Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Home Archive Images Groups

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-02 12:34:42

Stephen Lark

ÿ It banned Catherine's remarriage until Henry attained his majority in 1437. She died in January 1436, so any later children would have been illegitimate. The evidence together suggests that they were possible Edward III descendants pretending not to be, yet boasted about it in code. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:18 PM Subject: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

Stephen,
Just replying to my own post.

The law concerning Catherine did not ban the marriage, it penalized the husband. So any children would be royal and the marriage was legal but the husband would lose all lands.

So Owen had little to lose.

However, the marriage and any issue were legitimate.

Regards
David
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM

Stephen,
I have replied separately to Carol regarding the explanation for the similarity of the coats of arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor - and also Jasper Tudor (who was not mentioned).

I donx27;t think that Catherinex27;s wish to marry Edmond Beaufort was a secret. In fact, the rule that you mention about not being able to marry until her son reached majority was not an old law of the land, but was brought in specifically to prevent the marriage, which seems a bit unfair.

So, as you say, irrespective of their parentage, the brothers were illegitimate. However Henry VI did issue an edict declaring Edmund T legitimate before Henry was born.

Regarding the absence of the arms of Owen in the sonsx27; own coats of arms, there are two explanations for this - firstly, the royal arms granted were the highest ranking in the land and it would not be common to quarter them with one of lower rank; secondly, there were punitive laws regarding the rights of Welshmen in England and the coats may not be valid / recognised. I am not sure of the second point, perhaps we might have an expert in the forum.

However, I am sure the book will gain high praise in certain quarters.

Regards
David

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:39:44 PM

I have it and this issue was discussed extensively on FB. If the argument was based solely on the armorial similarity between Edmund Beaufort and Edmund and Jasper, together with the distinct dissimilarity with Owen Tudor's arms, that would indeed be frail. JA-H also, however, points out that there were contemporary rumours of an Edmund-Catherine relationship, that it would have been illegal for her to re-marry anyone until her eldest son attained his majority (which happened after her 1436 death) so Edmund and Jasper were illegitimate whoever their father was, that Edmund Beaufort only married after her death, that the elder son was named Edmund and that (via Dr. Cliff Davies and our own Mary Friend) the surname and phrase "House of Tudor" were first used in English by Hume in the mid-eighteenth century. There is no real evidence connecting Catherine to Owen Tudor amorously, either. Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women". ----- Original Message ----- From: justcarol67@... To: Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?

Thanks,
Carol

Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

2013-10-02 18:52:13

Durose David

Stephen,

I have checked another couple of my books, and they agree that the act did not ban the marriage at all. It was in fact, aimed at scaring off potential suitors and stipulated that if Catherine married without the king's permission, her husband would forfeit his land. So there was no ban on marriage itself.

What made Owen an ideal husband - apart from their attraction for each other, was that he had no land to lose.

And as for no recognition of their relationship, well Henry VI stated when he enobled Edmund and Jasper that there was no need to make them ligitimate, because their parents marriage was valid in law.

I think the naming of Edmund may have been a dig at Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester who was behind the act that had scared off Edmund B.

There is also record of Catherine presenting Owen's family tree to parliament to prove he was of suitably princely descent, and of having meetings with her in-laws.

Heraldry was not a means of hiding codes - there were ways of representing things like illegitimacy and there were some cases of puns. But I think you and J A-H are grasping at straws.

Regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 11:36:59 AM

From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:39:44 PM

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-02 19:02:12

Stephen Lark

ÿ Owen Tudor of princely descent? He was of the line of Llewellyn Fawr's steward whilst Richard was descended from Llewellyn himself. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 6:52 PM Subject: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

Stephen,

I have checked another couple of my books, and they agree that the act did not ban the marriage at all. It was in fact, aimed at scaring off potential suitors and stipulated that if Catherine married without the kingx27;s permission, her husband would forfeit his land. So there was no ban on marriage itself.

What made Owen an ideal husband - apart from their attraction for each other, was that he had no land to lose.

And as for no recognition of their relationship, well Henry VI stated when he enobled Edmund and Jasper that there was no need to make them ligitimate, because their parents marriage was valid in law.

I think the naming of Edmund may have been a dig at Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester who was behind the act that had scared off Edmund B.

There is also record of Catherine presenting Owenx27;s family tree to parliament to prove he was of suitably princely descent, and of having meetings with her in-laws.

