After Bosworth

We have not pinned very much on Henry VII, have we?
He is guilty of judicial murder in Warwick's case, even Antonia Fraser agrees on that point but there were five other senior Yorkists after 1509.
He may be responsible for the deaths of the ex-Princes but the evidence is either sketchy or not pursued.
Alternatively, Warbeck may have been Shrewsbury (has anyone read Ann Wroe's book - I have preordered it in paperback for May, she gives him a 30% chance) which would be another crime. Again, only the DNA evidence can settle this one.

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> We have not pinned very much on Henry VII, have we?
> He is guilty of judicial murder in Warwick's case, even Antonia
Fraser agrees on that point but there were five other senior Yorkists
after 1509.
> He may be responsible for the deaths of the ex-Princes but the
evidence is either sketchy or not pursued.
> Alternatively, Warbeck may have been Shrewsbury (has anyone read
Ann Wroe's book - I have preordered it in paperback for May, she
gives him a 30% chance) which would be another crime. Again, only the
DNA evidence can settle this one.

Hand up, sir! Read it on holiday (very long). A lot, in practice,
seems to hang on the identity of the "Binche" boy, who I suspect
would get at least 50% from Anne Wroe if one were to ask her - her
own discovery. Sadly only mentioned right at the end of the book -
supposed to work the like proverbial rabbit out of hat, I presume,
but didn't really come off as by page five hundred and whatever and a
huge emotional journey during which readers offered only two choices,
most minds like mine, I suspect, not open to something completely
different at that stage. Wroe has an article on said boy in winter
issue of Ricardian, very interesting.
Question is - who was he????

Marie

>
>
>
>

Marie wrote: Hand up, sir! Read it on holiday (very
long). A lot, in practice, seems to hang on the
identity of the "Binche" boy, who I suspect
would get at least 50% from Anne Wroe if one were to
ask her - her own discovery. Sadly only mentioned
right at the end of the book - supposed to work the
like proverbial rabbit out of hat, I presume,
but didn't really come off as by page five hundred and
whatever and a huge emotional journey during which
readers offered only two choices, most minds like
mine, I suspect, not open to something completely
different at that stage.

***

I've reached the point where Richard of York (?) falls
out with James IV.

I haven't decided what to think yet. But as usual, I
have questions.

I've been asking myself how the acting traditions of
that time would have enabled a "boatman's son" or an
"organist's son" or any other young man raised outside
an aristocratic household to perform so convincingly
for so long.

As far as I know, the plays of the time were religious
plays, not intended to represent everyday life in a
"naturalistic" way. (I read The Second Shephard's
Play in a college English course, but I don't think
experience in that would have prepared Richard of York
(?) to convince the leaders of France, Burgundy, and
Scotland to fund his return to England's throne)

I doubt that a person who hadn't been brought up in an
aristocratic household could have carried on an act
for so many years. It seems to me that unconscious
habits, mannerisms would have given him away sooner
rather than later. Maybe my doubts are misplaced.
Maybe natural acting talent would have allowed a
working-class person to get away with it. But I have
my doubts.

At this point in my reading I find Henry VII's
expression "feigned boy" ironic. I see irony in the
idea that the person they killed may really have been
Edward IV's son. The "feigned boy" was the invented
identity (boatman's/organist's or whoever's son that
Tudor supporters forced on him.

If Anne Wroe has another candidate waiting in the
wings, she'll have to erase my doubts about acting
skills before I can accept the theory that a third
person was actually Richard of York. Nothing she's
written so far has done that.

But I think this book is well worth reading. I wasn't
expecting it to give final answers to any questions.
If it only had a bibliography, I'd be tempted to buy
it. But I'll settle for using the library's copy for
now.

Marion

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: Hand up, sir! Read it on holiday (very
> long). A lot, in practice, seems to hang on the
> identity of the "Binche" boy, who I suspect
> would get at least 50% from Anne Wroe if one were to
> ask her - her own discovery. Sadly only mentioned
> right at the end of the book - supposed to work the
> like proverbial rabbit out of hat, I presume,
> but didn't really come off as by page five hundred and
> whatever and a huge emotional journey during which
> readers offered only two choices, most minds like
> mine, I suspect, not open to something completely
> different at that stage.
>
> ***
>
> I've reached the point where Richard of York (?) falls
> out with James IV.
>
> I haven't decided what to think yet. But as usual, I
> have questions.
>
> I've been asking myself how the acting traditions of
> that time would have enabled a "boatman's son" or an
> "organist's son" or any other young man raised outside
> an aristocratic household to perform so convincingly
> for so long.
>
> As far as I know, the plays of the time were religious
> plays, not intended to represent everyday life in a
> "naturalistic" way. (I read The Second Shephard's
> Play in a college English course, but I don't think
> experience in that would have prepared Richard of York
> (?) to convince the leaders of France, Burgundy, and
> Scotland to fund his return to England's throne)
>
> I doubt that a person who hadn't been brought up in an
> aristocratic household could have carried on an act
> for so many years. It seems to me that unconscious
> habits, mannerisms would have given him away sooner
> rather than later. Maybe my doubts are misplaced.
> Maybe natural acting talent would have allowed a
> working-class person to get away with it. But I have
> my doubts.
>
> At this point in my reading I find Henry VII's
> expression "feigned boy" ironic. I see irony in the
> idea that the person they killed may really have been
> Edward IV's son. The "feigned boy" was the invented
> identity (boatman's/organist's or whoever's son that
> Tudor supporters forced on him.
>
> If Anne Wroe has another candidate waiting in the
> wings, she'll have to erase my doubts about acting
> skills before I can accept the theory that a third
> person was actually Richard of York. Nothing she's
> written so far has done that.

