and paintings of Armada commemoration.

Fair enough but only circumstantial, even if more likely than
anything else.
>
> 4. Of course I wasn''t there - such a comment is plainly puerile
however I
> was taught to look for the strongest evidence and that suggests an
Armada
> piece. Apart from its location in the area of The Battle of
Bosworth there is
> nothing to suggest it has anything to do with that battle. No
Arms represented,
> no obvious "King" character, no fighting, no bows (although
anachronistic
> representation is common at this period.

So we have to consider why a church in the midlands would be
commemorating the Armada which was to a great extent a south
west/south-east and coastal event. We would need eveidence for a
connection - a commander from the area, a ship provided by the town,
a force sent to Tilbury, whatever. To be honest, since there was no
land battle associated with the Armada I can see no useful purpose
in commemorating it with a pike square. Surely a ship would be more
appropriate? Is it impossible it could even be Civil War?
>
> To argue for Bosworth is like arguing that the Essex window might
show
> Caesar's invasion or that the Farndon window (known to be c.1647
or slightly later)
> represents the Stanleys coming from Man.
>
> What evidence is there to link this window to Henry VII ? Yes, he
passed
> through but then again so did a lot of other people. To connect a
Window to
> someone who was there over a Century earlier is stretching the
imagination more
> than a little.

To connect a pike square to a naval engagement stretches mine a bit
too.
>
> Now IF you have some evidence that the window has anything at all
to do with
> Bosworth Field, that the artist somehow was massively out of time
with the way
> he represented combat, that there is some evidence on the window
of late
> Renaissance Men at Arms and commanders in full plate, then I would
love to hear
> it.
>
> Any by the way the positioning of the colours, and the numbers,
fit exactly
> with the style of the "Armada" (and I use that term only as a way
of suggesting
> a time period) Trained Bandes and is a duplicate of the painting
of Elizabeth
> I at the Tilbury Muster - near enough to suggest that the artist
may even
> have seen the painting.
>
> A good line of investigation that would help would be to know who
owned the
> Abbey c.1600 and whether he, or his father, held any commission in
the Trained
> Bandes and whether any of the family had been influential in the
County Bandes
> c.1588-1598.

Exactly.
B
>
> Now that's my evidence - over to you. Not guesswork that fits a
pet theory -
> evidence
>
>
> Yet you are 100% certain it has nothing to do with Bosworth? How?
Were you
> there when the window was installed? What about the evidence
linking it with
> Henry Tudor? I would suggest you are speculating too in order for
it to fit
> into a personal theory
>
>
>

--- In , diomedes5465@a...
wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
> Not at all a personal axe to grind (although it very much sounds
like you
> have) - it really makes no difference to me when the window was
put in or what it
> represents however it behoves us to be as objectionable in our
reasoning as
> possible.

I tell you what, you be as objectionable as you like and we will try
and be objective! ;-)
>
> I said it was NOT of Bosworth but an Armada remembrancer because
>
> 1. There was a convention, widely observed during the 16th C, and
I know of
> NO illustrations that break it, that "battles" were depicted with
bodies of
> pike (either in combat or going into combat) with their pikes
angled, as I put
> in the initial post the examples of this exist in multitudes -
have a look at
> the Tapestry Map in Nottingham Museum which shows Stoke, you'll
then
> understand. The window shows bodies of pike (and musket
incidentally) at rest.

Suggestive of 1600 but not yet conclusive.
>
> 2. The window illustrates a costume type somewhere around 1600
(its hard to
> be sure as the only figure easily discernible is an officer
totally detached
> from the scene at the right front) but his appearance, buff coat,
etc. is
> typical of that era - maybe as late as 1630 since older clothing
is often shown.
> The question that has to be asked is why would anyone put in a
glass
> commemorating Bosworth c.1600 ?

Why would anyone paint Empson and Dudley in the 1540s? They did.
Just like they painted the princes inthe Tower in the 19thC, and
just about every other historical character you could choose. How
about Bacon being at this time and being interested in the battle
and Henry VII in general? Suppose this were his local church and he
had the window put in? Far fetched, but something of the sort could
happen, so again suggestive but not conclusive.
>
> 3. As I said the style and period fits exactly into a wide
sequence of
> similar glasses and paintings of Armada commemoration.

Fair enough but only circumstantial, even if more likely than
anything else.
>
> 4. Of course I wasn''t there - such a comment is plainly puerile
however I
> was taught to look for the strongest evidence and that suggests an
Armada
> piece. Apart from its location in the area of The Battle of
Bosworth there is
> nothing to suggest it has anything to do with that battle. No
Arms represented,
> no obvious "King" character, no fighting, no bows (although
anachronistic
> representation is common at this period.

So we have to consider why a church in the midlands would be
commemorating the Armada which was to a great extent a south
west/south-east and coastal event. We would need eveidence for a
connection - a commander from the area, a ship provided by the town,
a force sent to Tilbury, whatever. To be honest, since there was no
land battle associated with the Armada I can see no useful purpose
in commemorating it with a pike square. Surely a ship would be more
appropriate? Is it impossible it could even be Civil War?
>
> To argue for Bosworth is like arguing that the Essex window might
show
> Caesar's invasion or that the Farndon window (known to be c.1647
or slightly later)
> represents the Stanleys coming from Man.
>
> What evidence is there to link this window to Henry VII ? Yes, he
passed
> through but then again so did a lot of other people. To connect a
Window to
> someone who was there over a Century earlier is stretching the
imagination more
> than a little.

To connect a pike square to a naval engagement stretches mine a bit
too.
>
> Now IF you have some evidence that the window has anything at all
to do with
> Bosworth Field, that the artist somehow was massively out of time
with the way
> he represented combat, that there is some evidence on the window
of late
> Renaissance Men at Arms and commanders in full plate, then I would
love to hear
> it.
>
> Any by the way the positioning of the colours, and the numbers,
fit exactly
> with the style of the "Armada" (and I use that term only as a way
of suggesting
> a time period) Trained Bandes and is a duplicate of the painting
of Elizabeth
> I at the Tilbury Muster - near enough to suggest that the artist
may even
> have seen the painting.
>
> A good line of investigation that would help would be to know who
owned the
> Abbey c.1600 and whether he, or his father, held any commission in
the Trained
> Bandes and whether any of the family had been influential in the
County Bandes
> c.1588-1598.

Exactly.
B
>
> Now that's my evidence - over to you. Not guesswork that fits a
pet theory -
> evidence
>
>
> Yet you are 100% certain it has nothing to do with Bosworth? How?
Were you
> there when the window was installed? What about the evidence
linking it with
> Henry Tudor? I would suggest you are speculating too in order for
it to fit
> into a personal theory
>
>
>

Brunhild - See my message on this thread dated 19th. This gives the
latest on dating of the panel and the church's connections (which you
ask about), from John Austin's book. As you'll see, it doesn't
disprove a Bosworth link, but tends to suggest it is the least likely
option. Unless the dress can be shown to be much earlier (personally
I find the picture too fuzzy to tell) I am inclined to think the
Civil War is the likeliest subject on present evidence.

Marie

Brunhilde !

I was not, as you put it "objectionable" - unless of course it is considered
"objectionable" to reason something that someone does not agree with - I
thought that the Group was for discussion of ideas supported by debate and citing
of sources - I guess that I was wrong although I am constantly amazed at how
narrow some people's knowledge is....

You say that to use a Pike Block to "represent" or commemorate the Armada
stretches the imagination ? Yet that is exactly what was done (and I quoted some
examples - oh I forgot you cannot read a post let alone a book).

The Armada was a Southern Affair ?????????
(and by the way I specifically stressed ArmadaS - big capital "S" so that you
can see it this time).

Try actually looking at a study of England in the era and you will see that
in 1588 the Trained Bandes OF ALL THE MIDLANDS COUNTIES WERE MUSTERED AT THE
TILBURY CAMP. 1588 was the biggest Trained Bande muster EVER.

I have no problem with debating but please go and read a book and come back
with some serious comments not some half-baked shooting from the hip. Or at
least read my post before to try to criticise them.

It seems obvious to me that this group is NOT here to actually discuss
current ideas but merely to abuse anyone who may dare to argue with a current
theory. Fine I think I should join another Group that is interested in discussing
facts and their various interpretations.

This WILL be my last post and I wish you all luck since if your level of
"debate" is to hurl abuse then you will NEVER progress beyond whatever theory
holds sway at the moment.

Diomedes

Brunhilde and List

Comments below:


>--- In , "brunhild613"
><brunhild@n...> wrote:
>--- In , diomedes5465@a...
>wrote:
>> Hi Paul
>>
>> Not at all a personal axe to grind (although it very much sounds
>like you
>> have) - it really makes no difference to me when the window was
>put in or what it
>> represents however it behoves us to be as objectionable in our
>reasoning as
>> possible.
>
>I tell you what, you be as objectionable as you like and we will try
>and be objective! ;-)
>>
>> I said it was NOT of Bosworth but an Armada remembrancer because
>>
>> 1. There was a convention, widely observed during the 16th C, and
>I know of
>> NO illustrations that break it, that "battles" were depicted with
>bodies of
>> pike (either in combat or going into combat) with their pikes
>angled, as I put
>> in the initial post the examples of this exist in multitudes -
>have a look at
>> the Tapestry Map in Nottingham Museum which shows Stoke, you'll
>then
>> understand. The window shows bodies of pike (and musket
>incidentally) at rest.
>
>Suggestive of 1600 but not yet conclusive.

What is conclusive is that it is not an indication of a battle! To
Diomedes' post I would point to sets of playing cards depicting events
in the Monmouth Rebellion (in 1685!)in which the battle scenes are shown
with pikes embattled (i.e angled as if for action). This is not unusual
and represents an artistic convention stemming from the Middle Ages when
it was common to show a battle/combat in terms of a melee (mounted or on
foot as in the Beauchamp Roll). This applies to both allegorical and
literal depictions. One also sees it in contemporary illustrations from
the late C1th/early C16th (various tapestries or panels) of the Siege of
Alesia (?1523), the battles of Fornovo (1495) Marignano (1516) from the
Renaissance. Another good example is the 1531 Pavia tapestry depicting
the 1525 battle.

The panel is certainly not indicative of the C15th! As far as the large
format illustration that John D Austin displayed at the Bosworth
conference it is difficult to discern precise clothing details (not
helped by forgetting my reading glasses!). The costume of the 'officer'
figure in the foreground has baggy breeches and a short doublet or maybe
a buff coat. I was unable to tell whether the figure bore a ruff or a
turn down collar. If the former it is more likely to be early C17th or
C16th rather than mid C17th but I could not tell.

I find it (i.e. the officer) broadly reminiscent of some of the figures
on the funeral roll of Sir Phillip Sidney (d1587). For another example
of a late C16th depiction of specifically English troops I would
recommend the series of woodcuts by John Derrick which show the
expedition of the Sir Henry Sidney (c.1578)in Ireland. You actually see
figures depicted in combat, but when Sidney is receiving a messenger the
pike, halberdier and horse are depicted with their polearms straight up
(at attention?). The shot (calivermen in this case) are depicted with
shouldered arms.

Now if the panel is from a Civil War window when was it put in? The one
extant commemorative window that dates from the civil war is in Farndon
Church in Cheshire. It marks the service of the officers of Sir William
Gamul's regiment (Chester City trained bands) and was erected in c1647
having been paid for by the officers. How it survived the iconoclasm
which prevailed in the church during the years of the Commonwealth and
Protectorate I do not know, BUT it is RARE. I can think of no other
comparable example (but would like to here of any others!).

During the Civil War the freehold of Merivale belonged to the Earl of
Essex (see below) who was Lord General of the Army for King and
Parliament until early 1645 BUT the house was occupied by the family of
Lord Hereford who were tenants. So a possibility exists that the panel
may come from a commemoration of Robert Devereux, the Lord General who
died in 1646. I do not favour this interpretation for reasons which
become evident below but it is a possibility. The Earl of Essex (Robert
Devereux's heir general no doubt) sold the freehold c.1647 which might
be considered to provide an upper age bracket and possibly even a date
if a Civil War theme.

As Diomedes has pointed out there are several Armada commemorations.
This is because the 'defeat' of the Armada was seen as a sign of Divine
Providence and a mark of the Lord's special favour for England. That was
the Elizabethan and Stuart official line. See any number of books
brought out about the Armada to mark the 400th anniversary in 1988.

>>
>> 2. The window illustrates a costume type somewhere around 1600
>(its hard to
>> be sure as the only figure easily discernible is an officer
>totally detached
>> from the scene at the right front) but his appearance, buff coat,
>etc. is
>> typical of that era - maybe as late as 1630 since older clothing
>is often shown.
>> The question that has to be asked is why would anyone put in a
>glass
>> commemorating Bosworth c.1600 ?
>
>Why would anyone paint Empson and Dudley in the 1540s? They did.
>Just like they painted the princes inthe Tower in the 19thC, and
>just about every other historical character you could choose. How
>about Bacon being at this time and being interested in the battle
>and Henry VII in general? Suppose this were his local church and he
>had the window put in? Far fetched, but something of the sort could
>happen, so again suggestive but not conclusive.