Heraldry was not a means of hiding codes - there were ways of representing things like illegitimacy and there were some cases of puns. But I think you and J A-H are grasping at straws.

Regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-Hx27;s new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 11:36:59 AM

From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:39:44 PM

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-02 19:16:21

SandraMachin

Am I right that Henry was actually christened Owen Henry, but MB decided he would be known as Henry? King Owen? Too Welsh by far, I guess. But would did MB (1) called him Owen in the first place, (2) then promptly banish the name? Because she had second thoughts about reminding anyone of Henry's dubious Grand-Daddy'? To please Henry VI? If the latter, surely she would have opted for Henry in the first place? I may be wrong about this, of course, and he was never called Owen at all. =^..^= From: Stephen Lark Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:04 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Re: J A-H's new book

Stephen,

I have checked another couple of my books, and they agree that the act did not ban the marriage at all. It was in fact, aimed at scaring off potential suitors and stipulated that if Catherine married without the kingx27;s permission, her husband would forfeit his land. So there was no ban on marriage itself.

What made Owen an ideal husband - apart from their attraction for each other, was that he had no land to lose.

And as for no recognition of their relationship, well Henry VI stated when he enobled Edmund and Jasper that there was no need to make them ligitimate, because their parents marriage was valid in law.

I think the naming of Edmund may have been a dig at Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester who was behind the act that had scared off Edmund B.

There is also record of Catherine presenting Owenx27;s family tree to parliament to prove he was of suitably princely descent, and of having meetings with her in-laws.

Heraldry was not a means of hiding codes - there were ways of representing things like illegitimacy and there were some cases of puns. But I think you and J A-H are grasping at straws.

Regards
David From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-Hx27;s new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 11:36:59 AM

From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:39:44 PM

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-02 21:31:55

ricard1an

Yes Ednyfed Fychan was Llewellyn Fawr's steward and was not of princely descent. Henry claimed descent from Cadwallader and King Arthur too. He coud easily have been lying. Be interested to know which books you are referring to David.

Stephen,

I have checked another couple of my books, and they agree that the act did not ban the marriage at all. It was in fact, aimed at scaring off potential suitors and stipulated that if Catherine married without the kingx27;s permission, her husband would forfeit his land. So there was no ban on marriage itself.

What made Owen an ideal husband - apart from their attraction for each other, was that he had no land to lose.

And as for no recognition of their relationship, well Henry VI stated when he enobled Edmund and Jasper that there was no need to make them ligitimate, because their parents marriage was valid in law.

I think the naming of Edmund may have been a dig at Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester who was behind the act that had scared off Edmund B.

There is also record of Catherine presenting Owenx27;s family tree to parliament to prove he was of suitably princely descent, and of having meetings with her in-laws.

Heraldry was not a means of hiding codes - there were ways of representing things like illegitimacy and there were some cases of puns. But I think you and J A-H are grasping at straws.

Regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-Hx27;s new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 11:36:59 AM

Stephen,
Just replying to my own post.

The law concerning Catherine did not ban the marriage, it penalized the husband. So any children would be royal and the marriage was legal but the husband would lose all lands.

So Owen had little to lose.

However, the marriage and any issue were legitimate.

Regards
David
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-03 01:05:17

tycroestrooper

Ednyfed Fychan, the aforementioned Steward, married Princess Gwenllian ferch Rhys...the daughter of Lord Rhys, the greatest Welsh ruler of his day and effectively king of South Wales. It is through him that the Tudors claimed their Welsh princely line.

---In , <maryfriend@...> wrote:

---In , <> wrote:

ÿ Owen Tudor of princely descent? He was of the line of Llewellyn Fawr's steward whilst Richard was descended from Llewellyn himself. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 6:52 PM Subject: Re : Re: Re: J A-H's new book
Stephen,

I have checked another couple of my books, and they agree that the act did not ban the marriage at all. It was in fact, aimed at scaring off potential suitors and stipulated that if Catherine married without the kingx27;s permission, her husband would forfeit his land. So there was no ban on marriage itself.

What made Owen an ideal husband - apart from their attraction for each other, was that he had no land to lose.

And as for no recognition of their relationship, well Henry VI stated when he enobled Edmund and Jasper that there was no need to make them ligitimate, because their parents marriage was valid in law.

I think the naming of Edmund may have been a dig at Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester who was behind the act that had scared off Edmund B.

There is also record of Catherine presenting Owenx27;s family tree to parliament to prove he was of suitably princely descent, and of having meetings with her in-laws.