I'm sitting on my hands here (metaphorically of course - don't type
with toes) - very tempted to explain about the Binche boy but I don't
want to spoil the book for you - so would you rather I post the
details or not?

Marie

> I'm sitting on my hands here (metaphorically of course - don't
type
> with toes) - very tempted to explain about the Binche boy but I
don't
> want to spoil the book for you - so would you rather I post the
> details or not?
>
> Marie

Give us a clue Marie: for once I don't even know the name of the
book - unless it's one I bought and forgot about ....! I tend to do
things like that these days!
B

Marie wrote: I'm sitting on my hands here
(metaphorically of course - don't type
with toes) - very tempted to explain about the Binche
boy but I don't want to spoil the book for you - so
would you rather I post the details or not?

***

Hello Marie,

It won't spoil the rest of the book for me. I know
the general drift of how it will end for Richard of
York (?). I'd like to hear what you have to say about
it.

Could you comment on the level of acting skills a
working class person would need to imitate a king's
son for so many years? Has any other king (in any
country) besides Henry VII claimed that rivals for his
throne were commoners trained to act like aristocrats?


Henry VII made this claim twice. When I stop to think
about it, once seems unusual, and twice raises doubts.
I've heard Henry VII's stories about his rivals
called imaginative, but maybe they weren't. Maybe
Henry et al. were just recycling a story that worked
for them before.

TIA!

Marion





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: I'm sitting on my hands here
> (metaphorically of course - don't type
> with toes) - very tempted to explain about the Binche
> boy but I don't want to spoil the book for you - so
> would you rather I post the details or not?
>
> ***
>
> Hello Marie,
>
> It won't spoil the rest of the book for me. I know
> the general drift of how it will end for Richard of
> York (?). I'd like to hear what you have to say about
> it.
>
> Could you comment on the level of acting skills a
> working class person would need to imitate a king's
> son for so many years? Has any other king (in any
> country) besides Henry VII claimed that rivals for his
> throne were commoners trained to act like aristocrats?

That wasn't actually what I was going to comment on - quite the
opposite. I too think it would have been a very hard act to pull off.
I can't help thinking of the false Anastasia (an interesting parallel
in many ways - similar physical marks and knowledge). I did see an
interview with her on a TC prog once - very peasant. And it seems she
fooled outsiders who wanted to be fooled, but no one who had known
the real Princess Anastasia. This is not the case with "Perkin Warw
beck".
The third option is a boy who first turns up in the accounts for
Margaret's palace of Binche for the 1478-1479, I think, aged 5, and
continues to feature until 1485 (I'll have to check dates), then
disappears. He was well provided for, with tutor and silk clothing.
Wroe, in her article, suggests possible link with a ship Edward sent
to the Low Countries in 1478, but I'll look up the article and give
details.
So if this was the later pretender, he would have been brought up by
Margaret.

Marie
>>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
> http://mail.yahoo.com

Marie wrote: The third option is a boy who first turns
up in the accounts for Margaret's palace of Binche
for the 1478-1479, I think, aged 5, and continues to
feature until 1485 (I'll have to check dates), then
disappears. He was well provided for, with tutor and
silk clothing. Wroe, in her article, suggests
possible link with a ship Edward sent to the Low
Countries in 1478, but I'll look up the article and
give details. So if this was the later pretender, he
would have been brought up by Margaret.

***

The boy in the Binche account books couldn't have been
Richard of York, unless Richard had developed the
ability to be two places at once. Richard of York
married Anne Mowbray in 1478, didn't he? And
chroniclers wrote that he joined Edward V in the Tower
in June 1483.

Is there any possibility that this boy in the Binche
accounts could be the Richard of Eastwell that was
supposedly an illigitimate son of Richard III's? This
is just a wild guess that just occurred to me.

Does anyone else have any ideas?

Marion

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: The third option is a boy who first turns
> up in the accounts for Margaret's palace of Binche
> for the 1478-1479, I think, aged 5, and continues to
> feature until 1485 (I'll have to check dates), then
> disappears. He was well provided for, with tutor and
> silk clothing. Wroe, in her article, suggests
> possible link with a ship Edward sent to the Low
> Countries in 1478, but I'll look up the article and
> give details. So if this was the later pretender, he
> would have been brought up by Margaret.
>
> ***
>
> The boy in the Binche account books couldn't have been
> Richard of York, unless Richard had developed the
> ability to be two places at once. Richard of York
> married Anne Mowbray in 1478, didn't he? And
> chroniclers wrote that he joined Edward V in the Tower
> in June 1483.
>
> Is there any possibility that this boy in the Binche
> accounts could be the Richard of Eastwell that was
> supposedly an illigitimate son of Richard III's? This
> is just a wild guess that just occurred to me.
>
> Does anyone else have any ideas?
>
> Marion



Clarence's son Edward? He was born in 1475, and in late 1476
Clarence was supposedy talking about sending him to safety someplace
because he felt there were deadly conspiracies surounding his whole
family. It appears the Binche boy was too old, if he was about five
in 1478, and it's hard to mistake a five-year-old for a three-year-
old, but I suppose that depemdson how cloely an observer is
associated with a child. I believe that in those times a child, once
out of infancy, was dressed as a miniature adult, which could help
blur age differences.

