L Gill on Buckingham's Rebellion.
L Gill on Buckingham's Rebellion.
2013-08-30 22:56:42
Greetings!
After reading Louise Gill's work on the October Rebellion I feel vaguely dissatisfied.
LG believes that the "Princes " were killed by Richard & that Buckingham might well have discussed this with the King although B was not a participant in their death.
She sees the Rebellion as one of Yorkists who would accept Richard as Protector but not as King, & who presumed the "Princes" were dead. To start with they opposed Richard rather than supported Henry Tudor.
All right, let's just leave that be....
How many fighting men could the rebels muster? LG says 17 of 34 royal retainers in the south rebelled, & an average of 40% of southern justices & sheriffs. In the West Country knights, squires, gentlemen, merchants, churchmen & yeomen were involved; were they relying on HT to bring in foreign troops?
Once they had met at Exeter, Newbury, Salisbury, Maidstone & Rochester where were they to go next?
Buckingham joined in persuaded by Morton. B was supposed to bring in the Stanleys, Talbots & the Hastings affinity,which would have provided more fighters. Now we know he failed, but supposing B had remained loyal to Richard? Far more rebels would have been executed perhaps.
How did Morton persuade B to join, assuming B had not thought to join in beforehand? LG suggests B thought the rebellion would succeed & that he would be destroyed with Richard, losing all his gains, unless he joined the rebels pronto. Indeed B joined in because he had no choice, she says.
She appears to think it unlikely B was vain enough to think of overthrowing HT after the rebellion.
I have some quibbles with her geography and she makes an obnoxious suggestion that Richard may have mutilated B's body to satisfy his rage that makes me wonder how seriously I should take her other suggestions. The chief issue is the number of fighting men involved - if they were so many,how did they fall apart so fast?
Who was to lead them in the field? Oxford?
Jan.
After reading Louise Gill's work on the October Rebellion I feel vaguely dissatisfied.
LG believes that the "Princes " were killed by Richard & that Buckingham might well have discussed this with the King although B was not a participant in their death.
She sees the Rebellion as one of Yorkists who would accept Richard as Protector but not as King, & who presumed the "Princes" were dead. To start with they opposed Richard rather than supported Henry Tudor.
All right, let's just leave that be....
How many fighting men could the rebels muster? LG says 17 of 34 royal retainers in the south rebelled, & an average of 40% of southern justices & sheriffs. In the West Country knights, squires, gentlemen, merchants, churchmen & yeomen were involved; were they relying on HT to bring in foreign troops?
Once they had met at Exeter, Newbury, Salisbury, Maidstone & Rochester where were they to go next?
Buckingham joined in persuaded by Morton. B was supposed to bring in the Stanleys, Talbots & the Hastings affinity,which would have provided more fighters. Now we know he failed, but supposing B had remained loyal to Richard? Far more rebels would have been executed perhaps.
How did Morton persuade B to join, assuming B had not thought to join in beforehand? LG suggests B thought the rebellion would succeed & that he would be destroyed with Richard, losing all his gains, unless he joined the rebels pronto. Indeed B joined in because he had no choice, she says.
She appears to think it unlikely B was vain enough to think of overthrowing HT after the rebellion.
I have some quibbles with her geography and she makes an obnoxious suggestion that Richard may have mutilated B's body to satisfy his rage that makes me wonder how seriously I should take her other suggestions. The chief issue is the number of fighting men involved - if they were so many,how did they fall apart so fast?
Who was to lead them in the field? Oxford?
Jan.
Re: L Gill on Buckingham's Rebellion.
2013-08-30 23:02:26
I haven't read her book. Based on a quick peak here & there, she didn't
rate highly.
Does she list the names of those she says were involved and those who were
not involved? Is her sample of royal retainers & sheriffs/justices really
representative of what was going on in the south? Or has she selected
groups that would give her the answer she was looking for?
A J
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 4:56 PM, janmulrenan@... <
janmulrenan@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Greetings!
> After reading Louise Gill's work on the October Rebellion I feel vaguely
> dissatisfied.
> LG believes that the "Princes " were killed by Richard & that Buckingham
> might well have discussed this with the King although B was not a
> participant in their death.
> She sees the Rebellion as one of Yorkists who would accept Richard as
> Protector but not as King, & who presumed the "Princes" were dead. To start
> with they opposed Richard rather than supported Henry Tudor.
> All right, let's just leave that be....
>
> How many fighting men could the rebels muster? LG says 17 of 34 royal
> retainers in the south rebelled, & an average of 40% of southern justices &
> sheriffs. In the West Country knights, squires, gentlemen, merchants,
> churchmen & yeomen were involved; were they relying on HT to bring in
> foreign troops?
>
> Once they had met at Exeter, Newbury, Salisbury, Maidstone & Rochester
> where were they to go next?