Brunhilde, one must learn to distinguish the possible from the probable.
The Armada 'possibility' fits in with a trend within the late
C16th/early C17th which makes it 'probable' (not definite mark you). The
Bacon business is a 'possibility' but hardly 'probable' (you just made
that up did you not?-). The Civil War attribution is also a
'possibility' but, in my mind at least, has a lower 'probability' than
the Armada option.

In fact at the time of the Armada Merevale was occupied (as a tenancy)
by Lady Jane Devereux widow of Sir John Devereux (d.1579). Lady Jane
died in 1606 when she directed in will that the Earl of Essex (her
nephew) to whom the estate was entailed should maintain (in the sense of
leave in situ) the 'glasse' and sundry other fittings in the Great Hall
for as long as the Earl was in possession. The tenancy (but not the
freehold) passed to Lady Jane's son in law William, Lord Hereford on her
death.

William Viscount Hereford's family remained in situ until the freehold
was sold by the then Earl of Essex in the mid C17th. There is a possible
Armada link via Lord Hereford who was one of the noble men who received
a summons from Elizabeth I to attend the 'upon our person , with such a
convenient number of lances and lighthorses as may stand with your
ability, to be ready to repair hither at such time as you shall receive
notice of our pleasure by our Privy Council'. The letter in which this
was written is dated 2nd June 1588 and sent to 18 peers (including
Hereford).

Of course I do not know if Lord Hereford actually did attend the Queen
at Tilbury but he was supposed to be there (the pay rolls probably lurk
within the PRO and may supply the answer). If the panel is part of an
Armada commemoration then I suspect it may have been part of a larger
project commissioned by Lady Devereux or Lord Hereford in the 1590s or
early 1600s.

>>
>> 3. As I said the style and period fits exactly into a wide
>sequence of
>> similar glasses and paintings of Armada commemoration.
>
>Fair enough but only circumstantial, even if more likely than
>anything else.

Much of the 'evidence' in John D Austin's book is circumstantial! This
is not to denigrate Austin's enthusiasm and industry. But a lot of the
'evidence' in his book is proof of nothing other than folklore (this
includes the greater part of the 'oral tradition'). Most of it cannot be
documented back to the time of the battle. He does us a service in the
sense that he documents this material but does on occasion let his
enthusiasm run away with him when it comes to interpretation.

He is very useful on the window (well he first recognised it AND more
importantly remembered it later), he reprints in translation the text of
the two Compensation Grants (Jones did not do that), he is good on
Merevale (if a little disorganised) and provides other snippets here and
there. Alas most of the placename 'oral tradition' is just that. Another
speaker at the conference (Ken Wright) pointed out that there were 'King
Dick' oral traditions in Sutton Cheney as well as on Ambion and no one
now seriously contemplates either of these as a possible (or even
probable) site of the battle. Indeed, I suggest it may be that there is
not a parish the western half of Sparking Hundred that does not have a
'King Dick/Richard' tradition or association. Now the distribution of
such 'oral traditions' when mapped out over the area of several parishes
MIGHT give some indications as to a battle site BUT it would only be in
support of and in addition to more concrete documentary and
archaeological evidence.



>>
>> 4. Of course I wasn''t there - such a comment is plainly puerile
>however I
>> was taught to look for the strongest evidence and that suggests an
>Armada
>> piece. Apart from its location in the area of The Battle of
>Bosworth there is
>> nothing to suggest it has anything to do with that battle. No
>Arms represented,
>> no obvious "King" character, no fighting, no bows (although
>anachronistic
>> representation is common at this period.
>
>So we have to consider why a church in the midlands would be
>commemorating the Armada which was to a great extent a south
>west/south-east and coastal event. We would need eveidence for a
>connection - a commander from the area, a ship provided by the town,
>a force sent to Tilbury, whatever. To be honest, since there was no
>land battle associated with the Armada I can see no useful purpose
>in commemorating it with a pike square. Surely a ship would be more
>appropriate? Is it impossible it could even be Civil War?


Dear Brunhild you are quite wrong about the Armada. The trained bands in
1588 were assigned (by the Privy Council) specific roles. Those from the
south west (Devon, Cornwall) under Sir Walter Raliegh was mobilised in
case of a landing down there. The Council of Wales was to muster the
Welsh trained bands in defence of the Principality. The trained bands in
the North (= Presidency of the North) were held in readiness just in
case Scotland should not prove to be neutral, whilst that from Southern
England, East Anglia and the Midlands was directed to be ready for the
rendezvous at the large camp in Tilbury. Thus an Armada commemoration is
not at all unlikely on the basis of geographical location. See above for
my spin on Civil war possibilities.

Just to give you some extra context in March and April 1588 Warwickshire
was to supply 600 foot (trained and armed) to be mustered under Sir
Henry Goodyeare with the levies of Leicestershire, Huntingdon and
Worcestershire to form a single regiment. In addition the county was to
supply a portion of 371 lances (i.e demilances, heavy cavalry troopers)
and 2114 light horse (not so heavy, but still armoured troopers) with 14
other counties. The summons to Lord Hereford for cavalry (mentioned
above) would be in addition to this figure.

In July the required number of levies had fallen to 500 foot with 17
lances and 76 lighthorse from Warwickshire. In August 1599 when there
were fears of a second Armada Warwickshire was assessed at providing
2000 men for the defence of the Queen's person.



>>
>> To argue for Bosworth is like arguing that the Essex window might
>show
>> Caesar's invasion or that the Farndon window (known to be c.1647
>or slightly later)
>> represents the Stanleys coming from Man.
>>
>> What evidence is there to link this window to Henry VII ? Yes, he
>passed
>> through but then again so did a lot of other people. To connect a
>Window to
>> someone who was there over a Century earlier is stretching the
>imagination more
>> than a little.
>
>To connect a pike square to a naval engagement stretches mine a bit
>too.

This if you do not mind me saying so is more than a little fatuous and
hardly constructive. Diomedes is attempting to make a positive construct
based on his reading of the evidence, you are merely being negative
because you do not like what he says. Please give your arguments. Marie
has shown us the way in this and is an example to us all.

>>
>> Now IF you have some evidence that the window has anything at all
>to do with
>> Bosworth Field, that the artist somehow was massively out of time
>with the way
>> he represented combat, that there is some evidence on the window
>of late
>> Renaissance Men at Arms and commanders in full plate, then I would
>love to hear
>> it.
>>
>> Any by the way the positioning of the colours, and the numbers,
>fit exactly
>> with the style of the "Armada" (and I use that term only as a way
>of suggesting
>> a time period) Trained Bandes and is a duplicate of the painting
>of Elizabeth
>> I at the Tilbury Muster - near enough to suggest that the artist
>may even
>> have seen the painting.
>>
>> A good line of investigation that would help would be to know who
>owned the
>> Abbey c.1600 and whether he, or his father, held any commission in
>the Trained
>> Bandes and whether any of the family had been influential in the
>County Bandes
>> c.1588-1598.
>
>Exactly.
>B
>>
>> Now that's my evidence - over to you. Not guesswork that fits a
>pet theory -
>> evidence
>>
>>
>> Yet you are 100% certain it has nothing to do with Bosworth? How?
>Were you
>> there when the window was installed? What about the evidence
>linking it with
>> Henry Tudor? I would suggest you are speculating too in order for
>it to fit
>> into a personal theory
>>
>>
It was in the hands of a branch of the Devereux family, see above
comments.

I hope that this is some help.

Regards

Bill
--
Bill Braham

--- In , diomedes5465@a...
wrote:
> Brunhilde !
>
> I was not, as you put it "objectionable" - unless of course it is
considered
> "objectionable" to reason something that someone does not agree
with - I
> thought that the Group was for discussion of ideas supported by
debate and citing
> of sources - I guess that I was wrong although I am constantly
amazed at how
> narrow some people's knowledge is....


Diomedes, it was you who used the word "objectionable" in an earlier
post, though you meant "objective":

******
From: diomedes5465@a...
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:48 pm
Subject: Boswort


Hi Paul

Not at all a personal axe to grind (although it very much sounds like
you
have) - it really makes no difference to me when the window was put
in or what
it
represents however it behoves us to be as objectionable in our
reasoning as
possible

********

Perhaps the reply to your post used the word "objectionable" not to
insult you, but as gentle irony because you did.

Katy

Diomedes

I am sorry that you are leaving as I think that you may have a lot to
the group to offer beyond mere speculation.

Bill


--- In , diomedes5465@a...
wrote:
> Brunhilde !
>
> I was not, as you put it "objectionable" - unless of course it is
considered
> "objectionable" to reason something that someone does not agree
with - I
> thought that the Group was for discussion of ideas supported by
debate and citing
> of sources - I guess that I was wrong although I am constantly
amazed at how
> narrow some people's knowledge is....
>
> You say that to use a Pike Block to "represent" or commemorate the
Armada
> stretches the imagination ? Yet that is exactly what was done (and
I quoted some
> examples - oh I forgot you cannot read a post let alone a book).
>
> The Armada was a Southern Affair ?????????
> (and by the way I specifically stressed ArmadaS - big capital "S"
so that you
> can see it this time).
>
> Try actually looking at a study of England in the era and you will
see that
> in 1588 the Trained Bandes OF ALL THE MIDLANDS COUNTIES WERE
MUSTERED AT THE
> TILBURY CAMP. 1588 was the biggest Trained Bande muster EVER.
>
> I have no problem with debating but please go and read a book and
come back
> with some serious comments not some half-baked shooting from the
hip. Or at
> least read my post before to try to criticise them.
>
> It seems obvious to me that this group is NOT here to actually
discuss
> current ideas but merely to abuse anyone who may dare to argue with
a current
> theory. Fine I think I should join another Group that is
interested in discussing
> facts and their various interpretations.
>
> This WILL be my last post and I wish you all luck since if your
level of
> "debate" is to hurl abuse then you will NEVER progress beyond
whatever theory
> holds sway at the moment.
>
> Diomedes
>
>
>
>
>

I am somewhat of a lurker on the forum and have greatly enjoyed reading
your lively discussions- up until a week ago.

I'm dismayed at the total lack of respect some members appear to have
for each other if they have conflicting views. It is quite possible to
disagree with a person's opinion without resorting to personal attacks.

It might be useful to remember that this is a public forum - anybody can
sign up and access your discussions. They hardly show the Society in a
good light!

500 years on and we are still squabbling amongst ourselves.

Even as I write this I am anticipating an acidic response pointing out
grammatical errors etc.

As a group we should really be ashamed that we've come to this.

Dianne





-----Original Message-----
From: billbraham1957 [mailto:bill@...]
Sent: 26 June 2004 01:26
To:
Subject: Re: Bosworth



Diomedes

I am sorry that you are leaving as I think that you may have a lot to
the group to offer beyond mere speculation.

Bill


--- In , diomedes5465@a...
wrote:
> Brunhilde !
>
> I was not, as you put it "objectionable" - unless of course it is
considered
> "objectionable" to reason something that someone does not agree
with - I
> thought that the Group was for discussion of ideas supported by
debate and citing
> of sources - I guess that I was wrong although I am constantly
amazed at how
> narrow some people's knowledge is....
>
> You say that to use a Pike Block to "represent" or commemorate the
Armada
> stretches the imagination ? Yet that is exactly what was done (and
I quoted some
> examples - oh I forgot you cannot read a post let alone a book).
>
> The Armada was a Southern Affair ?????????
> (and by the way I specifically stressed ArmadaS - big capital "S"
so that you
> can see it this time).
>
> Try actually looking at a study of England in the era and you will
see that
> in 1588 the Trained Bandes OF ALL THE MIDLANDS COUNTIES WERE
MUSTERED AT THE
> TILBURY CAMP. 1588 was the biggest Trained Bande muster EVER.
>
> I have no problem with debating but please go and read a book and
come back
> with some serious comments not some half-baked shooting from the
hip. Or at
> least read my post before to try to criticise them.
>
> It seems obvious to me that this group is NOT here to actually
discuss
> current ideas but merely to abuse anyone who may dare to argue with
a current
> theory. Fine I think I should join another Group that is
interested in discussing
> facts and their various interpretations.
>
> This WILL be my last post and I wish you all luck since if your
level of
> "debate" is to hurl abuse then you will NEVER progress beyond
whatever theory
> holds sway at the moment.
>
> Diomedes
>
>
>
>
>





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT
click here
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129rr6bh4/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/
D=groups/S=1705297333:HM/EXP=1088295970/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*htt
p:/companion.yahoo.com>


<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=group
s/S=:HM/A=2128215/rand=328487123>



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

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


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsub
scribe>


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

> Diomedes
>
> I am sorry that you are leaving as I think that you may have a lot to
> the group to offer beyond mere speculation.
>
> Bill

I have to agree with Bill here.
I think some latitude is needed on line to maybe give people the benefit of
the doubt sometimes regarding their sense of humour. I do think you are over
reacting to Brunhilde's response, and ask you to reconsider.
Paul

Like you Diane I am a lurker here and I agree totally with you. I have
followed the debate about the Merivale glass with some interest since I saw the
photographs at the Bosworth Conference. For my point I tend to agree with
Diomedes' reasoning and I think its a shame that some here should have resorted to
abuse and lost us someone whose skin may have been rather thin but who seemed
to have had a lot to offer.