Katy

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: The third option is a boy who first turns
> up in the accounts for Margaret's palace of Binche
> for the 1478-1479, I think, aged 5, and continues to
> feature until 1485 (I'll have to check dates), then
> disappears. He was well provided for, with tutor and
> silk clothing. Wroe, in her article, suggests
> possible link with a ship Edward sent to the Low
> Countries in 1478, but I'll look up the article and
> give details. So if this was the later pretender, he
> would have been brought up by Margaret.
>
> ***
>
> The boy in the Binche account books couldn't have been
> Richard of York, unless Richard had developed the
> ability to be two places at once. Richard of York
> married Anne Mowbray in 1478, didn't he? And
> chroniclers wrote that he joined Edward V in the Tower
> in June 1483.

Which is precisely why I called this a third option. He couldn't be
York, but he could be the person claiming to be York in the 1490s.

>
> Is there any possibility that this boy in the Binche
> accounts could be the Richard of Eastwell that was
> supposedly an illigitimate son of Richard III's? This
> is just a wild guess that just occurred to me.
>
> Does anyone else have any ideas?
>
> Marion

I've just looked up my notes on the Binche lad. All from Wroe. The
gist is:
In 1478 Edward IV's ship The Falcon was sent on a return trip to
Flanders with 52 men and 2 grooms on board. (Without looking at the
records for those years, I couldn't of course comment on how unusual
or otherwise this might be.)
In Summer 1478 Hasting was paid for sending "certain secret persons
into the parties beyond the sea to bring us knowledge of certain
matters such as they were sent thither for, whereof we have the
perfectness to our great pleasure."

In the accounts for Sept 1478-Sept 1479 there are:-
1. a payment "to Sire Pierre de Montigny, priest, living in Binche,
for the board and 'gouvernance' of 'ung josne filz' called Jehan le
Sage, aged about five years, whom Madame has puit to live in 'son
hostel' [this is the term used for her palace at Binche], and has
paid for his keep there... £24 tournois." Jehan le Sage was, as it
happens, also the name of Edward's fool who accompanied Margaret to
Burgundy in 1468.
2. doublets for Jehan striped with silk and with silk laces, and a
livery jacket.
3. For Easter - clothes of best scarlet cloth and finest linen
He also got a pair of skates.
4. Bills for bread and cheese, and a separate boy's room (the same
room Margaret later named 'Richard's Room').
These payments continued till 1484-5. The accounts starting September
1485 and later make no mention of him.

Wroe admits this boy was looked after specially, but not in a royal
fashion - the clothes are rather of the standard expected for a page.
The vagueness about his age on arrival is also interesting. Later
Margaret adopted a little English boy, but there is no suggestion
that this boy was English, so the voyage of the Falcon, and Hastings'
mission, may have had nothing to do with him.
If he is the pseudo-York, then he disappears a bit too soon. Wroe
suggests he, or whoever later claimed to be York, was in Malines in
summer 1486, and was the boy 'mistaken' by the town authorities for
the son of Clarence. She does not go so far as to say that he was
also Warwick pretender himself, nor does she entertain the
possibility that the latter really was in Burgundy that summer. In
fact, she says flatly that he wasn't, whereas in fact we don't know
where he was at that time, and Andre, for what he is worth, claims
that 'Simnel' was in Burgundy before invading England, though he
places this, rather impossibly, after the Dublin coronation.
Richard of Eastwell is an interesting possibility. If he was a family
bastard, perhaps he was sent over to keep Margaret company, or
perhaps because he was an embarrassment to the father. Edward IV
wouldn't have had a problem with a bastard son, but Clarence or
Richard might have done after their marriages.
Of course, if he was Clarence's heir, then he could well be the 'son
of Clarence' entertained in Malines in 1486; however, the age is a
problem, also the fact that he doesn't appear in Brgundy until after
Clarence's death.
Richard of Eastwell is an interesting one, but why would he go to
England after Bosworth?

Those are all my thoughts. Any brainwaves, anyone?

Marie



>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
> http://mail.yahoo.com

Katy wrote: Clarence's son Edward?

Marie wrote: Any brainwaves, anyone?

***

I need to think about this some more. Hopefully some
brainwaves will come after I've finished Wroe's book.

Wroe is very good at bringing documents alive. I'm
not fond of numbers, so I appreciate her skill at
interpreting them.

I don't mean any disrespect when I say that Wroe's
discussion of Henry VII's accounts reminded me of the
title of Monty Python's book, "Why Accountancy Is Not
Boring."

Marion

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> I've just looked up my notes on the Binche lad. All from Wroe. The
> gist is:
> In 1478 Edward IV's ship The Falcon was sent on a return trip to
> Flanders with 52 men and 2 grooms on board. (Without looking at the
> records for those years, I couldn't of course comment on how
unusual
> or otherwise this might be.)
> In Summer 1478 Hasting was paid for sending "certain secret persons
> into the parties beyond the sea to bring us knowledge of certain
> matters such as they were sent thither for, whereof we have the
> perfectness to our great pleasure."
>
> In the accounts for Sept 1478-Sept 1479 there are:-
> 1. a payment "to Sire Pierre de Montigny, priest, living in Binche,
> for the board and 'gouvernance' of 'ung josne filz' called Jehan le
> Sage, aged about five years, whom Madame has puit to live in 'son
> hostel' [this is the term used for her palace at Binche], and has
> paid for his keep there... £24 tournois." Jehan le Sage was, as it
> happens, also the name of Edward's fool who accompanied Margaret to
> Burgundy in 1468.

>
> Marie


I don't have even enough French to order from a menu...does the
phrase describing this boy -- "ung josne filz" have any
significance? What does it mean, actually? I get "filz" as "son"
rather than "boy"...is that correct, and if so, what does that
indicate?

And what do you make of his being called Jehan le Sage, that being
the moniker of Edward's fool? (The same Jack who made the quip about
the waters being so deep he could not plumb their bottoms, I presume.)