Heraldry was not a means of hiding codes - there were ways of representing things like illegitimacy and there were some cases of puns. But I think you and J A-H are grasping at straws.

Regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 11:36:59 AM

It banned Catherine's remarriage until Henry attained his majority in 1437. She died in January 1436, so any later children would have been illegitimate. The evidence together suggests that they were possible Edward III descendants pretending not to be, yet boasted about it in code. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:18 PM Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book
Stephen,
Just replying to my own post.

The law concerning Catherine did not ban the marriage, it penalized the husband. So any children would be royal and the marriage was legal but the husband would lose all lands.

So Owen had little to lose.

However, the marriage and any issue were legitimate.

Regards
David
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM

Stephen,
I have replied separately to Carol regarding the explanation for the similarity of the coats of arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor - and also Jasper Tudor (who was not mentioned).

I donx27;t think that Catherinex27;s wish to marry Edmond Beaufort was a secret. In fact, the rule that you mention about not being able to marry until her son reached majority was not an old law of the land, but was brought in specifically to prevent the marriage, which seems a bit unfair.

So, as you say, irrespective of their parentage, the brothers were illegitimate. However Henry VI did issue an edict declaring Edmund T legitimate before Henry was born.

Regarding the absence of the arms of Owen in the sonsx27; own coats of arms, there are two explanations for this - firstly, the royal arms granted were the highest ranking in the land and it would not be common to quarter them with one of lower rank; secondly, there were punitive laws regarding the rights of Welshmen in England and the coats may not be valid / recognised. I am not sure of the second point, perhaps we might have an expert in the forum.

However, I am sure the book will gain high praise in certain quarters.

Regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:39:44 PM

Re : RE: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

2013-10-03 11:53:02

Durose David

Hi,
Thank you for providing my response for me.

It is odd how certain contributors will emphasise any "fact" or rumour about Henry, provided it is negative - even when they contradict each other or are mutually exclusive.

The steward was often from an important family and many notable royal lines originate from stewards of the royal household - the royal Stewarts of Scotland and the Carolingian Franks.

Kind regards
David
From: tycroestrooper <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 12:05:16 AM

---In , <maryfriend@...> wrote:

Re: Re : RE: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

2013-10-03 12:25:47

SandraMachin

David, I for one do not condemn Henry out of hand. I find him quite fascinating, and do think that he had a constant battle with his own character. I understand your support for him, but even so, you and I would have been on opposite sides at Bosworth. If I'd been alive then, a nobleman who could support either Richard or Henry, I would have been with Richard. So maybe all my lands would have been handed to you! I'd be languishing in the Tower, awaiting my fate, while you counted your profits. Of course, if Richard had won, I'd be the one pocketing the profits. But no matter what, I find your views refreshingly different. Do I take it that you have nothing to say in Richard's defence? Sandra =^..^= From: Durose David Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:53 AM To: Subject: Re : RE: Re: Re: J A-H's new book

Hi,
Thank you for providing my response for me.

It is odd how certain contributors will emphasise any "fact" or rumour about Henry, provided it is negative - even when they contradict each other or are mutually exclusive.

The steward was often from an important family and many notable royal lines originate from stewards of the royal household - the royal Stewarts of Scotland and the Carolingian Franks.

Kind regards
David From: tycroestrooper <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 12:05:16 AM

---In , <maryfriend@...> wrote:

---In , <> wrote:

ÿ Owen Tudor of princely descent? He was of the line of Llewellyn Fawr's steward whilst Richard was descended from Llewellyn himself. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 6:52 PM Subject: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book Stephen,

I have checked another couple of my books, and they agree that the act did not ban the marriage at all. It was in fact, aimed at scaring off potential suitors and stipulated that if Catherine married without the kingx27;s permission, her husband would forfeit his land. So there was no ban on marriage itself.

What made Owen an ideal husband - apart from their attraction for each other, was that he had no land to lose.

And as for no recognition of their relationship, well Henry VI stated when he enobled Edmund and Jasper that there was no need to make them ligitimate, because their parents marriage was valid in law.

I think the naming of Edmund may have been a dig at Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester who was behind the act that had scared off Edmund B.

There is also record of Catherine presenting Owenx27;s family tree to parliament to prove he was of suitably princely descent, and of having meetings with her in-laws.

Heraldry was not a means of hiding codes - there were ways of representing things like illegitimacy and there were some cases of puns. But I think you and J A-H are grasping at straws.