I feel that we should be able to discuss all topics without the need to go to
personal abuse or childish put downs.

Oh, and before anyone adds 2 + 2 ! Yes, it was me that wrote the essay in
Richard III : Crown and People arguing that Richard actually was responsible for
the murder of the "Princes in the Tower" (how I hate that term). I still
believe that was so, but I also believe that Richard would have been a fool not
to have done it - and whatever Richard was or was not, no-one has ever called
him a fool. A highly intelligent political animal ? yes. A Fool ? most
definately not.

Okay so there's some ammunition for anyone who wants to sling abuse rather
than argue with supported facts.

Stephen Ede-Borrett
Chairman, The Pike & Shot Society

--- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
wrote:
>
>
> Brunhild - See my message on this thread dated 19th. This gives
the
> latest on dating of the panel and the church's connections (which
you
> ask about), from John Austin's book. As you'll see, it doesn't
> disprove a Bosworth link, but tends to suggest it is the least
likely
> option. Unless the dress can be shown to be much earlier
(personally
> I find the picture too fuzzy to tell) I am inclined to think the
> Civil War is the likeliest subject on present evidence.
>
> Marie

Thanks Marie - typically, I read the original post and replied, and
then read other replies including the one you mention! Must remember
not to do that!
B

--- In , diomedes5465@a...
wrote:
> Brunhilde !
>
> I was not, as you put it "objectionable" - unless of course it is
considered
> "objectionable" to reason something that someone does not agree
with - I
> thought that the Group was for discussion of ideas supported by
debate and citing
> of sources - I guess that I was wrong although I am constantly
amazed at how
> narrow some people's knowledge is....

I am sorry you misread my little joke at your malapropism! You
accidentally wrote that you were being objectionable and I tried to
lighten the atmosphere a little - ah well, perhaps I should stick to
being terribly earnest. I didn't, as it happens, think you were at
fault.
>
> You say that to use a Pike Block to "represent" or commemorate the
Armada
> stretches the imagination ? Yet that is exactly what was done
(and I quoted some
> examples - oh I forgot you cannot read a post let alone a book).

Excuse me, since I have not been rude to you I see no need for you
to be rude to me.
>
> The Armada was a Southern Affair ?????????
> (and by the way I specifically stressed ArmadaS - big capital "S"
so that you
> can see it this time).
>
> Try actually looking at a study of England in the era and you will
see that
> in 1588 the Trained Bandes OF ALL THE MIDLANDS COUNTIES WERE
MUSTERED AT THE
> TILBURY CAMP. 1588 was the biggest Trained Bande muster EVER.
>
> I have no problem with debating but please go and read a book and
come back
> with some serious comments not some half-baked shooting from the
hip. Or at
> least read my post before to try to criticise them.

At this point I am seriously inclined to tell you in no uncertain
terms how rude you actually are, having just changed my mind about
my previous comments. Under the circumstances, since you cannot
discuss without rudeness I shall cease to converse with you.
>
> It seems obvious to me that this group is NOT here to actually
discuss
> current ideas but merely to abuse anyone who may dare to argue
with a current
> theory. Fine I think I should join another Group that is
interested in discussing
> facts and their various interpretations.
>
> This WILL be my last post and I wish you all luck since if your
level of
> "debate" is to hurl abuse then you will NEVER progress beyond
whatever theory
> holds sway at the moment.
>
> Diomedes
>
Good.
>
>
>
>

Excuse me, but I was quite in sympathy with the idea that it was
17C, I merely said it was not PROVEN. And it isn't, only highly
suggestive, which I said. I dfail to understand why I am being
singled out for attack simply because I didn't JUMP at the idea that
it was c1600 - I suggested it was likely to be later, since it is in
fact highly reminiscent of other windows which are certainly Civil
war. This is the first occasion since I have been using the forum
that people have been rude, and if peope are going to accuse me of
not reading posts properly perhaps they should take their own advice
and do so themselves.


--- In , Bill Braham
<bill@w...> wrote:
> Brunhilde and List
>
> Comments below:
>
>
> >--- In , "brunhild613"
> ><brunhild@n...> wrote:
> >--- In , diomedes5465@a...
> >wrote:
> >> Hi Paul
> >>
> >> Not at all a personal axe to grind (although it very much sounds
> >like you
> >> have) - it really makes no difference to me when the window was
> >put in or what it
> >> represents however it behoves us to be as objectionable in our
> >reasoning as
> >> possible.
> >
> >I tell you what, you be as objectionable as you like and we will
try
> >and be objective! ;-)
> >>
> >> I said it was NOT of Bosworth but an Armada remembrancer because
> >>
> >> 1. There was a convention, widely observed during the 16th C,
and
> >I know of
> >> NO illustrations that break it, that "battles" were depicted
with
> >bodies of
> >> pike (either in combat or going into combat) with their pikes
> >angled, as I put
> >> in the initial post the examples of this exist in multitudes -
> >have a look at
> >> the Tapestry Map in Nottingham Museum which shows Stoke, you'll
> >then
> >> understand. The window shows bodies of pike (and musket
> >incidentally) at rest.
> >
> >Suggestive of 1600 but not yet conclusive.
>
> What is conclusive is that it is not an indication of a battle! To
> Diomedes' post I would point to sets of playing cards depicting
events
> in the Monmouth Rebellion (in 1685!)in which the battle scenes are
shown
> with pikes embattled (i.e angled as if for action). This is not
unusual
> and represents an artistic convention stemming from the Middle
Ages when
> it was common to show a battle/combat in terms of a melee (mounted
or on
> foot as in the Beauchamp Roll). This applies to both allegorical
and
> literal depictions. One also sees it in contemporary illustrations
from
> the late C1th/early C16th (various tapestries or panels) of the
Siege of
> Alesia (?1523), the battles of Fornovo (1495) Marignano (1516)
from the
> Renaissance. Another good example is the 1531 Pavia tapestry
depicting
> the 1525 battle.
>
> The panel is certainly not indicative of the C15th! As far as the
large
> format illustration that John D Austin displayed at the Bosworth
> conference it is difficult to discern precise clothing details
(not
> helped by forgetting my reading glasses!). The costume of
the 'officer'
> figure in the foreground has baggy breeches and a short doublet or
maybe
> a buff coat. I was unable to tell whether the figure bore a ruff
or a
> turn down collar. If the former it is more likely to be early
C17th or
> C16th rather than mid C17th but I could not tell.
>
> I find it (i.e. the officer) broadly reminiscent of some of the
figures
> on the funeral roll of Sir Phillip Sidney (d1587). For another
example
> of a late C16th depiction of specifically English troops I would
> recommend the series of woodcuts by John Derrick which show the
> expedition of the Sir Henry Sidney (c.1578)in Ireland. You
actually see
> figures depicted in combat, but when Sidney is receiving a
messenger the
> pike, halberdier and horse are depicted with their polearms
straight up
> (at attention?). The shot (calivermen in this case) are depicted
with
> shouldered arms.
>
> Now if the panel is from a Civil War window when was it put in?
The one
> extant commemorative window that dates from the civil war is in
Farndon
> Church in Cheshire. It marks the service of the officers of Sir
William
> Gamul's regiment (Chester City trained bands) and was erected in
c1647
> having been paid for by the officers. How it survived the
iconoclasm
> which prevailed in the church during the years of the Commonwealth
and
> Protectorate I do not know, BUT it is RARE. I can think of no
other
> comparable example (but would like to here of any others!).
>
> During the Civil War the freehold of Merivale belonged to the Earl
of
> Essex (see below) who was Lord General of the Army for King and
> Parliament until early 1645 BUT the house was occupied by the
family of
> Lord Hereford who were tenants. So a possibility exists that the
panel
> may come from a commemoration of Robert Devereux, the Lord General
who
> died in 1646. I do not favour this interpretation for reasons
which
> become evident below but it is a possibility. The Earl of Essex
(Robert
> Devereux's heir general no doubt) sold the freehold c.1647 which
might
> be considered to provide an upper age bracket and possibly even a
date
> if a Civil War theme.
>
> As Diomedes has pointed out there are several Armada
commemorations.
> This is because the 'defeat' of the Armada was seen as a sign of
Divine
> Providence and a mark of the Lord's special favour for England.
That was
> the Elizabethan and Stuart official line. See any number of books
> brought out about the Armada to mark the 400th anniversary in 1988.
>
> >>
> >> 2. The window illustrates a costume type somewhere around 1600
> >(its hard to
> >> be sure as the only figure easily discernible is an officer
> >totally detached
> >> from the scene at the right front) but his appearance, buff
coat,
> >etc. is
> >> typical of that era - maybe as late as 1630 since older clothing
> >is often shown.
> >> The question that has to be asked is why would anyone put in a
> >glass
> >> commemorating Bosworth c.1600 ?
> >
> >Why would anyone paint Empson and Dudley in the 1540s? They did.
> >Just like they painted the princes inthe Tower in the 19thC, and
> >just about every other historical character you could choose. How
> >about Bacon being at this time and being interested in the battle
> >and Henry VII in general? Suppose this were his local church and
he
> >had the window put in? Far fetched, but something of the sort
could
> >happen, so again suggestive but not conclusive.
>
> Brunhilde, one must learn to distinguish the possible from the
probable.
> The Armada 'possibility' fits in with a trend within the late
> C16th/early C17th which makes it 'probable' (not definite mark
you). The
> Bacon business is a 'possibility' but hardly 'probable' (you just
made
> that up did you not?-). The Civil War attribution is also a
> 'possibility' but, in my mind at least, has a lower 'probability'
than
> the Armada option.
>
> In fact at the time of the Armada Merevale was occupied (as a
tenancy)
> by Lady Jane Devereux widow of Sir John Devereux (d.1579). Lady
Jane
> died in 1606 when she directed in will that the Earl of Essex (her
> nephew) to whom the estate was entailed should maintain (in the
sense of
> leave in situ) the 'glasse' and sundry other fittings in the Great
Hall
> for as long as the Earl was in possession. The tenancy (but not
the
> freehold) passed to Lady Jane's son in law William, Lord Hereford
on her
> death.
>
> William Viscount Hereford's family remained in situ until the
freehold
> was sold by the then Earl of Essex in the mid C17th. There is a
possible
> Armada link via Lord Hereford who was one of the noble men who
received
> a summons from Elizabeth I to attend the 'upon our person , with
such a
> convenient number of lances and lighthorses as may stand with your
> ability, to be ready to repair hither at such time as you shall
receive
> notice of our pleasure by our Privy Council'. The letter in which
this
> was written is dated 2nd June 1588 and sent to 18 peers (including
> Hereford).
>
> Of course I do not know if Lord Hereford actually did attend the
Queen
> at Tilbury but he was supposed to be there (the pay rolls probably
lurk
> within the PRO and may supply the answer). If the panel is part of
an
> Armada commemoration then I suspect it may have been part of a
larger
> project commissioned by Lady Devereux or Lord Hereford in the
1590s or
> early 1600s.
>
> >>
> >> 3. As I said the style and period fits exactly into a wide
> >sequence of
> >> similar glasses and paintings of Armada commemoration.
> >
> >Fair enough but only circumstantial, even if more likely than
> >anything else.
>
> Much of the 'evidence' in John D Austin's book is circumstantial!
This
> is not to denigrate Austin's enthusiasm and industry. But a lot of
the
> 'evidence' in his book is proof of nothing other than folklore
(this
> includes the greater part of the 'oral tradition'). Most of it
cannot be
> documented back to the time of the battle. He does us a service in
the
> sense that he documents this material but does on occasion let his
> enthusiasm run away with him when it comes to interpretation.
>
> He is very useful on the window (well he first recognised it AND
more
> importantly remembered it later), he reprints in translation the
text of
> the two Compensation Grants (Jones did not do that), he is good on
> Merevale (if a little disorganised) and provides other snippets
here and
> there. Alas most of the placename 'oral tradition' is just that.
Another
> speaker at the conference (Ken Wright) pointed out that there
were 'King
> Dick' oral traditions in Sutton Cheney as well as on Ambion and no
one
> now seriously contemplates either of these as a possible (or even
> probable) site of the battle. Indeed, I suggest it may be that
there is
> not a parish the western half of Sparking Hundred that does not
have a
> 'King Dick/Richard' tradition or association. Now the distribution
of
> such 'oral traditions' when mapped out over the area of several
parishes
> MIGHT give some indications as to a battle site BUT it would only
be in
> support of and in addition to more concrete documentary and
> archaeological evidence.
>
>
>
> >>
> >> 4. Of course I wasn''t there - such a comment is plainly
puerile
> >however I
> >> was taught to look for the strongest evidence and that suggests
an
> >Armada
> >> piece. Apart from its location in the area of The Battle of
> >Bosworth there is
> >> nothing to suggest it has anything to do with that battle. No
> >Arms represented,
> >> no obvious "King" character, no fighting, no bows (although
> >anachronistic
> >> representation is common at this period.
> >
> >So we have to consider why a church in the midlands would be
> >commemorating the Armada which was to a great extent a south
> >west/south-east and coastal event. We would need eveidence for a
> >connection - a commander from the area, a ship provided by the
town,
> >a force sent to Tilbury, whatever. To be honest, since there was
no
> >land battle associated with the Armada I can see no useful purpose
> >in commemorating it with a pike square. Surely a ship would be
more
> >appropriate? Is it impossible it could even be Civil War?
>
>
> Dear Brunhild you are quite wrong about the Armada. The trained
bands in
> 1588 were assigned (by the Privy Council) specific roles. Those
from the
> south west (Devon, Cornwall) under Sir Walter Raliegh was
mobilised in
> case of a landing down there. The Council of Wales was to muster
the
> Welsh trained bands in defence of the Principality. The trained
bands in
> the North (= Presidency of the North) were held in readiness just
in
> case Scotland should not prove to be neutral, whilst that from
Southern
> England, East Anglia and the Midlands was directed to be ready for
the
> rendezvous at the large camp in Tilbury. Thus an Armada
commemoration is
> not at all unlikely on the basis of geographical location. See
above for
> my spin on Civil war possibilities.
>
> Just to give you some extra context in March and April 1588
Warwickshire
> was to supply 600 foot (trained and armed) to be mustered under
Sir
> Henry Goodyeare with the levies of Leicestershire, Huntingdon and
> Worcestershire to form a single regiment. In addition the county
was to
> supply a portion of 371 lances (i.e demilances, heavy cavalry
troopers)
> and 2114 light horse (not so heavy, but still armoured troopers)
with 14
> other counties. The summons to Lord Hereford for cavalry
(mentioned
> above) would be in addition to this figure.
>
> In July the required number of levies had fallen to 500 foot with
17
> lances and 76 lighthorse from Warwickshire. In August 1599 when
there
> were fears of a second Armada Warwickshire was assessed at
providing
> 2000 men for the defence of the Queen's person.
>
>
>
> >>
> >> To argue for Bosworth is like arguing that the Essex window
might
> >show
> >> Caesar's invasion or that the Farndon window (known to be c.1647
> >or slightly later)
> >> represents the Stanleys coming from Man.
> >>
> >> What evidence is there to link this window to Henry VII ? Yes,
he
> >passed
> >> through but then again so did a lot of other people. To
connect a
> >Window to
> >> someone who was there over a Century earlier is stretching the
> >imagination more
> >> than a little.
> >
> >To connect a pike square to a naval engagement stretches mine a
bit
> >too.
>
> This if you do not mind me saying so is more than a little fatuous
and
> hardly constructive. Diomedes is attempting to make a positive
construct
> based on his reading of the evidence, you are merely being
negative
> because you do not like what he says. Please give your arguments.
Marie
> has shown us the way in this and is an example to us all.
>
> >>
> >> Now IF you have some evidence that the window has anything at
all
> >to do with
> >> Bosworth Field, that the artist somehow was massively out of
time
> >with the way
> >> he represented combat, that there is some evidence on the window
> >of late
> >> Renaissance Men at Arms and commanders in full plate, then I
would
> >love to hear
> >> it.
> >>
> >> Any by the way the positioning of the colours, and the numbers,
> >fit exactly
> >> with the style of the "Armada" (and I use that term only as a
way
> >of suggesting
> >> a time period) Trained Bandes and is a duplicate of the painting
> >of Elizabeth
> >> I at the Tilbury Muster - near enough to suggest that the artist
> >may even
> >> have seen the painting.
> >>
> >> A good line of investigation that would help would be to know
who
> >owned the
> >> Abbey c.1600 and whether he, or his father, held any commission
in
> >the Trained
> >> Bandes and whether any of the family had been influential in the
> >County Bandes
> >> c.1588-1598.
> >
> >Exactly.
> >B
> >>
> >> Now that's my evidence - over to you. Not guesswork that fits a
> >pet theory -
> >> evidence
> >>
> >>
> >> Yet you are 100% certain it has nothing to do with Bosworth?
How?
> >Were you
> >> there when the window was installed? What about the evidence
> >linking it with
> >> Henry Tudor? I would suggest you are speculating too in order
for
> >it to fit
> >> into a personal theory
> >>
> >>
> It was in the hands of a branch of the Devereux family, see above
> comments.
>
> I hope that this is some help.
>
> Regards
>
> Bill
> --
> Bill Braham