It appoears that Jack the Wise was a trusted envoy, perhaps partly
because fools enjoyed a certain freedom from convention and immunity
from accountability.

Katy

Katy wrote: I know we have left Occam's Razor far
behind here, and instead of its being more likely to
be an approaching horse than a zebra, if you
hear the sound of hoofbeats, we now have an eohippus
at the gallop, but it's something to think about.
Usually the most obvious solution is the most likely,
but not always.

***

When Henry VII and John Morton are involved, I feel
the most obvious solution may be the least likely.

That's just a feeling. But our Lambert Simnel thread
and my readings of "The King's Mother" and S.B.
Chrimes' biography of Henry VII all contribute to my
original doubts about Henry VII's credibility.

I'm still thinking about the possibilities of
Clarence's son and Richard of Eastwell and Jehan le
Sage. No brainwaves have hit so far.

But another idea occurred to me last night. Maybe it
could be described as a meandering mesohippus.

I think it comes from reading Anne Wroe's descriptions
of John Ramsey, Henry VII's spy in Scotland. Since I
learned about Henry's exile in Brittany and France,
I've looked for more details about possible French
influences on Henry's way of running England. I
haven't found much, but I can't get rid of the idea
that Henry learned some of his way of using spies and
rumors from Louis XI. I've read that Henry VII was
Machiavellian, but Louis XI was closer to Henry VII
than Machiavelli, so Henry VII would have seen the
results of Louis XI's scheming at much closer range.

Could Henry VII have learned some of his spying and
rumor-spreading tactics from Louis XI? Is it possible
that Louis XI even managed to get Henry VII to spy on
the court of Brittany while Henry was in exile there?

Can anyone on the list comment on these ideas?

TIA!

Marion




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
>
> Could Henry VII have learned some of his spying and
> rumor-spreading tactics from Louis XI? Is it possible
> that Louis XI even managed to get Henry VII to spy on
> the court of Brittany while Henry was in exile there?
>
> Can anyone on the list comment on these ideas?
>
> TIA!
>
> Marion

I wouldn't be a bit surprised. Did Louis have anything to offer
Tudor in return? He died before he would have been in a position to
offer Tudor aid in his bid for the English throne, but he could have
dangled the proise.

And why leave Morton out of this? He always seems to have played
both ends against the middle.

Katy
>
>
>
>

Marie asked: Richard of Eastwell is an interesting
one, but why would he go to England after Bosworth?

***

Maybe Margaret of York and other Yorkists sent him
back because they felt he wasn't the best choice for
overthrowing Henry VII.

But that makes Margaret look very calculating and
cold-blooded. I haven't read anything else that makes
her seem that way.

If Margaret felt the Binche boy wasn't suited to
overthrowing Henry VII, she could have found a way for
him to make his living in Flanders. Apparently he
knew Latin and French as well as English. I can't see
any advantage to sending him back to England, and the
dangers would cancel out everything Margaret had
contributed to his upbringing for 7 years.

When I suggested Richard of Eastwell, I didn't realize
that his age had been estimated as 16 years in 1485.
That would make him around 2 years older than Edward V
and 4 years older than Richard of York. That seems
like enough of a difference to disqualify him as a
candidate for replacing Henry VII.

It's possible that Richard of Eastwell wasn't 16 years
old in 1485. But I don't know how that can be proved.

I've done a web search on Richard of Eastwell, but I
haven't had time to find any of the books where he's
discussed.

There's an interesting reproduction of Richard of
Eastwell's story in an 18th century book at:
http://www.merlinventor.com/Curiosa.htm.

It's large and clear enough to read for yourself, so
you can make your own decisions about the credibility
of Richard of Eastwell's story.

I can't see any benefits for the 18th century tellers
in making the story up. I can't see how making the
story up would have benefitted Sir Thomas Moyle in
1547. I'm not even sure how Richard of Eastwell could
have been sure it was safe to tell such a story in
1547. Why take a risk if the story wasn't true?
Richard of Eastwell might have thought up a less
dangerous explanation for reading Latin books. Why
would Richard of Eastwell hope that claiming to be
Richard III's son would win Sir Thomas Moyle's favor?
It might have lost him his job, or worse, instead.


But I've asked how likely it was that a working man's
son could successfully act the part of an aristocrat
for 6-8 years.

So I should also ask how likely it was that a boy
brought up in a Latin schoolmaster's home could
successfully return to working class life. How could
Richard of Eastwell protect a purse of gold from
theft? Or how could he protect himself from
accusations that he had stolen the purse? How could
Richard of Eastwell find sponsors for his
apprenticeship? Would the schoolmaster have helped
him with that?

Henry VII's spies were very successful at keeping
track of Richard of York (?). If Richard of Eastwell
survived right under Henry VII's nose, he must have
been a very good actor. Perhaps Henry VII knew about
him but didn't see him as a threat. Maybe there are
entries relating to Richard of Eastwell in Henry VII's
secret accounts. It would be interesting for someone
to do a hands-on search for such entries.

Marion











__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie asked: Richard of Eastwell is an interesting
> one, but why would he go to England after Bosworth?
>
> ***
>
> Maybe Margaret of York and other Yorkists sent him
> back because they felt he wasn't the best choice for
> overthrowing Henry VII.
>
> But that makes Margaret look very calculating and
> cold-blooded. I haven't read anything else that makes
> her seem that way.
>
> If Margaret felt the Binche boy wasn't suited to
> overthrowing Henry VII, she could have found a way for
> him to make his living in Flanders. Apparently he
> knew Latin and French as well as English. I can't see
> any advantage to sending him back to England, and the
> dangers would cancel out everything Margaret had
> contributed to his upbringing for 7 years.
>
> When I suggested Richard of Eastwell, I didn't realize
> that his age had been estimated as 16 years in 1485.
> That would make him around 2 years older than Edward V
> and 4 years older than Richard of York. That seems
> like enough of a difference to disqualify him as a
> candidate for replacing Henry VII.