Regards
David From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 11:36:59 AM

It banned Catherine's remarriage until Henry attained his majority in 1437. She died in January 1436, so any later children would have been illegitimate. The evidence together suggests that they were possible Edward III descendants pretending not to be, yet boasted about it in code. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:18 PM Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book Stephen,
Just replying to my own post.

The law concerning Catherine did not ban the marriage, it penalized the husband. So any children would be royal and the marriage was legal but the husband would lose all lands.

So Owen had little to lose.

However, the marriage and any issue were legitimate.

Regards
David From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM

Stephen,
I have replied separately to Carol regarding the explanation for the similarity of the coats of arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor - and also Jasper Tudor (who was not mentioned).

I donx27;t think that Catherinex27;s wish to marry Edmond Beaufort was a secret. In fact, the rule that you mention about not being able to marry until her son reached majority was not an old law of the land, but was brought in specifically to prevent the marriage, which seems a bit unfair.

So, as you say, irrespective of their parentage, the brothers were illegitimate. However Henry VI did issue an edict declaring Edmund T legitimate before Henry was born.

Regarding the absence of the arms of Owen in the sonsx27; own coats of arms, there are two explanations for this - firstly, the royal arms granted were the highest ranking in the land and it would not be common to quarter them with one of lower rank; secondly, there were punitive laws regarding the rights of Welshmen in England and the coats may not be valid / recognised. I am not sure of the second point, perhaps we might have an expert in the forum.

However, I am sure the book will gain high praise in certain quarters.

Regards
David From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:39:44 PM

Re: Re : RE: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

2013-10-03 12:37:44

liz williams

Indeed stewards often were, but I think the point about this issue is that Richard could also claim Welsh descent which is usually ignored. As someone who is myself of Welsh parentage, Henry's claim annoys me because he was only Welsh when it suited him.

Liz

From:

Durose
David

Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:53 AM
To:

Subject: Re : RE: Re: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] J A-H's new
book

Hi,
Thank you for providing my response for me.

It is odd
how certain contributors will emphasise any
"fact" or rumour about Henry,
provided it is negative - even when they contradict
each other or are
mutually exclusive.

The steward was often from an important family
and many notable royal lines originate from stewards
of the royal
household - the royal Stewarts of Scotland and the
Carolingian
Franks.

Kind regards
David

From:
tycroestrooper
<[email protected]>;
To:
<>;
Subject: RE: Re: Re:
[Richard III Society
Forum] J A-H's new book
Sent:
Thu, Oct 3, 2013 12:05:16 AM

Ednyfed Fychan, the aforementioned Steward, married
Princess Gwenllian
ferch Rhys...the daughter of Lord Rhys, the greatest
Welsh ruler of his
day and effectively king of South Wales. It is through
him that the Tudors
claimed their Welsh princely line.

---In
,
<maryfriend@...> wrote:

Yes Ednyfed Fychan was Llewellyn Fawr's steward
and was not of princely
descent. Henry claimed descent from Cadwallader and
King Arthur too. He
coud easily have been lying. Be interested to know
which books you are
referring to David.

---In ,
<>
wrote:

ÿ

Owen Tudor of
princely descent? He was of the
line of Llewellyn Fawr's steward whilst Richard
was descended from
Llewellyn himself.

----- Original
Message -----
From:
Durose David
To:

Sent:
Wednesday, October 02,
2013 6:52 PM
Subject: Re
: Re: Re: [Richard
III Society Forum] J A-H's new
book


Stephen,

I have checked
another couple of my books, and they agree
that the act did
not ban the marriage at all. It was in
fact, aimed at scaring
off potential suitors and stipulated that
if Catherine married
without the kingx27;s permission, her
husband would forfeit
his land. So there was no ban on marriage
itself.

What made Owen an ideal
husband -
apart from their attraction for each
other, was that he had no
land to lose.

And as for no
recognition of their relationship, well
Henry VI stated when
he enobled Edmund and Jasper that there
was no need to make
them ligitimate, because their parents
marriage was valid in
law.

I
think the naming of Edmund
may have been a dig at Humphrey, Duke of
Gloucester who was
behind the act that had scared off Edmund
B.

There is also record of Catherine presenting
Owenx27;s family tree to parliament to
prove he was of
suitably princely descent, and of having
meetings with her
in-laws.

Heraldry was not a means
of hiding codes - there were ways of
representing things like
illegitimacy and there were some cases of
puns. But I think
you and J A-H are grasping at straws.