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > Diomedes
> >
> > I am sorry that you are leaving as I think that you may have a
lot to
> > the group to offer beyond mere speculation.
> >
> > Bill
>
> I have to agree with Bill here.
> I think some latitude is needed on line to maybe give people the
benefit of
> the doubt sometimes regarding their sense of humour. I do think
you are over
> reacting to Brunhilde's response, and ask you to reconsider.
> Paul

Since my response was merely quoting his own malapropism in good
humour he most certainly is. I didn't insult him or his ideas though
it seems he has accused me of such. I have never insulted another
forum user's ideas here or in any other history forum in my life.
I do, however, feel that the atmosphere here this week is far from
the usual and I hope it improves whilst I am away, because this is
normally a nice place to post.
B

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> Excuse me, but I was quite in sympathy with the idea that it was
> 17C, I merely said it was not PROVEN. And it isn't, only highly
> suggestive, which I said. I dfail to understand why I am being
> singled out for attack simply because I didn't JUMP at the idea
that
> it was c1600 - I suggested it was likely to be later, since it is
in
> fact highly reminiscent of other windows which are certainly Civil
> war. This is the first occasion since I have been using the forum
> that people have been rude, and if peope are going to accuse me of
> not reading posts properly perhaps they should take their own
advice
> and do so themselves.

Diomedes did over-react bigtime, there is no doubt. However, to
understand if not excuse (here I apologise if I sound rude, I don't
mean to): although you queried at one point whether the panel might
not be Civil War, it did sound as though you were making some pretty
desperate arguments in favour of a Bosworth connection, at the same
time being a bit superior about the relevance of the Armada to an
inland area.
D. got touchy because he actually has a great deal of knowledge about
both the Armada and the Civil War, and so did not make his Armada
assertion lightly. That is why so many people have pleaded for him to
come back- - because he has some expertise to contribute on this,
not because they're out to get you.

Worth bearing in mind that the Spanish Armada, from which England was
largely saved by storm, was a planned invasion force on a grand
scale, and must have been of concern to the whole country at least as
much as Henry Tudor's planned invasion, against which Richard
sensibly centred himself on Nottingham, bang in the middle of the
country (whilst Lovell, for instance, was uselessly guarding the
wrong Milford on the New Forest coast, an object lesson if there ever
was one).

Bill's subsequent post has actually swung me back towards the Armada
as a likelier candidate than the Civil War, although really I'm fair
game as I know far too little about either period. One thing is sure,
and that's that the panel is an interesting piece.

It has indeed been a bad week or two on this forum, so I certainly
vote for pizza (or chocolate, perhaps).

Yes, chocolate.

Marie

PS. Or perhaps, given the time of year, we should be sending Morton
out for strawberries. . .