>
> It's possible that Richard of Eastwell wasn't 16 years
> old in 1485. But I don't know how that can be proved.

Evidently it can't. But bear in mind that he was an old man when he
was discovered and his age is taken simply from the burial record, as
I understand, which made him a round 80 years old if I recall. Ages
on burial registers are usually pretty rough. Sixteen seems to me
perhaps a little late to be starting an apprenticeship, so that it is
more plausible that he was a quite a bit younger. Also, he was
evidently not expected to fight at Bosworth, perhaps another
indication of youth.
Also, if he was conceived before Richard's bid to marry Anne Neville
it is hard to see why his existence would have been hushed up. Since
I asked that question it has occurred to me that we know only that
the Binche boy last occurs in the accounts ending Sept 1485. He
could have left Binche any time during that twelvemonth, possibly to
return to England to meet his father after Anne Neville's death??

Marie

>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

Marion wrote: > It's possible that Richard of Eastwell
wasn't 16 years
> old in 1485. But I don't know how that can be
proved.

Marie wrote: Evidently it can't. But bear in mind that
he was an old man when he was discovered and his age
is taken simply from the burial record, as I
understand, which made him a round 80 years old if I
recall.

***

I've just looked at the reproduction of the 18th
century 'Desiderata Curiosa, Book VII, Number VIII'
again. I'd forgotten that it says Richard of Eastwell
told Sir Thomas Moyle "That he was boarded with a
Latin schoolmaster without knowing who his parents
were 'til he was 15 or 16 years old." (Paragraph 3)

Thom. Brett's estimates in paragraph 9, which I was
thinking about, are based on the age Richard of
Eastwell gave Sir Thomas Moyle. I haven't seen a copy
of the burial record. Isn't it likely the burial
record was based on what Richard of Eastwell told Sir
Thomas Moyle, or anyone else who might have asked his
age?

Richard of Eastwell might have changed his age, and he
might have left a stay in Burgundy with Margaret out
of the story he told Sir Thomas Moyle. He doesn't say
where the schoolmaster he boarded with was living.

Here's something interesting: In paragraph 4, "...a
man finely dressed, with a star and garter, came to
[Richard of Eastwell], asked him some questions;
talked kindly to him; & gave him some money."

Could that star and garter identify one of Richard
III's supporters? Since Richard III's badge was a
white boar, I would expect Richard III's
representative to wear a white boar, rather than a
star and garter. Was a star and garter unusual? Was
it the same, or similar to the order of the garter?
Could this detail support the truth of Richard of
Eastwell's story?

I'm not trying to disprove Richard of Eastwell's
story. But it may not be totally accurate. If
Richard of Eastwell had spent around 60 years of his
life concealing his identity, it's possible that he
never told anyone his story exactly as it happened.
His caution would have been justified.

Does anyone have any more ideas?

TIA!

Marion



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

Marie wrote: Sixteen seems to me perhaps a little late
to be starting an apprenticeship, so that it is more
plausible that he was a quite a bit younger. Also, he
was evidently not expected to fight at Bosworth,
perhaps another indication of youth.

***

When did boys begin military training? Richard of
Eastwell only speaks about learning Latin. Would a
Latin schoolmaster send a boarding student somewhere
else to learn military skills?

The same question applies to the Binche boy. At what
age would he have begun military training? Wasn't
there something about a sword in the Binche accounts?
If Margaret of York and the exiled Yorkists wanted to
use the Binche boy in their rebellion, wouldn't they
have made very sure he developed military and
leadership skills?

Although Ann Wroe writes in great detail about Richard
of York (?) and mentions his fear of fighting, I don't
remember that she asked: Why didn't Margaret of York
and the Yorkists make sure Richard of York (?)
received enough military and leadership training to
overcome his fear?

Were they unaware of it? If they were aware of it,
did the knowledge that Richard of York (?) really was
Edward IV's son override the dangers of sending
someone with poor military skills against Henry VII?

Does anyone have any ideas about this?

TIA!

Marion



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marion wrote: > It's possible that Richard of Eastwell
> wasn't 16 years
> > old in 1485. But I don't know how that can be
> proved.
>
> Marie wrote: Evidently it can't. But bear in mind that
> he was an old man when he was discovered and his age
> is taken simply from the burial record, as I
> understand, which made him a round 80 years old if I
> recall.
>
> ***
>
> I've just looked at the reproduction of the 18th
> century 'Desiderata Curiosa, Book VII, Number VIII'
> again. I'd forgotten that it says Richard of Eastwell
> told Sir Thomas Moyle "That he was boarded with a
> Latin schoolmaster without knowing who his parents
> were 'til he was 15 or 16 years old." (Paragraph 3)
>
> Thom. Brett's estimates in paragraph 9, which I was
> thinking about, are based on the age Richard of
> Eastwell gave Sir Thomas Moyle. I haven't seen a copy
> of the burial record. Isn't it likely the burial
> record was based on what Richard of Eastwell told Sir
> Thomas Moyle, or anyone else who might have asked his
> age?