>
> Buckingham joined in persuaded by Morton. B was supposed to bring in the
> Stanleys, Talbots & the Hastings affinity,which would have provided more
> fighters. Now we know he failed, but supposing B had remained loyal to
> Richard? Far more rebels would have been executed perhaps.
>
> How did Morton persuade B to join, assuming B had not thought to join in
> beforehand? LG suggests B thought the rebellion would succeed & that he
> would be destroyed with Richard, losing all his gains, unless he joined the
> rebels pronto. Indeed B joined in because he had no choice, she says.
>
> She appears to think it unlikely B was vain enough to think of
> overthrowing HT after the rebellion.
>
> I have some quibbles with her geography and she makes an obnoxious
> suggestion that Richard may have mutilated B's body to satisfy his rage
> that makes me wonder how seriously I should take her other suggestions. The
> chief issue is the number of fighting men involved - if they were so
> many,how did they fall apart so fast?
>
> Who was to lead them in the field? Oxford?
>
> Jan.
>
>
>
rate highly.
Does she list the names of those she says were involved and those who were
not involved? Is her sample of royal retainers & sheriffs/justices really
representative of what was going on in the south? Or has she selected
groups that would give her the answer she was looking for?
A J
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 4:56 PM, janmulrenan@... <
janmulrenan@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Greetings!
> After reading Louise Gill's work on the October Rebellion I feel vaguely
> dissatisfied.
> LG believes that the "Princes " were killed by Richard & that Buckingham
> might well have discussed this with the King although B was not a
> participant in their death.
> She sees the Rebellion as one of Yorkists who would accept Richard as
> Protector but not as King, & who presumed the "Princes" were dead. To start
> with they opposed Richard rather than supported Henry Tudor.
> All right, let's just leave that be....
>
> How many fighting men could the rebels muster? LG says 17 of 34 royal
> retainers in the south rebelled, & an average of 40% of southern justices &
> sheriffs. In the West Country knights, squires, gentlemen, merchants,
> churchmen & yeomen were involved; were they relying on HT to bring in
> foreign troops?
>
> Once they had met at Exeter, Newbury, Salisbury, Maidstone & Rochester
> where were they to go next?
>
> Buckingham joined in persuaded by Morton. B was supposed to bring in the
> Stanleys, Talbots & the Hastings affinity,which would have provided more
> fighters. Now we know he failed, but supposing B had remained loyal to
> Richard? Far more rebels would have been executed perhaps.
>
> How did Morton persuade B to join, assuming B had not thought to join in
> beforehand? LG suggests B thought the rebellion would succeed & that he
> would be destroyed with Richard, losing all his gains, unless he joined the
> rebels pronto. Indeed B joined in because he had no choice, she says.
>
> She appears to think it unlikely B was vain enough to think of
> overthrowing HT after the rebellion.
>
> I have some quibbles with her geography and she makes an obnoxious
> suggestion that Richard may have mutilated B's body to satisfy his rage
> that makes me wonder how seriously I should take her other suggestions. The
> chief issue is the number of fighting men involved - if they were so
> many,how did they fall apart so fast?
>
> Who was to lead them in the field? Oxford?
>
> Jan.
>
>
>
Re: L Gill on Buckingham's Rebellion.
2013-08-30 23:08:47
I'll have a go at questions 1& 2. I don't know that there's enough surviving evidence about the Rebellion for a historian or writer to be selective!
I'll be back later....
Jan.
Sent from my iPad
On 30 Aug 2013, at 23:02, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> I haven't read her book. Based on a quick peak here & there, she didn't
> rate highly.
>
> Does she list the names of those she says were involved and those who were
> not involved? Is her sample of royal retainers & sheriffs/justices really
> representative of what was going on in the south? Or has she selected
> groups that would give her the answer she was looking for?
>
> A J
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 4:56 PM, janmulrenan@... <
> janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Greetings!
>> After reading Louise Gill's work on the October Rebellion I feel vaguely
>> dissatisfied.
>> LG believes that the "Princes " were killed by Richard & that Buckingham
>> might well have discussed this with the King although B was not a
>> participant in their death.
>> She sees the Rebellion as one of Yorkists who would accept Richard as
>> Protector but not as King, & who presumed the "Princes" were dead. To start
>> with they opposed Richard rather than supported Henry Tudor.
>> All right, let's just leave that be....
>>
>> How many fighting men could the rebels muster? LG says 17 of 34 royal
>> retainers in the south rebelled, & an average of 40% of southern justices &
>> sheriffs. In the West Country knights, squires, gentlemen, merchants,
>> churchmen & yeomen were involved; were they relying on HT to bring in
>> foreign troops?
>>
>> Once they had met at Exeter, Newbury, Salisbury, Maidstone & Rochester
>> where were they to go next?