>
>
> --- In , Bill Braham
> <bill@w...> wrote:
> > Brunhilde and List
> >
> > Comments below:
> >
> >
> > >--- In , "brunhild613"
> > ><brunhild@n...> wrote:
> > >--- In , diomedes5465@a...
> > >wrote:
> > >> Hi Paul
> > >>
> > >> Not at all a personal axe to grind (although it very much
sounds
> > >like you
> > >> have) - it really makes no difference to me when the window was
> > >put in or what it
> > >> represents however it behoves us to be as objectionable in our
> > >reasoning as
> > >> possible.
> > >
> > >I tell you what, you be as objectionable as you like and we will
> try
> > >and be objective! ;-)
> > >>
> > >> I said it was NOT of Bosworth but an Armada remembrancer
because
> > >>
> > >> 1. There was a convention, widely observed during the 16th C,
> and
> > >I know of
> > >> NO illustrations that break it, that "battles" were depicted
> with
> > >bodies of
> > >> pike (either in combat or going into combat) with their pikes
> > >angled, as I put
> > >> in the initial post the examples of this exist in multitudes -
> > >have a look at
> > >> the Tapestry Map in Nottingham Museum which shows Stoke, you'll
> > >then
> > >> understand. The window shows bodies of pike (and musket
> > >incidentally) at rest.
> > >
> > >Suggestive of 1600 but not yet conclusive.
> >
> > What is conclusive is that it is not an indication of a battle!
To
> > Diomedes' post I would point to sets of playing cards depicting
> events
> > in the Monmouth Rebellion (in 1685!)in which the battle scenes
are
> shown
> > with pikes embattled (i.e angled as if for action). This is not
> unusual
> > and represents an artistic convention stemming from the Middle
> Ages when
> > it was common to show a battle/combat in terms of a melee
(mounted
> or on
> > foot as in the Beauchamp Roll). This applies to both allegorical
> and
> > literal depictions. One also sees it in contemporary
illustrations
> from
> > the late C1th/early C16th (various tapestries or panels) of the
> Siege of
> > Alesia (?1523), the battles of Fornovo (1495) Marignano (1516)
> from the
> > Renaissance. Another good example is the 1531 Pavia tapestry
> depicting
> > the 1525 battle.
> >
> > The panel is certainly not indicative of the C15th! As far as the
> large
> > format illustration that John D Austin displayed at the Bosworth
> > conference it is difficult to discern precise clothing details
> (not
> > helped by forgetting my reading glasses!). The costume of
> the 'officer'
> > figure in the foreground has baggy breeches and a short doublet
or
> maybe
> > a buff coat. I was unable to tell whether the figure bore a ruff
> or a
> > turn down collar. If the former it is more likely to be early
> C17th or
> > C16th rather than mid C17th but I could not tell.
> >
> > I find it (i.e. the officer) broadly reminiscent of some of the
> figures
> > on the funeral roll of Sir Phillip Sidney (d1587). For another
> example
> > of a late C16th depiction of specifically English troops I would
> > recommend the series of woodcuts by John Derrick which show the
> > expedition of the Sir Henry Sidney (c.1578)in Ireland. You
> actually see
> > figures depicted in combat, but when Sidney is receiving a
> messenger the
> > pike, halberdier and horse are depicted with their polearms
> straight up
> > (at attention?). The shot (calivermen in this case) are depicted
> with
> > shouldered arms.
> >
> > Now if the panel is from a Civil War window when was it put in?
> The one
> > extant commemorative window that dates from the civil war is in
> Farndon
> > Church in Cheshire. It marks the service of the officers of Sir
> William
> > Gamul's regiment (Chester City trained bands) and was erected in
> c1647
> > having been paid for by the officers. How it survived the
> iconoclasm
> > which prevailed in the church during the years of the
Commonwealth
> and
> > Protectorate I do not know, BUT it is RARE. I can think of no
> other
> > comparable example (but would like to here of any others!).
> >
> > During the Civil War the freehold of Merivale belonged to the
Earl
> of
> > Essex (see below) who was Lord General of the Army for King and
> > Parliament until early 1645 BUT the house was occupied by the
> family of
> > Lord Hereford who were tenants. So a possibility exists that the
> panel
> > may come from a commemoration of Robert Devereux, the Lord
General
> who
> > died in 1646. I do not favour this interpretation for reasons
> which
> > become evident below but it is a possibility. The Earl of Essex
> (Robert
> > Devereux's heir general no doubt) sold the freehold c.1647 which
> might
> > be considered to provide an upper age bracket and possibly even a
> date
> > if a Civil War theme.
> >
> > As Diomedes has pointed out there are several Armada
> commemorations.
> > This is because the 'defeat' of the Armada was seen as a sign of
> Divine
> > Providence and a mark of the Lord's special favour for England.
> That was
> > the Elizabethan and Stuart official line. See any number of books
> > brought out about the Armada to mark the 400th anniversary in
1988.
> >
> > >>
> > >> 2. The window illustrates a costume type somewhere around 1600
> > >(its hard to
> > >> be sure as the only figure easily discernible is an officer
> > >totally detached
> > >> from the scene at the right front) but his appearance, buff
> coat,
> > >etc. is
> > >> typical of that era - maybe as late as 1630 since older
clothing
> > >is often shown.
> > >> The question that has to be asked is why would anyone put in a
> > >glass
> > >> commemorating Bosworth c.1600 ?
> > >
> > >Why would anyone paint Empson and Dudley in the 1540s? They did.
> > >Just like they painted the princes inthe Tower in the 19thC, and
> > >just about every other historical character you could choose. How
> > >about Bacon being at this time and being interested in the battle
> > >and Henry VII in general? Suppose this were his local church and
> he
> > >had the window put in? Far fetched, but something of the sort
> could
> > >happen, so again suggestive but not conclusive.
> >
> > Brunhilde, one must learn to distinguish the possible from the
> probable.
> > The Armada 'possibility' fits in with a trend within the late
> > C16th/early C17th which makes it 'probable' (not definite mark
> you). The
> > Bacon business is a 'possibility' but hardly 'probable' (you just
> made
> > that up did you not?-). The Civil War attribution is also a
> > 'possibility' but, in my mind at least, has a lower 'probability'
> than
> > the Armada option.
> >
> > In fact at the time of the Armada Merevale was occupied (as a
> tenancy)
> > by Lady Jane Devereux widow of Sir John Devereux (d.1579). Lady
> Jane
> > died in 1606 when she directed in will that the Earl of Essex
(her
> > nephew) to whom the estate was entailed should maintain (in the
> sense of
> > leave in situ) the 'glasse' and sundry other fittings in the
Great
> Hall
> > for as long as the Earl was in possession. The tenancy (but not
> the
> > freehold) passed to Lady Jane's son in law William, Lord Hereford
> on her
> > death.
> >
> > William Viscount Hereford's family remained in situ until the
> freehold
> > was sold by the then Earl of Essex in the mid C17th. There is a
> possible
> > Armada link via Lord Hereford who was one of the noble men who
> received
> > a summons from Elizabeth I to attend the 'upon our person , with
> such a
> > convenient number of lances and lighthorses as may stand with
your
> > ability, to be ready to repair hither at such time as you shall
> receive
> > notice of our pleasure by our Privy Council'. The letter in which
> this
> > was written is dated 2nd June 1588 and sent to 18 peers
(including
> > Hereford).
> >
> > Of course I do not know if Lord Hereford actually did attend the
> Queen
> > at Tilbury but he was supposed to be there (the pay rolls
probably
> lurk
> > within the PRO and may supply the answer). If the panel is part
of
> an
> > Armada commemoration then I suspect it may have been part of a
> larger
> > project commissioned by Lady Devereux or Lord Hereford in the
> 1590s or
> > early 1600s.
> >
> > >>
> > >> 3. As I said the style and period fits exactly into a wide
> > >sequence of
> > >> similar glasses and paintings of Armada commemoration.
> > >
> > >Fair enough but only circumstantial, even if more likely than
> > >anything else.
> >
> > Much of the 'evidence' in John D Austin's book is circumstantial!
> This
> > is not to denigrate Austin's enthusiasm and industry. But a lot
of
> the
> > 'evidence' in his book is proof of nothing other than folklore
> (this
> > includes the greater part of the 'oral tradition'). Most of it
> cannot be
> > documented back to the time of the battle. He does us a service
in
> the
> > sense that he documents this material but does on occasion let
his
> > enthusiasm run away with him when it comes to interpretation.
> >
> > He is very useful on the window (well he first recognised it AND
> more
> > importantly remembered it later), he reprints in translation the
> text of
> > the two Compensation Grants (Jones did not do that), he is good
on
> > Merevale (if a little disorganised) and provides other snippets
> here and
> > there. Alas most of the placename 'oral tradition' is just that.
> Another
> > speaker at the conference (Ken Wright) pointed out that there
> were 'King
> > Dick' oral traditions in Sutton Cheney as well as on Ambion and
no
> one
> > now seriously contemplates either of these as a possible (or even
> > probable) site of the battle. Indeed, I suggest it may be that
> there is
> > not a parish the western half of Sparking Hundred that does not
> have a
> > 'King Dick/Richard' tradition or association. Now the
distribution
> of
> > such 'oral traditions' when mapped out over the area of several
> parishes
> > MIGHT give some indications as to a battle site BUT it would only
> be in
> > support of and in addition to more concrete documentary and
> > archaeological evidence.
> >
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >> 4. Of course I wasn''t there - such a comment is plainly
> puerile
> > >however I
> > >> was taught to look for the strongest evidence and that
suggests
> an
> > >Armada
> > >> piece. Apart from its location in the area of The Battle of
> > >Bosworth there is
> > >> nothing to suggest it has anything to do with that battle. No
> > >Arms represented,
> > >> no obvious "King" character, no fighting, no bows (although
> > >anachronistic
> > >> representation is common at this period.
> > >
> > >So we have to consider why a church in the midlands would be
> > >commemorating the Armada which was to a great extent a south
> > >west/south-east and coastal event. We would need eveidence for a
> > >connection - a commander from the area, a ship provided by the
> town,
> > >a force sent to Tilbury, whatever. To be honest, since there was
> no
> > >land battle associated with the Armada I can see no useful
purpose
> > >in commemorating it with a pike square. Surely a ship would be
> more
> > >appropriate? Is it impossible it could even be Civil War?
> >
> >
> > Dear Brunhild you are quite wrong about the Armada. The trained
> bands in
> > 1588 were assigned (by the Privy Council) specific roles. Those
> from the
> > south west (Devon, Cornwall) under Sir Walter Raliegh was
> mobilised in
> > case of a landing down there. The Council of Wales was to muster
> the
> > Welsh trained bands in defence of the Principality. The trained
> bands in
> > the North (= Presidency of the North) were held in readiness just
> in
> > case Scotland should not prove to be neutral, whilst that from
> Southern
> > England, East Anglia and the Midlands was directed to be ready
for
> the
> > rendezvous at the large camp in Tilbury. Thus an Armada
> commemoration is
> > not at all unlikely on the basis of geographical location. See
> above for
> > my spin on Civil war possibilities.
> >
> > Just to give you some extra context in March and April 1588
> Warwickshire
> > was to supply 600 foot (trained and armed) to be mustered under
> Sir
> > Henry Goodyeare with the levies of Leicestershire, Huntingdon and
> > Worcestershire to form a single regiment. In addition the county
> was to
> > supply a portion of 371 lances (i.e demilances, heavy cavalry
> troopers)
> > and 2114 light horse (not so heavy, but still armoured troopers)
> with 14
> > other counties. The summons to Lord Hereford for cavalry
> (mentioned
> > above) would be in addition to this figure.
> >
> > In July the required number of levies had fallen to 500 foot with
> 17
> > lances and 76 lighthorse from Warwickshire. In August 1599 when
> there
> > were fears of a second Armada Warwickshire was assessed at
> providing
> > 2000 men for the defence of the Queen's person.
> >
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >> To argue for Bosworth is like arguing that the Essex window
> might
> > >show
> > >> Caesar's invasion or that the Farndon window (known to be
c.1647
> > >or slightly later)
> > >> represents the Stanleys coming from Man.
> > >>
> > >> What evidence is there to link this window to Henry VII ?
Yes,
> he
> > >passed
> > >> through but then again so did a lot of other people. To
> connect a
> > >Window to
> > >> someone who was there over a Century earlier is stretching the
> > >imagination more
> > >> than a little.
> > >
> > >To connect a pike square to a naval engagement stretches mine a
> bit
> > >too.
> >
> > This if you do not mind me saying so is more than a little
fatuous
> and
> > hardly constructive. Diomedes is attempting to make a positive
> construct
> > based on his reading of the evidence, you are merely being
> negative
> > because you do not like what he says. Please give your arguments.
> Marie
> > has shown us the way in this and is an example to us all.
> >
> > >>
> > >> Now IF you have some evidence that the window has anything at
> all
> > >to do with
> > >> Bosworth Field, that the artist somehow was massively out of
> time
> > >with the way
> > >> he represented combat, that there is some evidence on the
window
> > >of late
> > >> Renaissance Men at Arms and commanders in full plate, then I
> would
> > >love to hear
> > >> it.
> > >>
> > >> Any by the way the positioning of the colours, and the numbers,
> > >fit exactly
> > >> with the style of the "Armada" (and I use that term only as a
> way
> > >of suggesting
> > >> a time period) Trained Bandes and is a duplicate of the
painting
> > >of Elizabeth
> > >> I at the Tilbury Muster - near enough to suggest that the
artist
> > >may even
> > >> have seen the painting.
> > >>
> > >> A good line of investigation that would help would be to know
> who
> > >owned the
> > >> Abbey c.1600 and whether he, or his father, held any
commission
> in
> > >the Trained
> > >> Bandes and whether any of the family had been influential in
the
> > >County Bandes
> > >> c.1588-1598.
> > >
> > >Exactly.
> > >B
> > >>
> > >> Now that's my evidence - over to you. Not guesswork that fits
a
> > >pet theory -
> > >> evidence
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Yet you are 100% certain it has nothing to do with Bosworth?
> How?
> > >Were you
> > >> there when the window was installed? What about the evidence
> > >linking it with
> > >> Henry Tudor? I would suggest you are speculating too in order
> for
> > >it to fit
> > >> into a personal theory
> > >>
> > >>
> > It was in the hands of a branch of the Devereux family, see above
> > comments.
> >
> > I hope that this is some help.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Bill
> > --
> > Bill Braham

--- In , EDEBORRETT@a... wrote:
> Like you Diane I am a lurker here and I agree totally with you. I
have
> followed the debate about the Merivale glass with some interest
since I saw the
> photographs at the Bosworth Conference. For my point I tend to
agree with
> Diomedes' reasoning and I think its a shame that some here should
have resorted to
> abuse and lost us someone whose skin may have been rather thin but
who seemed
> to have had a lot to offer.
>
> I feel that we should be able to discuss all topics without the
need to go to
> personal abuse or childish put downs.
>
> Oh, and before anyone adds 2 + 2 ! Yes, it was me that wrote the
essay in
> Richard III : Crown and People arguing that Richard actually was
responsible for
> the murder of the "Princes in the Tower" (how I hate that term). I
still
> believe that was so, but I also believe that Richard would have
been a fool not
> to have done it - and whatever Richard was or was not, no-one has
ever called
> him a fool. A highly intelligent political animal ? yes. A
Fool ? most
> definately not.
>
> Okay so there's some ammunition for anyone who wants to sling abuse
rather
> than argue with supported facts.
>
> Stephen Ede-Borrett
> Chairman, The Pike & Shot Society

I haven't read your article, Stephen, and I not minded to hurl ammo
anyway.

Regarding the intelligence argument, I do have a couple of problems,
and would be interested in your view:

1) It is generally argued that every king who deposed another had his
predecessor killed. So why would Richard have been any different?
This is reasonable, except:
a) Have all read Ian Mortimer's recent article arguing that Edward II
was not killed in Berkeley Castle (his body was only displayed
wrapped), but was, as later supporters claimed, secretly kept alive?
In other words that for Edward III (or Mortimer & Isabella) the
important thing was simply that people should believe Edward II was
dead so they would stop trying to restore him. Whether or not he was,
was irrelevant. If true (and the evidence seems more compelling than
at first appears), then it would destroy the precedent argument. And
give a precedent for Richard keeping the Princes alive whilst keeping
mum (I mean his not commenting on them - not maintaining Elizabeth
Woodville).
2) There was no point in killing one's rival unless either he was the
only rival between yourself and the throne, or unless HIS heir was
also in your power (in which case logically he would go the same
way). Hence Edward IV waited until after the death of Edward of
Lancaster at Tewkesbury before despatching Henry VI. And did not
bother to "bump off" the Duke of Exeter while either of these was
still alive. It took Edward - what was it, 7 years? - after gaining
custody of Henry VI before he killed him. And that only once his heir
(Edward of L.) and his heir (Exeter) were also either dead or in
custody. And yet we are to believe that Richard III killed the
Princes almost immediately he became king, despite the fact that they
had five sisters who were at that time not in his power, and whose
guardians were trying to smuggle them abroad to marry foreign
princes.
And that their mother responded by giving him her daughters as
well. . . .
I can see there may have been a particular issue with Edward V,
already recognised, and sworn allegiance to, as king: but if one adds
York to the hit list, the question then looms: why not the sisters?
Why not Warwick (and indeed his sister)?

I am also thinking intelligence. And I am not getting the same
answer. I do concur that if Richard hadn't killed the princes by
1485, then had he won Bosworth he would certainly have had to do so
eventually (at least as regards Edward V - I just cannot see EV
having accepted the new status quo). But we ARE talking about a
truncated reign. Is it possible that in some sense Bosworth cost
Richard his life but saved his soul?
Henry's problem re the Princes, were they still alive, would of
course, have been rather more immediate.

As I say, I'd be interested in your views.

Marie






>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: marie
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: Bosworth


--- In , EDEBORRETT@a... wrote:
> Like you Diane I am a lurker here and I agree totally with you. I
have
> followed the debate about the Merivale glass with some interest
since I saw the
> photographs at the Bosworth Conference. For my point I tend to
agree with
> Diomedes' reasoning and I think its a shame that some here should
have resorted to
> abuse and lost us someone whose skin may have been rather thin but
who seemed
> to have had a lot to offer.
>
> I feel that we should be able to discuss all topics without the
need to go to
> personal abuse or childish put downs.
>
> Oh, and before anyone adds 2 + 2 ! Yes, it was me that wrote the
essay in
> Richard III : Crown and People arguing that Richard actually was
responsible for
> the murder of the "Princes in the Tower" (how I hate that term). I
still
> believe that was so, but I also believe that Richard would have
been a fool not
> to have done it - and whatever Richard was or was not, no-one has
ever called
> him a fool. A highly intelligent political animal ? yes. A
Fool ? most
> definately not.
>
> Okay so there's some ammunition for anyone who wants to sling abuse
rather
> than argue with supported facts.
>
> Stephen Ede-Borrett
> Chairman, The Pike & Shot Society

I haven't read your article, Stephen, and I not minded to hurl ammo
anyway.