Well, perhaps we shouldn't get hung up on the authority of the story
as it has come down to us - it is not the word of Sir Thomas Moyle
first-hand. The only solid thing we have is the burial entry (which
is itself a copy of the now-lost original register made in the
1590s). I've just got out Peter Hammond's Research Note from
Ricardian no 66, and I see this does not give an age at all, but just
reads: "Rychard Plantagenet was buryed the xxij daye of Desember,
Anno ut supra", the annus ut supra being 1550.
Quite where he was buried in the church or churchyard is not known.
The altar tomb often said to be his is probably that of Sir Walter
Moyle, d.1480, and his wife - certainly of a couple as it has indents
for two brasses. Peter writes:
"The other details of the story apparently stem from a letter by a Dr
Brett published in 1735."
I seem to remember reading that there is also a discrepancy regarding
the dates of rebuilding of Eastwell.
Therefore, even if the story has a genuine foundation, did not just
spring from speculation regarding the burial entry, it had come
several generations before it was committed to writing.
All that can be said is that it appears that a Plantagenet who had
lived very obscurely was buried at Eastwell in 1550, probaly having
been taken under the wing of the Moyle family. Logic would suggest,
therefore, that he was a member of the House of York. As you point
out yourself, there are so many unlikelihoods in the story that
emerged that it is clearly corrupt. I therefore don't think we should
get too bothered about the individual's exact age.

Marie

>
> Richard of Eastwell might have changed his age, and he
> might have left a stay in Burgundy with Margaret out
> of the story he told Sir Thomas Moyle. He doesn't say
> where the schoolmaster he boarded with was living.
>
> Here's something interesting: In paragraph 4, "...a
> man finely dressed, with a star and garter, came to
> [Richard of Eastwell], asked him some questions;
> talked kindly to him; & gave him some money."
>
> Could that star and garter identify one of Richard
> III's supporters? Since Richard III's badge was a
> white boar, I would expect Richard III's
> representative to wear a white boar, rather than a
> star and garter. Was a star and garter unusual? Was
> it the same, or similar to the order of the garter?
> Could this detail support the truth of Richard of
> Eastwell's story?
>
> I'm not trying to disprove Richard of Eastwell's
> story. But it may not be totally accurate. If
> Richard of Eastwell had spent around 60 years of his
> life concealing his identity, it's possible that he
> never told anyone his story exactly as it happened.
> His caution would have been justified.
>
> Does anyone have any more ideas?
>
> TIA!
>
> Marion
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marion wrote: > It's possible that Richard of Eastwell
> wasn't 16 years
> > old in 1485. But I don't know how that can be
> proved.
>
> Marie wrote: Evidently it can't. But bear in mind that
> he was an old man when he was discovered and his age
> is taken simply from the burial record, as I
> understand, which made him a round 80 years old if I
> recall.
>
> ***
>
> I've just looked at the reproduction of the 18th
> century 'Desiderata Curiosa, Book VII, Number VIII'
> again. I'd forgotten that it says Richard of Eastwell
> told Sir Thomas Moyle "That he was boarded with a
> Latin schoolmaster without knowing who his parents
> were 'til he was 15 or 16 years old." (Paragraph 3)
>
> Thom. Brett's estimates in paragraph 9, which I was
> thinking about, are based on the age Richard of
> Eastwell gave Sir Thomas Moyle. I haven't seen a copy
> of the burial record. Isn't it likely the burial
> record was based on what Richard of Eastwell told Sir
> Thomas Moyle, or anyone else who might have asked his
> age?
>
> Richard of Eastwell might have changed his age, and he
> might have left a stay in Burgundy with Margaret out
> of the story he told Sir Thomas Moyle. He doesn't say
> where the schoolmaster he boarded with was living.
>
> Here's something interesting: In paragraph 4, "...a
> man finely dressed, with a star and garter, came to
> [Richard of Eastwell], asked him some questions;
> talked kindly to him; & gave him some money."
>
> Could that star and garter identify one of Richard
> III's supporters? Since Richard III's badge was a
> white boar, I would expect Richard III's
> representative to wear a white boar, rather than a
> star and garter. Was a star and garter unusual? Was
> it the same, or similar to the order of the garter?
> Could this detail support the truth of Richard of
> Eastwell's story?

I've just looked up the Order of the Garter website. The Star was
added to the regalia in the 17th century. So this is an anachronism
in the context of Richard's reign. If there's any truth in the tale
of the visiting gentleman, then all the narrator was saying is that
he was a Knight of the Garter.


>
> I'm not trying to disprove Richard of Eastwell's
> story. But it may not be totally accurate. If
> Richard of Eastwell had spent around 60 years of his
> life concealing his identity, it's possible that he
> never told anyone his story exactly as it happened.
> His caution would have been justified.

As I've already suggested, Richard P. is certainly not the only, nor
probably the main, culprit as far as the inaccuracies in the story
are concerned. He cannot, for instance, have been responsible for the
Star and Garter slip. Also, I seem to recall that the Desiderata
story is itself an 'improvement' on the letter.

Marie
>

>
> TIA!
>
> Marion
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

Katy wrote: Clarence's son Edward? He was born in
1475, and in late 1476 Clarence was supposedy talking
about sending him to safety someplace because he felt
there were deadly conspiracies surounding his whole
family. It appears the Binche boy was too old, if he
was about five in 1478, and it's hard to mistake a
five-year-old for a three-year-old, but I suppose that
depemds on how cloely an observer is associated with a
child. I believe that in those times a child, once
out of infancy, was dressed as a miniature adult,
which could help blur age differences.

***

Another question has occurred to me. Who was supposed
to have held the wardship for Clarence's son Edward
after his father's execution?

I remember reading that the Duke of Buckingham (the
one who betrayed Richard III) became Elizabeth
Woodville's ward.

Whose ward did Clarence's son Edward become?

If the account books survive, entries for Edward's
care could show where he was between 1478-1485.