Regards
David

From: Stephen Lark
<stephenmlark@...>;
To:

<>;
Subject:
Re: Re: J
A-Hx27;s new book
Sent: Wed,
Oct 2, 2013 11:36:59 AM

ÿ
It banned
Catherine's
remarriage until Henry attained his
majority in 1437. She died
in January 1436, so any later children
would have been
illegitimate. The evidence together
suggests that they were
possible Edward III descendants pretending
not to be, yet
boasted about it in code.

-----
Original Message -----

From:
Durose
David
To:

Sent: Wednesday,
October 02, 2013 12:18 PM
Subject: Re : Re:
J
A-H's new book


Stephen,
Just
replying to my own
post.

The law concerning
Catherine did not ban the
marriage, it penalized the
husband. So any children would be
royal and the
marriage was legal but the husband
would lose all
lands.

So Owen had little
to lose.

However, the
marriage and any issue were
legitimate.

Regards
David

From: Durose David
<daviddurose2000@...>;

To:

<>;
Subject: Re : Re:
J
A-H's new book
Sent:
Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM

Stephen,
I have replied
separately to Carol
regarding the explanation
for the similarity of the
coats of arms of
Edmund Beaufort and Edmund
Tudor - and also
Jasper Tudor (who was not
mentioned).

I donx27;t think that
Catherinex27;s wish to marry
Edmond Beaufort was
a secret. In fact, the rule
that you mention
about not being able to
marry until her son
reached majority was not an
old law of the land,
but was brought in
specifically to prevent the
marriage, which seems a bit
unfair.

So, as you say,
irrespective of their
parentage, the brothers
were illegitimate. However
Henry VI did issue an
edict declaring Edmund T
legitimate before Henry
was born.

Regarding
the absence of the arms of
Owen in the sonsx27;
own coats of arms, there are
two explanations
for this - firstly, the
royal arms granted were
the highest ranking in the
land and it would not
be common to quarter them
with one of lower
rank; secondly, there were
punitive laws
regarding the rights of
Welshmen in England and
the coats may not be valid /
recognised. I am
not sure of the second
point, perhaps we might
have an expert in the
forum.

However, I am sure the book will gain
high praise in certain
quarters.

Regards
David

From: Stephen
Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To:

<>;

Subject: Re:
J
A-H's new book

Sent: Tue, Oct 1,
2013 4:39:44 PM

ÿ
I have it and this
issue was discussed
extensively on
FB.

If the argument was
based solely on the armorial
similarity between
Edmund Beaufort and Edmund
and Jasper, together
with the distinct
dissimilarity with Owen
Tudor's arms, that
would indeed be
frail.
JA-H also, however,
points out that there were
contemporary rumours
of an Edmund-Catherine
relationship, that it
would have been illegal for
her to re-marry
anyone until her eldest son
attained his
majority (which happened
after her 1436 death)
so Edmund and Jasper were
illegitimate whoever
their father was, that
Edmund Beaufort only
married after her death,
that the elder son was
named Edmund and that (via
Dr. Cliff Davies and
our own Mary Friend) the
surname and phrase
"House of Tudor"
were first used in English by
Hume in the mid-eighteenth
century. There is no
real evidence connecting
Catherine to Owen Tudor
amorously,
either.
Oh and the only
hostile review suggests that
JA-H "has problems
with
women".

----- Original
Message -----
From:
justcarol67@...
To:

Sent:
Tuesday, October 01, 2013
5:05 PM
Subject:

J A-H's new
book



I gather from what I read
on the other
(American) forum that J A-H
bases his premise
that Edmund Tudor's
father may have
been Edmund Beaufort rather
than Owen Tudor on
the similarity of their
badges, which (no
disrespect to J A-H
intended) seems to me rather
a frail premise. Has anyone
here read the book?
If so, could you clarify his
argument and tell
me whether you consider it
convincing (with
reasons why or why not)?