>>
>> Buckingham joined in persuaded by Morton. B was supposed to bring in the
>> Stanleys, Talbots & the Hastings affinity,which would have provided more
>> fighters. Now we know he failed, but supposing B had remained loyal to
>> Richard? Far more rebels would have been executed perhaps.
>>
>> How did Morton persuade B to join, assuming B had not thought to join in
>> beforehand? LG suggests B thought the rebellion would succeed & that he
>> would be destroyed with Richard, losing all his gains, unless he joined the
>> rebels pronto. Indeed B joined in because he had no choice, she says.
>>
>> She appears to think it unlikely B was vain enough to think of
>> overthrowing HT after the rebellion.
>>
>> I have some quibbles with her geography and she makes an obnoxious
>> suggestion that Richard may have mutilated B's body to satisfy his rage
>> that makes me wonder how seriously I should take her other suggestions. The
>> chief issue is the number of fighting men involved - if they were so
>> many,how did they fall apart so fast?
>>
>> Who was to lead them in the field? Oxford?
>>
>> Jan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
I'll be back later....
Jan.
Sent from my iPad
On 30 Aug 2013, at 23:02, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> I haven't read her book. Based on a quick peak here & there, she didn't
> rate highly.
>
> Does she list the names of those she says were involved and those who were
> not involved? Is her sample of royal retainers & sheriffs/justices really
> representative of what was going on in the south? Or has she selected
> groups that would give her the answer she was looking for?
>
> A J
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 4:56 PM, janmulrenan@... <
> janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Greetings!
>> After reading Louise Gill's work on the October Rebellion I feel vaguely
>> dissatisfied.
>> LG believes that the "Princes " were killed by Richard & that Buckingham
>> might well have discussed this with the King although B was not a
>> participant in their death.
>> She sees the Rebellion as one of Yorkists who would accept Richard as
>> Protector but not as King, & who presumed the "Princes" were dead. To start
>> with they opposed Richard rather than supported Henry Tudor.
>> All right, let's just leave that be....
>>
>> How many fighting men could the rebels muster? LG says 17 of 34 royal
>> retainers in the south rebelled, & an average of 40% of southern justices &
>> sheriffs. In the West Country knights, squires, gentlemen, merchants,
>> churchmen & yeomen were involved; were they relying on HT to bring in
>> foreign troops?
>>
>> Once they had met at Exeter, Newbury, Salisbury, Maidstone & Rochester
>> where were they to go next?
>>
>> Buckingham joined in persuaded by Morton. B was supposed to bring in the
>> Stanleys, Talbots & the Hastings affinity,which would have provided more
>> fighters. Now we know he failed, but supposing B had remained loyal to
>> Richard? Far more rebels would have been executed perhaps.
>>
>> How did Morton persuade B to join, assuming B had not thought to join in
>> beforehand? LG suggests B thought the rebellion would succeed & that he
>> would be destroyed with Richard, losing all his gains, unless he joined the
>> rebels pronto. Indeed B joined in because he had no choice, she says.
>>
>> She appears to think it unlikely B was vain enough to think of
>> overthrowing HT after the rebellion.
>>
>> I have some quibbles with her geography and she makes an obnoxious
>> suggestion that Richard may have mutilated B's body to satisfy his rage
>> that makes me wonder how seriously I should take her other suggestions. The
>> chief issue is the number of fighting men involved - if they were so
>> many,how did they fall apart so fast?
>>
>> Who was to lead them in the field? Oxford?
>>
>> Jan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: L Gill on Buckingham's Rebellion.
2013-08-30 23:20:40
You may be right, but I'll know more once I finish sorting the men named to
the Commissions of the Peace (who were presumably influential & relatively
powerful in their counties - please correct me if this is not a fair
assumption). As I've mentioned before, my initial impression is how stable
the composition was allowing for people we know died. Of course, first
impressions are sometimes wrong.
A J (still plugging along, I just finished Sussex - only 6 more counties to
go ...)
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> I'll have a go at questions 1& 2. I don't know that there's enough
> surviving evidence about the Rebellion for a historian or writer to be
> selective!
> I'll be back later....
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On 30 Aug 2013, at 23:02, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> > I haven't read her book. Based on a quick peak here & there, she didn't
> > rate highly.
> >
> > Does she list the names of those she says were involved and those who
> were
> > not involved? Is her sample of royal retainers & sheriffs/justices really
> > representative of what was going on in the south? Or has she selected
> > groups that would give her the answer she was looking for?
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 4:56 PM, janmulrenan@... <
> > janmulrenan@...> wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Greetings!
> >> After reading Louise Gill's work on the October Rebellion I feel vaguely
> >> dissatisfied.
> >> LG believes that the "Princes " were killed by Richard & that Buckingham
> >> might well have discussed this with the King although B was not a
> >> participant in their death.