If the account books of the person who is supposed to
have held Edward's wardship have no entries for
Edward, it could be possible that Edward was sent to
Margaret of York for safety, and he is the Binche boy.


How likely is it that the disappearance of Clarence's
son would have been covered up, if Clarence had
successfully smuggled him to Margaret of York? Would
chroniclers have recorded the disappearance of a
duke's son if the duke was in trouble with the king?
Could Clarence's son have just disappeared without
contemporaries commenting, so that Henry VII could
have gotten away with imprisoning and executing
another "feigned boy?" Is it possible Henry VII
didn't execute Clarence's son Edward, but a
substitute?

Can anyone comment on this?

Marion



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

Katy wrote: Maybe we have layers of pretendership or
feigned-ness here. What if the Binche boy was
Clarence's son Warwick, sent to safety with Aunt
Margaret, and Clarence had obtained a substitute boy
to put in his place to hide the absence, he being the
one Henry Tudor knew about and ultimately put to death
in the Tower? Or what if there is yet another
layer...what if Henry didn't really have Clarence's
substitute Warwick when he said he did, and it was yet
another substitute that he paraded in London that day?

***

What I said in my earlier post doesn't cover these two
possibilities. I wasn't considering the possibility
that Clarence had found a boy to stand in for his own
son in England. If he did that, it would answer
questions about entries in account books. The entries
would cover the substitute boy.

It wouldn't answer the question "Who knew?" and "Who
didn't know?" that the boy was a substitute and
Clarence's son was in Binche. Only a few people were
supposed to knew, the fewer the better. Did Richard
III know? Would Margaret of York have told him? I
doubt that Clarence would have.

I can believe that Henry VII was parading a substitute
for a substitute, whether he knew it or not. I think
Henry VII was determined to do whatever was necessary
to eliminate all Yorkists entitled to the throne he
was occupying.

***

I know we have left Occam's Razor far behind here, and
instead of its being more likely to be an approaching
horse than a zebra, if you hear the sound of
hoofbeats, we now have an eohippus at the gallop,
but it's something to think about. Usually the most
obvious solution is the most likely, but not always

***

I've held back from mentioning this, because I can't
find the website where I read it again. Perhaps that
website has died. But I'll mention it now. Perhaps
someone on the list can tell me where I can verify or
disprove it:

Henry VII's confessor is supposed to have said that
the execution of Edward, Earl of Warwick troubled
Henry VII's conscience more than anything else. (When
I read that, I asked myself whether Henry's confessor
was violating his trust. I was under the impression
that confessors were supposed to keep confessions
private)

If Henry VII's confessor was right, Henry VII may have
known that he was killing an innocent man when he sent
the "Earl of Warwick" to the block.

Henry VII may not have known who he sent to the
gallows under the name of "Perkin Warbeck." If it
wasn't Edward IV's second son, it might have been his
nephew, Edward, Earl of Warwick.

It's an ironic possibility that Henry VII executed
both a substitute and true Edward, Earl of Warwick,
without knowing it.

Marion




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

Katy wrote: I wouldn't be a bit surprised. Did Louis
have anything to offer Tudor in return? He died before
he would have been in a position to offer Tudor aid in
his bid for the English throne, but he could have
dangled the promise.

***

Louis XI had plenty of money to offer. In both
Commynes' Memoirs and P.M. Kendall's biography, Louis
XI spent amazing sums buying men and information.

(Commynes says he got that money by overtaxing his
subjects, and that citizens of neighboring areas
fought twice as hard to avoid being brought under
Louis XI's control because they knew he'd overtax them
too)

Although I can't remember reading anything specific, I
have the notion that Louis XI was well aware of Henry
Tudor and the possibilities he offered for causing
trouble in England. I have another notion that Henry
VII was well informed about Louis XI's activities and
working methods. I can't help seeing similarities in
the way the two worked, although I haven't seen this
comparison made in any books or articles I've read.

***

And why leave Morton out of this? He always seems to
have played both ends against the middle.

***

Only because I haven't found enough to read about
Morton. I look for him in the indexes of every book I
read about the 15th century, but he's very successful
at staying invisible. Even the books about Henry
VII's reign don't say much about him.

I have the notion that Morton might have had a lot to
do with Henry VII's resemblance to Louis XI. Morton
served Margaret of Anjou, who was supported by Louis
XI throughout her efforts to regain the throne for her
son. He could have taught Henry VII a lot about Louis
XI.

But I haven't got any evidence. Just notions.

I'd appreciate any books or articles or URLs about
Morton that anyone can suggest.

TIA!

Marion











__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

Marie wrote: Well, perhaps we shouldn't get hung up on
the authority of the story as it has come down to us -
it is not the word of Sir Thomas Moyle first-hand. The
only solid thing we have is the burial entry (which
is itself a copy of the now-lost original register
made in the 1590s). I've just got out Peter Hammond's
Research Note from Ricardian no 66, and I see this
does not give an age at all, but just reads: "Rychard
Plantagenet was buryed the xxij daye of Desember,
Anno ut supra", the annus ut supra being 1550.

***

If Richard of Eastwell was less than 15 or 16 when
Bosworth was fought, the possibility that he was the
Binche boy increases.

We still don't have a good explanation for his return
to England, unless we're willing to accept that
Margaret of York was cold enough to send him back into
harm's way when a better candidate for the throne
appeared. I still feel she would have found a living
for him in Burgundy, rather than send him back.