Regarding the intelligence argument, I do have a couple of problems,
and would be interested in your view:

1) It is generally argued that every king who deposed another had his
predecessor killed. So why would Richard have been any different?
This is reasonable, except:
a) Have all read Ian Mortimer's recent article arguing that Edward II
was not killed in Berkeley Castle (his body was only displayed
wrapped), but was, as later supporters claimed, secretly kept alive?
In other words that for Edward III (or Mortimer & Isabella) the
important thing was simply that people should believe Edward II was
dead so they would stop trying to restore him. Whether or not he was,
was irrelevant. If true (and the evidence seems more compelling than
at first appears), then it would destroy the precedent argument. And
give a precedent for Richard keeping the Princes alive whilst keeping
mum (I mean his not commenting on them - not maintaining Elizabeth
Woodville).
2) There was no point in killing one's rival unless either he was the
only rival between yourself and the throne, or unless HIS heir was
also in your power (in which case logically he would go the same
way). Hence Edward IV waited until after the death of Edward of
Lancaster at Tewkesbury before despatching Henry VI. And did not
bother to "bump off" the Duke of Exeter while either of these was
still alive. It took Edward - what was it, 7 years? - after gaining
custody of Henry VI before he killed him. And that only once his heir
(Edward of L.) and his heir (Exeter) were also either dead or in
custody. And yet we are to believe that Richard III killed the
Princes almost immediately he became king, despite the fact that they
had five sisters who were at that time not in his power, and whose
guardians were trying to smuggle them abroad to marry foreign
princes.
And that their mother responded by giving him her daughters as
well. . . .
I can see there may have been a particular issue with Edward V,
already recognised, and sworn allegiance to, as king: but if one adds
York to the hit list, the question then looms: why not the sisters?
Why not Warwick (and indeed his sister)?

I am also thinking intelligence. And I am not getting the same
answer. I do concur that if Richard hadn't killed the princes by
1485, then had he won Bosworth he would certainly have had to do so
eventually (at least as regards Edward V - I just cannot see EV
having accepted the new status quo). But we ARE talking about a
truncated reign. Is it possible that in some sense Bosworth cost
Richard his life but saved his soul?
Henry's problem re the Princes, were they still alive, would of
course, have been rather more immediate.

As I say, I'd be interested in your views.

Marie
Yes, absolutely, but if I can emphasise one of your points:
Edward V and his brother were male. Their sisters were female and available for any nobleman in Europe to marry (even a quarter-Welsh exiled adventurer). There were five of them, all MORE dangerous than their brothers, even more so if the ex-Princes were dead.
See "Seeking the real Richard III" by the Mid-Anglia group, price £1+SAE (!)

Stephen








>
>
>



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild@n...> wrote:
> >
> > Excuse me, but I was quite in sympathy with the idea that it was
> > 17C, I merely said it was not PROVEN. And it isn't, only highly
> > suggestive, which I said. I dfail to understand why I am being
> > singled out for attack simply because I didn't JUMP at the idea
> that
> > it was c1600 - I suggested it was likely to be later, since it
is
> in
> > fact highly reminiscent of other windows which are certainly
Civil
> > war. This is the first occasion since I have been using the
forum
> > that people have been rude, and if peope are going to accuse me
of
> > not reading posts properly perhaps they should take their own
> advice
> > and do so themselves.
>
> Diomedes did over-react bigtime, there is no doubt. However, to
> understand if not excuse (here I apologise if I sound rude, I
don't
> mean to): although you queried at one point whether the panel
might
> not be Civil War, it did sound as though you were making some
pretty
> desperate arguments in favour of a Bosworth connection, at the
same
> time being a bit superior about the relevance of the Armada to an
> inland area.
> D. got touchy because he actually has a great deal of knowledge
about
> both the Armada and the Civil War, and so did not make his Armada
> assertion lightly. That is why so many people have pleaded for him
to
> come back- - because he has some expertise to contribute on this,
> not because they're out to get you.
>
> Worth bearing in mind that the Spanish Armada, from which England
was
> largely saved by storm, was a planned invasion force on a grand
> scale, and must have been of concern to the whole country at least
as
> much as Henry Tudor's planned invasion, against which Richard
> sensibly centred himself on Nottingham, bang in the middle of the
> country (whilst Lovell, for instance, was uselessly guarding the
> wrong Milford on the New Forest coast, an object lesson if there
ever
> was one).
>
> Bill's subsequent post has actually swung me back towards the
Armada
> as a likelier candidate than the Civil War, although really I'm
fair
> game as I know far too little about either period. One thing is
sure,
> and that's that the panel is an interesting piece.
>
> It has indeed been a bad week or two on this forum, so I certainly
> vote for pizza (or chocolate, perhaps).
>
> Yes, chocolate.
>
> Marie
>
> PS. Or perhaps, given the time of year, we should be sending
Morton
> out for strawberries. . .
>
>
Marie I can't go along with the Armada view until there is more
evidence in its favour yet for a couple of fairly simple reasons.
The Forces gathered at Tilbury and along the south coast never had
to fight. They mustered, but mustering does not involve forming
square. So if it is definitely square - and as I understand it the
jury is still out on that - then there is no reason to associate it
with the musters. I did ask if there were evidence of local forces
being at the musters but when I posted no such evidence had been
suggested. The later Armadas were of even less military significance
to our land forces. The only people who actually did see action were
southerners, westerners and some from south-eastern counties. That
was what I meant when I said that it primarily involved the south. I
come from a village with a beacon on the western edge of the
Pennines so I am perfectly aware of how far afield the call went for
defence. But why commemorate the non-action when there was plenty of
action worthy of celebration? The idea makes no sense to me. I am
perfectly aware of the planned role for Parma and of the force size
already on the ships, and that our coastal defences were stretched -
reminiscent, I suppose, of 1066. But that doesn't alter the fact
that the land forces saw no action so why would they be in square?

Whilst the idea of a square at Bosworth is very exciting - after all
it justifies, as it were, Richard's final charge and demise, since
it would indicate it wasn't the foolish act of desperation some
historians would have us believe - I would need a great deal more
convincing before I go with that idea either. It is anything but an
idea I am trying to make "desperate arguments" for (and people
should note when I use speech marks I am quoting,
hence "objectionable" - with SMILEY! - not you, Marie!), since I
consider it not proven, as I consider an Armada image not proven,
though, as I did say, "highly suggestive".

There is another possibility besides Bosworth and Essex and the
Armada - Tyrone's rebellion. Again if we knew specifics about the
origins of the forces involved it might help. But since it only
takes ten minutes to do Tyrone's rebellion for the unit and several
lessons to do the Armada I don't know as much about the former I am
afraid.

In any case since I haven't seen the damn panel I can't say what the
clothes or weapons do or do not indicate, and am only basing
responses on what has been posted and so far the jury, for me, is
still out.

Can I have fruit and nut, Marie?
B

I don't know much about the conventions of Medieval and early
Renaissance art, but could the window in question be both a
representation of Bosworth AND depict a battle formation of a later
time?

I've seen a bust of George Washington dressed in a toga, and
paintings of Biblical subjects dressed in Medieval clothing.

Just a thought.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I don't know much about the conventions of Medieval and early
> Renaissance art, but could the window in question be both a
> representation of Bosworth AND depict a battle formation of a later
> time?
>
> I've seen a bust of George Washington dressed in a toga, and
> paintings of Biblical subjects dressed in Medieval clothing.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Katy


Katy

The whole point is that the window panel does not a represent a
battle. The conventions of the time (C16th/C17th)would require the
pike to be shown angled as if going into combat not straight up. You
are quite right to point out the question of anachronism but I do not
think it is an issue here. My reply to Brunhild sets out my reasoning
so I am not going to bore everyone by repeating it here.

Regards

Bill

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I don't know much about the conventions of Medieval and early
> Renaissance art, but could the window in question be both a
> representation of Bosworth AND depict a battle formation of a later
> time?
>
> I've seen a bust of George Washington dressed in a toga, and
> paintings of Biblical subjects dressed in Medieval clothing.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Katy

I don't feel qualified to comment on whether it could or could not
represent Bosworth (or more accurately, a scene shrotly prior to the
battle). However, I would just point out that:
1) There is no evidence that it might, other than Jones' theory that
Tudor spent his last night before the battle at Merevale Abbey, and
that his army used pike squares
2) The costumes and muskets indeed show that it was being represented
as a battle of the artist's own time (some 100-165 years after
Bosworth). So the presence of pike squares must also be seen in that
light, and cannot be used to connect the piece with Bosworth.

Even if the panel could ever be proved to represent Bosworth (and I
cannot see how this could happen other than by the discoverey of a
contemporary document describing it as such), it would therefore be
useless as evidence for the use of pike squares in that battle.
(Austin takes the use of the PS's at Bosworth as proven, and starts
from there, but actually it's still in debate.) The only thing
proving a Bosworth link would do is strengthen the claim for
Merevale's association with the battle.

Marie

PS. Just another thought: this panel was, unusually for a military
scene, apparently made to be placed in a church. Could this account
for the non-angled (ie non-threatening) position of the pikes? Also,
if it did represent Parliamentary forces during the Civil War, could
this account for its surviving the Cromwellian era?

In message <cbq7l8+dj56@...>, billbraham1957
<bill@...> writes
>--- In , "brunhild613"
><brunhild@n...> wrote:
>--- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
>wrote:
>> --- In , "brunhild613"
>> <brunhild@n...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Excuse me, but I was quite in sympathy with the idea that it was
>> > 17C, I merely said it was not PROVEN. And it isn't, only highly
>> > suggestive, which I said. I dfail to understand why I am being
>> > singled out for attack simply because I didn't JUMP at the idea
>> that
>> > it was c1600 - I suggested it was likely to be later, since it
>is
>> in
>> > fact highly reminiscent of other windows which are certainly
>Civil
>> > war. This is the first occasion since I have been using the
>forum
>> > that people have been rude, and if peope are going to accuse me
>of
>> > not reading posts properly perhaps they should take their own
>> advice
>> > and do so themselves.
>>
>> Diomedes did over-react bigtime, there is no doubt. However, to
>> understand if not excuse (here I apologise if I sound rude, I
>don't
>> mean to): although you queried at one point whether the panel
>might
>> not be Civil War, it did sound as though you were making some
>pretty
>> desperate arguments in favour of a Bosworth connection, at the
>same
>> time being a bit superior about the relevance of the Armada to an
>> inland area.
>> D. got touchy because he actually has a great deal of knowledge
>about
>> both the Armada and the Civil War, and so did not make his Armada
>> assertion lightly. That is why so many people have pleaded for him
>to
>> come back- - because he has some expertise to contribute on this,
>> not because they're out to get you.
>>
>> Worth bearing in mind that the Spanish Armada, from which England
>was
>> largely saved by storm, was a planned invasion force on a grand
>> scale, and must have been of concern to the whole country at least
>as
>> much as Henry Tudor's planned invasion, against which Richard
>> sensibly centred himself on Nottingham, bang in the middle of the
>> country (whilst Lovell, for instance, was uselessly guarding the
>> wrong Milford on the New Forest coast, an object lesson if there
>ever
>> was one).
>>
>> Bill's subsequent post has actually swung me back towards the
>Armada
>> as a likelier candidate than the Civil War, although really I'm
>fair
>> game as I know far too little about either period. One thing is
>sure,
>> and that's that the panel is an interesting piece.
>>
>> It has indeed been a bad week or two on this forum, so I certainly
>> vote for pizza (or chocolate, perhaps).
>>
>> Yes, chocolate.
>>
>> Marie
>>
>> PS. Or perhaps, given the time of year, we should be sending
>Morton
>> out for strawberries. . .
>>
>>

Dear Brunhild

Firstly if I have offended you then I apologise without reservation. The
intention behind my post was not to single you out for attack but merely
to provide some information from my own investigations as to my
interpretation of what the Merevale window may represent and why.

Now to address your other points:


>Marie I can't go along with the Armada view until there is more
>evidence in its favour yet for a couple of fairly simple reasons.
>The Forces gathered at Tilbury and along the south coast never had
>to fight. They mustered, but mustering does not involve forming
>square.

Actually it does. There is little point in mustering thousands of armed
men if you do not train them in the exercise of arms. An army needs
drill to be effective. The camp at Tilbury was commanded by the Earl of
Leicester as Lieutenant General (a veteran of many campaigns including
the Low Countries) and several prominent Elizabethan soldiers Sir John
Smithe, Sir John Norris and Sir Roger Williams (all veterans of the
Dutch war). There is also a letter dated June 1588 which gives 'The
names of Martial men certified from several counties'. This is a list
potential officers with a note of their previous military experience
which includes active service in areas as diverse as Holland, Ireland
and France. The men in charge at Tilbury in 1588 knew their business.

>So if it is definitely square - and as I understand it the
>jury is still out on that - then there is no reason to associate it
>with the musters.

Actually there is, because an order of battle survives for the camp at
Tilbury in August 1588 showing the army embattled. This was the order in
which Elizabeth was to review the troops and also form the basis for the
order of battle in which they would appear on the field against the
Spaniards.

Simplistically the order of battle shows deep blocks of pike men flanked
by missile troops on the flanks and in horns at each corner. There are
also blocks of cavalry in advance of the forward horns of shot.


Diagrammatically it looks like this ( I hope it comes out)

s s
s s
ss pppp ss
ss pppp ss
ss pppp ss
s s
s s

s=shot
p=pike

There are three of these large bodies in the plan.