> >> She sees the Rebellion as one of Yorkists who would accept Richard as
> >> Protector but not as King, & who presumed the "Princes" were dead. To
> start
> >> with they opposed Richard rather than supported Henry Tudor.
> >> All right, let's just leave that be....
> >>
> >> How many fighting men could the rebels muster? LG says 17 of 34 royal
> >> retainers in the south rebelled, & an average of 40% of southern
> justices &
> >> sheriffs. In the West Country knights, squires, gentlemen, merchants,
> >> churchmen & yeomen were involved; were they relying on HT to bring in
> >> foreign troops?
> >>
> >> Once they had met at Exeter, Newbury, Salisbury, Maidstone & Rochester
> >> where were they to go next?
> >>
> >> Buckingham joined in persuaded by Morton. B was supposed to bring in the
> >> Stanleys, Talbots & the Hastings affinity,which would have provided more
> >> fighters. Now we know he failed, but supposing B had remained loyal to
> >> Richard? Far more rebels would have been executed perhaps.
> >>
> >> How did Morton persuade B to join, assuming B had not thought to join in
> >> beforehand? LG suggests B thought the rebellion would succeed & that he
> >> would be destroyed with Richard, losing all his gains, unless he joined
> the
> >> rebels pronto. Indeed B joined in because he had no choice, she says.
> >>
> >> She appears to think it unlikely B was vain enough to think of
> >> overthrowing HT after the rebellion.
> >>
> >> I have some quibbles with her geography and she makes an obnoxious
> >> suggestion that Richard may have mutilated B's body to satisfy his rage
> >> that makes me wonder how seriously I should take her other suggestions.
> The
> >> chief issue is the number of fighting men involved - if they were so
> >> many,how did they fall apart so fast?
> >>
> >> Who was to lead them in the field? Oxford?
> >>
> >> Jan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
the Commissions of the Peace (who were presumably influential & relatively
powerful in their counties - please correct me if this is not a fair
assumption). As I've mentioned before, my initial impression is how stable
the composition was allowing for people we know died. Of course, first
impressions are sometimes wrong.
A J (still plugging along, I just finished Sussex - only 6 more counties to
go ...)
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> I'll have a go at questions 1& 2. I don't know that there's enough
> surviving evidence about the Rebellion for a historian or writer to be
> selective!
> I'll be back later....
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On 30 Aug 2013, at 23:02, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> > I haven't read her book. Based on a quick peak here & there, she didn't
> > rate highly.
> >
> > Does she list the names of those she says were involved and those who
> were
> > not involved? Is her sample of royal retainers & sheriffs/justices really
> > representative of what was going on in the south? Or has she selected
> > groups that would give her the answer she was looking for?
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 4:56 PM, janmulrenan@... <
> > janmulrenan@...> wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Greetings!
> >> After reading Louise Gill's work on the October Rebellion I feel vaguely
> >> dissatisfied.
> >> LG believes that the "Princes " were killed by Richard & that Buckingham
> >> might well have discussed this with the King although B was not a
> >> participant in their death.
> >> She sees the Rebellion as one of Yorkists who would accept Richard as
> >> Protector but not as King, & who presumed the "Princes" were dead. To
> start
> >> with they opposed Richard rather than supported Henry Tudor.
> >> All right, let's just leave that be....
> >>
> >> How many fighting men could the rebels muster? LG says 17 of 34 royal
> >> retainers in the south rebelled, & an average of 40% of southern
> justices &
> >> sheriffs. In the West Country knights, squires, gentlemen, merchants,
> >> churchmen & yeomen were involved; were they relying on HT to bring in
> >> foreign troops?
> >>
> >> Once they had met at Exeter, Newbury, Salisbury, Maidstone & Rochester
> >> where were they to go next?
> >>
> >> Buckingham joined in persuaded by Morton. B was supposed to bring in the
> >> Stanleys, Talbots & the Hastings affinity,which would have provided more
> >> fighters. Now we know he failed, but supposing B had remained loyal to
> >> Richard? Far more rebels would have been executed perhaps.
> >>
> >> How did Morton persuade B to join, assuming B had not thought to join in
> >> beforehand? LG suggests B thought the rebellion would succeed & that he
> >> would be destroyed with Richard, losing all his gains, unless he joined
> the
> >> rebels pronto. Indeed B joined in because he had no choice, she says.
> >>
> >> She appears to think it unlikely B was vain enough to think of
> >> overthrowing HT after the rebellion.
> >>
> >> I have some quibbles with her geography and she makes an obnoxious
> >> suggestion that Richard may have mutilated B's body to satisfy his rage
> >> that makes me wonder how seriously I should take her other suggestions.
> The
> >> chief issue is the number of fighting men involved - if they were so
> >> many,how did they fall apart so fast?
> >>
> >> Who was to lead them in the field? Oxford?
> >>
> >> Jan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.