Right now, we have [5] suggestions:

1 -The Binche boy was the same person as Richard of
York (?) who was captured and hung by Henry VII

2 - The Binche boy was Clarence's son, Edward, who may
have been hung by Henry VII just after he beheaded a
substitute for Clarence's son, Edward on the claim
that they tried to escape from the Tower

3 - The Binche boy was Clarence's son, Edward, who
left Binche and went on to live and die in anonymity

4- The Binche boy was Richard of Eastwell, who was
returned to England and managed to survive as a
bricklayer/mason right under Henry VII's nose

5 - The Binche boy was a different person completely,
and was never involved in Margaret of York's efforts
to overthrow Henry VII

I hope for the Binche boy's sake that he was one of
nos. 3-5.

***

As I've already suggested, Richard P. is certainly not
the only, nor probably the main, culprit as far as the
inaccuracies in the story are concerned. He cannot,
for instance, have been responsible for the Star and
Garter slip. Also, I seem to recall that the
Desiderata
story is itself an 'improvement' on the letter.

***

It's a good story. I'd like to believe that someone
managed to outwit Henry VII and his spies.


Marion























__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Katy wrote: Clarence's son Edward? He was born in
> 1475, and in late 1476 Clarence was supposedy talking
> about sending him to safety someplace because he felt
> there were deadly conspiracies surounding his whole
> family. It appears the Binche boy was too old, if he
> was about five in 1478, and it's hard to mistake a
> five-year-old for a three-year-old, but I suppose that
> depemds on how cloely an observer is associated with a
> child. I believe that in those times a child, once
> out of infancy, was dressed as a miniature adult,
> which could help blur age differences.
>
> ***
>
> Another question has occurred to me. Who was supposed
> to have held the wardship for Clarence's son Edward
> after his father's execution?
>
> I remember reading that the Duke of Buckingham (the
> one who betrayed Richard III) became Elizabeth
> Woodville's ward.
>
> Whose ward did Clarence's son Edward become?
>
> If the account books survive, entries for Edward's
> care could show where he was between 1478-1485.
>
> If the account books of the person who is supposed to
> have held Edward's wardship have no entries for
> Edward, it could be possible that Edward was sent to
> Margaret of York for safety, and he is the Binche boy.
>
>
> How likely is it that the disappearance of Clarence's
> son would have been covered up, if Clarence had
> successfully smuggled him to Margaret of York? Would
> chroniclers have recorded the disappearance of a
> duke's son if the duke was in trouble with the king?
> Could Clarence's son have just disappeared without
> contemporaries commenting, so that Henry VII could
> have gotten away with imprisoning and executing
> another "feigned boy?" Is it possible Henry VII
> didn't execute Clarence's son Edward, but a
> substitute?
>
> Can anyone comment on this?
>
> Marion
>
>
What if Clarence obtained another boy the right age to substitute for
his son, so his absence would not be noticed?

Katy

> Another question has occurred to me. Who was supposed
> to have held the wardship for Clarence's son Edward
> after his father's execution?
>
> I remember reading that the Duke of Buckingham (the
> one who betrayed Richard III) became Elizabeth
> Woodville's ward.


I can't help thinking that I remembered reading that Dorset received the guardianship of Clarence's son. I suppose the Woodvilles would had wanted to get the boy into their hands.

I get an impression of Dorset as a lightweight so how responsible he was with his guardianship might be a question. Or would he had been too young to be guardian even if only nominal?

Helen
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.





---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.

--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Another question has occurred to me. Who was supposed
> > to have held the wardship for Clarence's son Edward
> > after his father's execution?
> >
> > I remember reading that the Duke of Buckingham (the
> > one who betrayed Richard III) became Elizabeth
> > Woodville's ward.
>
>
> I can't help thinking that I remembered reading that Dorset
received the guardianship of Clarence's son. I suppose the Woodvilles
would had wanted to get the boy into their hands.
>
> I get an impression of Dorset as a lightweight so how responsible
he was with his guardianship might be a question. Or would he had
been too young to be guardian even if only nominal?
>
> Helen


Yes, it was Dorset who had Warwick's wardship and marriage; this was
only granted to him in June 1481, however, though it was backdated to
the previous September. Dorset was born during the 1450s (perhaps as
early as 1452), so was quite old enough to be a guardian. Mancini
says Richard sent for Warwick to come to London in the summer of
1483, and he was placed in Anne's household.

Marie

Katy asked: What if Clarence obtained another boy the
right age to substitute for his son, so his absence
would not be noticed?

Helen wrote: I can't help thinking that I remembered
reading that Dorset received the guardianship of
Clarence's son. I suppose the Woodvilles would had
wanted to get the boy into their hands.

Marie wrote: Yes, it was Dorset who had Warwick's
wardship and marriage; this was only granted to him in
June 1481, however, though it was backdated to
the previous September. Dorset was born during the
1450s (perhaps as early as 1452), so was quite old
enough to be a guardian. Mancini says Richard sent for
Warwick to come to London in the summer of 1483, and
he was placed in Anne's household.

***

If my math is correct, that leaves around 3 1/2 years
between the time Clarence might have sent his son to
Margaret of York and the time that Dorset was granted
Warwick's wardship and marriage.

I'm getting into the foggy borderlands between fact
and folk tale now. But I suggest that it's possible
Clarence substituted a boy for his own son--who went
to Binche--and the substitute boy could have gone to
Anne's household in 1483.

It's possible that servants loyal to Clarence and
Isabel and their children would have kept the secret.
How likely is it that Dorset would have seen the 3
year old Edward and be able to compare him to the 6
year old Edward? How likely is it that Anne or
Richard or anyone in London would have realized that
the boy was a substitute? Is there any record of
visits between Clarence's and Richard's families that
would have allowed anyone to say: "But this isn't
George's son. His mouth was shaped differently and
the space between his eyes was wider." What might
they have done if they did realize?

Can anyone comment?

Marion



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/