This is pretty much standard for the C16th and early C17th, by the Civil
War tactical formations had thinned out somewhat into relatively more
flexible formations. The basis was still pike in the centre with shot on
its left and right or with a body drawn off to the front.


>I did ask if there were evidence of local forces
>being at the musters but when I posted no such evidence had been
>suggested. The later Armadas were of even less military significance
>to our land forces.

True but only because the second Armada did not prove to be a threat. My
comment concerning the 2000 men from Warwickshire in 1599 was intended
to show that the 1588 defence plan was not a one off event. I was not
implying that 1599 was commemorated by anything!

>The only people who actually did see action were
>southerners, westerners and some from south-eastern counties. That
>was what I meant when I said that it primarily involved the south. I
>come from a village with a beacon on the western edge of the
>Pennines so I am perfectly aware of how far afield the call went for
>defence.

Brunhild the fact is ALL of England south of Derbyshire was
concentrating on the Spanish threat. The Midlands militia mustered at
Tilbury in 1588 they were all part the armed camp that the south of
England became.

True the North was not in it because the Lord President of the North was
holding the Trained Bands of Yorks, Lancs and all points up to Scotland
as a reserve and a watch on the border. Please try to grasp the concept
that a significant proportion of the military manpower of England below
Yorkshire was to concentrate at Tilbury. It is not a few tents in a
field or a bunch cockneys on a day trip to Southend, it is nearly the
whole military might of the Kingdom (potentially 10,000 from London
alone).

>But why commemorate the non-action when there was plenty of
>action worthy of celebration?

The point is that the folk who did Armada commemorations that showed the
Tilbury camp were the people who commanded the militia there, they are
commemorating their 'service' not that of the navy. The chaps in the
fleet commissioned their own Armada monuments showing ships etc. You
have to look at the people who are likely to be paying for the monument.
Lord Hereford or his mother in law were unlikely to commemorate the
fleet because Lord Hereford served in the army! So they would mark the
service he actually performed rather than what the fleet had done.

I suggest that the panel probably marks the wider Armada event but in
the particular Hereford's army service. This assumes that the window
panel is anything to do with Hereford and the Armada. I would agree such
an association is not proved but on the balance of probabilities is the
most likely explanation.

The Farndon church window provides a parallel for understanding the
process of commemoration. It was paid for by the officers of Gamul's
regiment to celebrate their service in Chester during the Civil War. It
does not celebrate the whole garrison just the service of the officers
of one regiment in it. It is thus both a wider Civil War monument and a
more specific commemoration of the part one group of men played in it.

>The idea makes no sense to me. I am
>perfectly aware of the planned role for Parma and of the force size
>already on the ships, and that our coastal defences were stretched -
>reminiscent, I suppose, of 1066. But that doesn't alter the fact
>that the land forces saw no action so why would they be in square?

I think you really do not understand the significance of the Armada to
the Elizabethans nor the military context. It was quite literally their
equivalent of 'The battle of Britain'. Today there are still 100s of
local RAF commemorations and church services on Battle of Britain Sunday
every year and that was 64 years ago! Would you consider the service of
the Home Guard pointless because they did not get to fight whilst the
RAF did? Britain in 1940 became mobilised as an armed camp as did
England in 1588.

>
>Whilst the idea of a square at Bosworth is very exciting - after all
>it justifies, as it were, Richard's final charge and demise, since
>it would indicate it wasn't the foolish act of desperation some
>historians would have us believe - I would need a great deal more
>convincing before I go with that idea either.

I would have to agree with you on that one because I do not think that
Michael K Jones has unequivocally demonstrated the evidence for a
significant force of pike at Bosworth. French mercenaries yes (hardly
news we have all known about that for years), possibly from a camp of
Franc Archers (Jones appendix). But the Franc Archers were a force of
select militia (a bit like Elizabethan Trained Bands) who were mustered
to drill and train in organised units. However the Francs Archers
consisted of a mixture of archers (this may also encompass crossbow),
halberdiers and pikemen. Thus there is an equal possibility the French
mercenaries could be halberdiers or missile troops as well as pike.
Michael Jones does not discuss in detail his reasoning (or indeed his
evidence) as to why he thinks Henry Tudor has pikemen whizzing about the
battlefield. Unfortunately this hinders an objective evaluation of his
interpretation.

The Francs Archers were however a less than formidable military force.
Through indiscipline and weakness they contributed immeasurably to a
French defeat at Guinegate in 1479. More or less after this time the
Kings of France turned to Swiss mercenaries (mainly pike) to form the
backbone of their infantry forces. If Henry Tudor was given Francs
Archers by the King of France it suggests that they were less than
sanguine about his chances of success.

In fact Charles VIII had a force of 8000 Swiss (mainly pikemen)
mercenaries as the core of his infantry during the invasion of Italy in
1494 (only 9 years after Bosworth!). The main French contribution to the
infantry was as crossbowmen and some halberdiers. The chief recruiting
grounds being Gascony, Picardy and Brittany. In the C16th French
officers tended to regard native (i.e French) pikemen as being useless
preferring either Swiss or Germans (Landsknecht). I would suggest that
the case for French pike at Bosworth, whilst not impossible, is far from
proved beyond reasonable doubt.

> It is anything but an
>idea I am trying to make "desperate arguments" for (and people
>should note when I use speech marks I am quoting,
>hence "objectionable" - with SMILEY! - not you, Marie!), since I
>consider it not proven, as I consider an Armada image not proven,
>though, as I did say, "highly suggestive".

>
>There is another possibility besides Bosworth and Essex and the
>Armada - Tyrone's rebellion. Again if we knew specifics about the
>origins of the forces involved it might help. But since it only
>takes ten minutes to do Tyrone's rebellion for the unit and several
>lessons to do the Armada I don't know as much about the former I am
>afraid.

This is an intriguing possibility. The problem is the Devereux
associations with the Tyrone Rebellion were less than fortunate.
Elizabeth's Earl of Essex (the father of the parliamentary general) did
lead a campaign against the Earl of Tyrone. It was however a complete
disaster and he ended up having to sign a truce of which the home
government did not approve. To compound matters he came home before he
was summoned much to Elizabeth and the Privy Council's displeasure.
Ultimately it lead to him posing around London and attempting a coup
d'etat which never got off the ground. Unsurprisingly he lost royal
favour and as a consequence his head (moral: do not try to make friends
with Tudors!). Not much for the Devereux family to celebrate.

One possibility for which I have not one piece of evidence is that
perhaps the window marks the Battle of Kinsale at which Lord Mountjoy
defeated Tyrone's army and forced a Spanish garrison to surrender. But
what is the connection between Mountjoy and Kinsale in 1601 and
Merivale? If you can provide any evidence in support of this it would be
very interesting. For it to stand up to scrutiny there has to be a link
otherwise it is all smoke rings.

>
>In any case since I haven't seen the damn panel I can't say what the
>clothes or weapons do or do not indicate, and am only basing
>responses on what has been posted and so far the jury, for me, is
>still out.

Try this link. Not a high quality image, John Austin had a digitally
enhanced large format version at the conference which was clearer. You
can at least see the difficulties that stem from attempting ti interpret
this extremely interesting artefact.

http://www.richardiiiworcs.co.uk/images/atherstone/brokenglass.jpg
>

The following will give you a wider perspective on a potential Armada
context much more detailed than I can do in a medium such as this:

Garret Mattingly's 'Defeat of the Spanish Armada', it is a bit dated but
it is very readable and you get the Armada in a European as well as
English context. To understand the Elizabethan military system I suggest
Lindsay Boynton's 'Elizabethan Militia' and G.C. Cruickshank's
'Eliazabeth's Army' (go for the second edition). The HMC calendared some
of the Foljambe MSS in 1897 one of which is an Armada period 'Book of
Musters' which is complemented by the State Papers Vol 170. For Ireland
try Cyril Fall's 'Elizabeth's Irish Wars' or Sean O'Faoilin's biography
of the 'The Great O'Neill'. You could always cut corners and go to John
Tincey's Armada Campaign for a quick fix.

Best wishes

Bill
--
Bill Braham

For those of you in the UK Saturday on Discovery Knowledge (Sky ch
522) at 22.30 there is a programme about Bosworth. Don't have any
other details but may be worth checking out.
Paul



Richard liveth yet

There was a program on the BBC once called the "trial of Richard III" is it available on disk or tape anywhere?

tom smith

On Thu Nov 6 6:47 , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> sent:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For those of you in the UK Saturday on Discovery Knowledge (Sky ch
>
>522) at 22.30 there is a programme about Bosworth. Don't have any
>
>other details but may be worth checking out.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>Richard liveth yet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> For those of you in the UK Saturday on Discovery Knowledge (Sky ch
> 522) at 22.30 there is a programme about Bosworth. Don't have any
> other details but may be worth checking out.
> Paul

Dont have Sky Paul - if you watch can you give us a resume of the contents? Thanks
Eileen
>
>
>
> Richard liveth yet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The Trial is included on one of the versions of Olivier's Richard III
film. But it is very long, and rather dull, though there is the odd
highlight.
Paul


On 6 Nov 2008, at 14:32, tomtfc@... wrote:

> There was a program on the BBC once called the "trial of Richard
> III" is it available on disk or tape anywhere?
>
> tom smith
>
> On Thu Nov 6 6:47 , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> sent:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> For those of you in the UK Saturday on Discovery
>> Knowledge (Sky ch
>>
>> 522) at 22.30 there is a programme about Bosworth. Don't have any
>>
>> other details but may be worth checking out.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard liveth yet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

I thought that The Trial Of Richard III was very interesting. It is
available from Amazon as an extra disc to Olivier's Richard III at
the following link (you may have to copy and paste):

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Richard-III-Special/dp/B000BSQQZY/ref=sr_1_1?
ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1226042663&sr=1-1


Cheers,
Jennifer


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> The Trial is included on one of the versions of Olivier's Richard
III
> film. But it is very long, and rather dull, though there is the
odd
> highlight.
> Paul
>
>
> On 6 Nov 2008, at 14:32, tomtfc@... wrote:
>
> > There was a program on the BBC once called the "trial of Richard
> > III" is it available on disk or tape anywhere?
> >
> > tom smith
> >
> > On Thu Nov 6 6:47 , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> sent:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> For those of you in the UK Saturday on Discovery
> >> Knowledge (Sky ch
> >>
> >> 522) at 22.30 there is a programme about Bosworth. Don't have any
> >>
> >> other details but may be worth checking out.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Richard liveth yet
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard liveth yet
>

I can't do "PAL", but thanks. I taught world history for 30 years and the big event of each year was doing the Trial of Richard III with all testimony & evidence based on research.

tom smith

On Fri Nov 7 2:30 , dances_with_spaniels <[email protected]> sent:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I thought that The Trial Of Richard III was very interesting. It is
>
>available from Amazon as an extra disc to Olivier's Richard III at
>
>the following link (you may have to copy and paste):
>
>
>
>http://www.amazon.co.uk/Richard-III-Special/dp/B000BSQQZY/ref=sr_1_1?
>
>ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1226042663&sr=1-1
>
>
>
>Cheers,
>
> Jennifer
>
>
>
>--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>
><paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> The Trial is included on one of the versions of Olivier's Richard
>
>III
>
>> film. But it is very long, and rather dull, though there is the
>
>odd
>
>> highlight.
>
>> Paul
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On 6 Nov 2008, at 14:32, tomtfc@... wrote:
>
>>
>
>> > There was a program on the BBC once called the "trial of Richard
>
>> > III" is it available on disk or tape anywhere?
>
>> >
>
>> > tom smith
>
>> >
>
>> > On Thu Nov 6 6:47 , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> sent:
>
>> >
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >> For those of you in the UK Saturday on Discovery
>
>> >> Knowledge (Sky ch
>
>> >>
>
>> >> 522) at 22.30 there is a programme about Bosworth. Don't have any
>
>> >>
>
>> >> other details but may be worth checking out.
>
>> >>
>
>> >> Paul
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >> Richard liveth yet
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >>
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> > ------------------------------------
>
>> >
>
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>>
>
>> Richard liveth yet
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

A chacun son goût as they say :-)
Paul


On 7 Nov 2008, at 07:30, dances_with_spaniels wrote:

> I thought that The Trial Of Richard III was very interesting. It is
> available from Amazon as an extra disc to Olivier's Richard III at
> the following link (you may have to copy and paste):
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Richard-III-Special/dp/B000BSQQZY/ref=sr_1_1?
> ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1226042663&sr=1-1
>
>
> Cheers,
> Jennifer
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> The Trial is included on one of the versions of Olivier's Richard
> III
>> film. But it is very long, and rather dull, though there is the
> odd
>> highlight.
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 6 Nov 2008, at 14:32, tomtfc@... wrote:
>>
>>> There was a program on the BBC once called the "trial of Richard
>>> III" is it available on disk or tape anywhere?
>>>
>>> tom smith
>>>
>>> On Thu Nov 6 6:47 , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> sent:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For those of you in the UK Saturday on Discovery
>>>> Knowledge (Sky ch
>>>>
>>>> 522) at 22.30 there is a programme about Bosworth. Don't have any
>>>>
>>>> other details but may be worth checking out.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Richard liveth yet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard liveth yet
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> The Trial is included on one of the versions of Olivier's Richard III
> film. But it is very long, and rather dull, though there is the odd
> highlight.



If it's the same one I'm thinking of -- made in the US, with actual
Supreme Court justices -- one aspect I really enjoyed was Richard, in
period costume, sitting at the defense table.

Katy

that's the one I want; anybody know where I can get it?

tom smith

On Fri Nov 7 13:41 , 'oregonkaty' <oregon_katy@...> sent:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>
><paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> The Trial is included on one of the versions of Olivier's Richard III
>
>> film. But it is very long, and rather dull, though there is the odd
>
>> highlight.
>
>
>
>If it's the same one I'm thinking of -- made in the US, with actual
>
>Supreme Court justices -- one aspect I really enjoyed was Richard, in
>
>period costume, sitting at the defense table.
>
>
>
>Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm sure I have the book somewhere, with the verdict in an envelope on the inside back cover!
Oggie.

----- Original Message -----
From: tomtfc@...
To:
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Bosworth


that's the one I want; anybody know where I can get it?

tom smith

On Fri Nov 7 13:41 , 'oregonkaty' <oregon_katy@...> sent:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>
><paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> The Trial is included on one of the versions of Olivier's Richard III
>
>> film. But it is very long, and rather dull, though there is the odd
>
>> highlight.
>
>
>
>If it's the same one I'm thinking of -- made in the US, with actual
>
>Supreme Court justices -- one aspect I really enjoyed was Richard, in
>
>period costume, sitting at the defense table.
>
>
>
>Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "tomtfc@..."
<tomtfc@...> wrote:
>
> that's the one I want; anybody know where I can get it?
>
> tom smith


Here is a possible source, though the trial I am thinking of was in
the early 80s.

http://www.sandiego.edu/history/admin/greatbritain.html

Katy

Well I'm talking about the Channel 4 UK one of 1984. That's the
version included with the Olivier film.
Paul


On 7 Nov 2008, at 18:41, oregonkaty wrote:

> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> The Trial is included on one of the versions of Olivier's Richard III
>> film. But it is very long, and rather dull, though there is the odd
>> highlight.
>
>
>
> If it's the same one I'm thinking of -- made in the US, with actual
> Supreme Court justices -- one aspect I really enjoyed was Richard, in
> period costume, sitting at the defense table.
>
> Katy
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

Amazon must have it Tom. But as I said, you have to buy the Olivier
Shakespeare film with it.
Paul

On 7 Nov 2008, at 20:38, tomtfc@... wrote:

> that's the one I want; anybody know where I can get it?
>
> tom smith
>
> On Fri Nov 7 13:41 , 'oregonkaty' <oregon_katy@...> sent:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , Paul
>> Trevor Bale
>>
>> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The Trial is included on one of the versions of Olivier's Richard
>>> III
>>
>>> film. But it is very long, and rather dull, though there is the odd
>>
>>> highlight.
>>
>>
>>
>> If it's the same one I'm thinking of -- made in the US, with actual
>>
>> Supreme Court justices -- one aspect I really enjoyed was Richard, in
>>
>> period costume, sitting at the defense table.
>>
>>
>>
>> Katy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

I looked on Amazon but didn't see it except in PAL format.....

thanks anyway
tom

On Fri Nov 7 17:13 , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> sent:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Amazon must have it Tom. But as I said, you have to buy the Olivier
>
>Shakespeare film with it.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>On 7 Nov 2008, at 20:38, tomtfc@... wrote:
>
>
>
>> that's the one I want; anybody know where I can get it?
>
>>
>
>> tom smith
>
>>
>
>> On Fri Nov 7 13:41 , 'oregonkaty' <oregon_katy@...> sent:
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> --- In , Paul
>
>>> Trevor Bale
>
>>>
>
>>> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>> The Trial is included on one of the versions of Olivier's Richard
>
>>>> III
>
>>>
>
>>>> film. But it is very long, and rather dull, though there is the odd
>
>>>
>
>>>> highlight.
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> If it's the same one I'm thinking of -- made in the US, with actual
>
>>>
>
>>> Supreme Court justices -- one aspect I really enjoyed was Richard, in
>
>>>
>
>>> period costume, sitting at the defense table.
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> Katy
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> ------------------------------------
>
>>
>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>Richard liveth yet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

OK, so it was made in the year 2000, but that is no excuse for
following the battle as incorrectly laid out on Ambien Hill by Danny
Williams in 1977, a plan of the battle discredited many times in the
intervening years. Full of other mistakes ( Norfolk did not take
advantage of Tudor's weak position, Lord Stanley intervened on
Tudor's behalf instead of William, few in the royal army wanted to
fight for their king etc)
More later when I've had time to do a transcript. But don't hold out
for anything good. Richard over exercising his right arm to blow it
up to almost a deformed size was included!!
BUT he was a good general.......
Paul

Richard liveth yet

I'm slowly making my way through the programme, but have to keep
stopping for a rant! I'll post the transcript in a day or two.
Paul


On 6 Nov 2008, at 18:08, eileen wrote:

> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> For those of you in the UK Saturday on Discovery Knowledge (Sky ch
>> 522) at 22.30 there is a programme about Bosworth. Don't have any
>> other details but may be worth checking out.
>> Paul
>
> Dont have Sky Paul - if you watch can you give us a resume of the
> contents? Thanks
> Eileen
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard liveth yet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I'm slowly making my way through the programme, but have to keep
> stopping for a rant! I'll post the transcript in a day or two.
> Paul

gird your loins Paul, gird your loins!! hee hee hee :0)
Eileen
>
>
> On 6 Nov 2008, at 18:08, eileen wrote:
>
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>
> >> For those of you in the UK Saturday on Discovery Knowledge (Sky ch
> >> 522) at 22.30 there is a programme about Bosworth. Don't have any
> >> other details but may be worth checking out.
> >> Paul
> >
> > Dont have Sky Paul - if you watch can you give us a resume of the
> > contents? Thanks
> > Eileen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Richard liveth yet
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard liveth yet
>

Just in case anyone hasen't seen this:

http://www.r3.org/bosworth/texts/jones.html

For all those who have access to UK TV Channel 4 is showing "Wars of the Roses a Timewatch Special" next week on the recent discoveries and new site at Bosworth.
Bad news is that it is presented by Tony Robinson so as with all his programmes there will be more about him than anything. Still better than being ignored.

C4 UK 20.00 Wednesday March 16th

Paul

Can anyone record this for those who don't receive UK TV?

Judy Thomson



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Wed, March 9, 2011 4:29:43 AM
Subject: Bosworth


For all those who have access to UK TV Channel 4 is showing "Wars of the Roses a
Timewatch Special" next week on the recent discoveries and new site at Bosworth.

Bad news is that it is presented by Tony Robinson so as with all his programmes
there will be more about him than anything. Still better than being ignored.

C4 UK 20.00 Wednesday March 16th

Paul

It's actually Timeteam, not Timewatch, hence Tony Robinson.


http://www.channel4.com/programmes/time-team-specials/episode-guide/series-6/episode-3



--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Can anyone record this for those who don't receive UK TV?
>
> Judy Thomson
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Wed, March 9, 2011 4:29:43 AM
> Subject: Bosworth
>
>
> For all those who have access to UK TV Channel 4 is showing "Wars of the Roses a
> Timewatch Special" next week on the recent discoveries and new site at Bosworth.
>
> Bad news is that it is presented by Tony Robinson so as with all his programmes
> there will be more about him than anything. Still better than being ignored.
>
> C4 UK 20.00 Wednesday March 16th
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Slip of the pen.
Paul

On 10 Mar 2011, at 19:58, theblackprussian wrote:

> It's actually Timeteam, not Timewatch, hence Tony Robinson.
>
>
> http://www.channel4.com/programmes/time-team-specials/episode-guide/series-6/episode-3
>
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>>
>> Can anyone record this for those who don't receive UK TV?
>>
>> Judy Thomson
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
>> Sent: Wed, March 9, 2011 4:29:43 AM
>> Subject: Bosworth
>>
>>
>> For all those who have access to UK TV Channel 4 is showing "Wars of the Roses a
>> Timewatch Special" next week on the recent discoveries and new site at Bosworth.
>>
>> Bad news is that it is presented by Tony Robinson so as with all his programmes
>> there will be more about him than anything. Still better than being ignored.
>>
>> C4 UK 20.00 Wednesday March 16th
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

One of the guys who gave me the tour, Mike Ingram has published a book with his view of what happened based on his expertise as a military historian and the finds and layout of the correct battlefield site. It is available at The Bosworth Battlefield centre. Bosworth 1485. Published by The History Press. 31 pages out of 156 are on the battle. The rest is a potted history of the WOTR.
Worth it for the maps, details of the finds, and his scenario of the battle, but much as I like him, he isn't a great writer!
Paul


Richard Liveth Yet!

http://soawargamesteam.blogspot.com/2012/06/24th-june-bosworth-field.html

Bosworth information

George


On Jan 27, 2013, at 6:49 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

> One of the guys who gave me the tour, Mike Ingram has published a book with his view of what happened based on his expertise as a military historian and the finds and layout of the correct battlefield site. It is available at The Bosworth Battlefield centre. Bosworth 1485. Published by The History Press. 31 pages out of 156 are on the battle. The rest is a potted history of the WOTR.
> Worth it for the maps, details of the finds, and his scenario of the battle, but much as I like him, he isn't a great writer!
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>

George Butterfield wrote:
>
> http://soawargamesteam.blogspot.com/2012/06/24th-june-bosworth-field.html
>
> Bosworth information


Carol responds:

Thanks, George. But someone should inform him that Polydore Vergil is not a contemporary account and very much loaded toward the Tudor side.

Carol

Second what Paul says below.  Mike Ingram's book is very interesting and plausible re its analysis of the battle - both the action itself and how the topography may have affected events.  But the rest of the book is not of the same standard and the quality of proof-reading is appalling.  There are unforgivable errors like confusing "collaborating" with "corroborating" and mixing up Anthony and Edward Woodville.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Sunday, 27 January 2013, 11:49
Subject: Bosworth


 
One of the guys who gave me the tour, Mike Ingram has published a book with his view of what happened based on his expertise as a military historian and the finds and layout of the correct battlefield site. It is available at The Bosworth Battlefield centre. Bosworth 1485. Published by The History Press. 31 pages out of 156 are on the battle. The rest is a potted history of the WOTR.
Worth it for the maps, details of the finds, and his scenario of the battle, but much as I like him, he isn't a great writer!
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Second what Paul says below.  Mike Ingram's book is very interesting and plausible re its analysis of the battle - both the action itself and how the topography may have affected events.  But the rest of the book is not of the same standard and the quality of proof-reading is appalling.  There are unforgivable errors like confusing "collaborating" with "corroborating" and mixing up Anthony and Edward Woodville.
>
> Jonathan

Carol responds:

Sounds as if the copyediting was appalling. Not much that a proofreader could do at that point; she or he would only correct typos and copyeditor's corrections that the typesetter missed. A proofreader who makes corrections of her own has to label them as such--too many and she'll lose her job. Fact-checking is another job altogether.

Carol

RIP Ricardus Rex.
Best wishes to all.



On Tuesday, 22 August 2017, 09:38:44 GMT+1, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

 

Remembering today King Richard and his loyal followers who perished st Bosworth.  RIP.  Loyaltie me Lie 

R.I.P. Richard Loyaulte me Lie.

Rest in peace, King Richard iii and all who fell at Bosworth. Honoured at last. Loyalty Me Lie

Remembering them every day and still searching to find and reveal the truth. H (who was out of wifi link on 22nd)

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 22 August 2017, 9:38
Subject: Bosworth

Remembering today King Richard and his loyal followers who perished st Bosworth. RIP. Loyaltie me Lie

Just sent this to Hinckley council about the plans to tarmac over part of the Bosworth battlefield site.
Have you sent them an objection yet? As many as we can organise please.
Each must contain the reference and your address to be accepted.

BOSWORTH BATTLEFIELD PLANS.
Référence.18/00425
I write to strongly object to the projected destruction of this most important of historical sites for any reason, but in particular for one so mundane as a test track for véhicules, hardly something of importance, and certainly not something as important as the battlefield site I and many of my friends and associates have been visiting for many years, watching the careful preservation and mapping out of the site, and the vast numbers of tourists who have come to see the place where the last truly king of England lost his life and his crown. Having only recently discovered his remains under a car park and the amount of media interest engendered, the crowds who turned up to see the reburial and take part in the many events of that memorable week, the thought of the site of his death becoming tarred over like a car park is an insult of the greatest degree possible.
This must not be allowed to go ahead. You will be not only destroying one of the most well preserved and visited battle sites in Europe, but destroying a tourist trade that must bring a huge amount into local business. I for one will no longer come to the area, no longer stay in one of the many hotels or bed and breakfast places, no longer spend money in restaurants and pubs, or in local shops.
And in place of all that trade you'll have destroyed to many people a sacred site and got in its place a piece of tarmac that few will be interested in.
Yours sincerely
Paul Trevor Bale

The email is
planning@...
Envoyé de mon iPad