Thanks,
Carol

Re: Re : RE: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

2013-10-03 12:44:40

Hilary Jones

I echo Sandra. I don't have Henry as the 'baddy' in this. He was where and what he was and he dealt with the situation pragmatically in perhaps a more modern way than Richard. You only have to read about the infightings between Andre, More, Erasmus, Fox and Vergil in the 1500s to realise how he had to weave his way through it all; that's without Yorkist rebellions, the death of his son and wife and the orders of his loving mother. But at Bosworth I'd have been on the losing side because sheer courage and sticking to your beliefs in spite of great personal tragedy have always been attractive - always will. H
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 12:25
Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re: Re: J A-H's new book
David, I for one do not condemn Henry out of hand. I find him quite fascinating, and do think that he had a constant battle with his own character. I understand your support for him, but even so, you and I would have been on opposite sides at Bosworth. If I'd been alive then, a nobleman who could support either Richard or Henry, I would have been with Richard. So maybe all my lands would have been handed to you! I'd be languishing in the Tower, awaiting my fate, while you counted your profits. Of course, if Richard had won, I'd be the one pocketing the profits. But no matter what, I find your views refreshingly different. Do I take it that you have nothing to say in Richard's defence? Sandra =^..^= From: Durose David Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:53 AM To: Subject: Re : RE: Re: Re: J A-H's new book Hi, Thank you for providing my response for me. It is odd how certain contributors will emphasise any "fact" or rumour about Henry, provided it is negative - even when they contradict each other or are mutually exclusive. The steward was often from an important family and many notable royal lines originate from stewards of the royal household - the royal Stewarts of Scotland and the Carolingian Franks. Kind regards David From: tycroestrooper <[email protected]>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 12:05:16 AM Ednyfed Fychan, the aforementioned Steward, married Princess Gwenllian ferch Rhys...the daughter of Lord Rhys, the greatest Welsh ruler of his day and effectively king of South Wales. It is through him that the Tudors claimed their Welsh princely line. ---In , <maryfriend@...> wrote: Yes Ednyfed Fychan was Llewellyn Fawr's steward and was not of princely descent. Henry claimed descent from Cadwallader and King Arthur too. He coud easily have been lying. Be interested to know which books you are referring to David. ---In , <> wrote: ÿ Owen Tudor of princely descent? He was of the line of Llewellyn Fawr's steward whilst Richard was descended from Llewellyn himself. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 6:52 PM Subject: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book Stephen, I have checked another couple of my books, and they agree that the act did not ban the marriage at all. It was in fact, aimed at scaring off potential suitors and stipulated that if Catherine married without the kingx27;s permission, her husband would forfeit his land. So there was no ban on marriage itself. What made Owen an ideal husband - apart from their attraction for each other, was that he had no land to lose. And as for no recognition of their relationship, well Henry VI stated when he enobled Edmund and Jasper that there was no need to make them ligitimate, because their parents marriage was valid in law. I think the naming of Edmund may have been a dig at Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester who was behind the act that had scared off Edmund B. There is also record of Catherine presenting Owenx27;s family tree to parliament to prove he was of suitably princely descent, and of having meetings with her in-laws. Heraldry was not a means of hiding codes - there were ways of representing things like illegitimacy and there were some cases of puns. But I think you and J A-H are grasping at straws. Regards David From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 11:36:59 AM ÿ It banned Catherine's remarriage until Henry attained his majority in 1437. She died in January 1436, so any later children would have been illegitimate. The evidence together suggests that they were possible Edward III descendants pretending not to be, yet boasted about it in code. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:18 PM Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book Stephen, Just replying to my own post. The law concerning Catherine did not ban the marriage, it penalized the husband. So any children would be royal and the marriage was legal but the husband would lose all lands. So Owen had little to lose. However, the marriage and any issue were legitimate. Regards David From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM Stephen, I have replied separately to Carol regarding the explanation for the similarity of the coats of arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor - and also Jasper Tudor (who was not mentioned). I donx27;t think that Catherinex27;s wish to marry Edmond Beaufort was a secret. In fact, the rule that you mention about not being able to marry until her son reached majority was not an old law of the land, but was brought in specifically to prevent the marriage, which seems a bit unfair. So, as you say, irrespective of their parentage, the brothers were illegitimate. However Henry VI did issue an edict declaring Edmund T legitimate before Henry was born. Regarding the absence of the arms of Owen in the sonsx27; own coats of arms, there are two explanations for this - firstly, the royal arms granted were the highest ranking in the land and it would not be common to quarter them with one of lower rank; secondly, there were punitive laws regarding the rights of Welshmen in England and the coats may not be valid / recognised. I am not sure of the second point, perhaps we might have an expert in the forum. However, I am sure the book will gain high praise in certain quarters. Regards David From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: J A-H's new book Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:39:44 PM ÿ I have it and this issue was discussed extensively on FB. If the argument was based solely on the armorial similarity between Edmund Beaufort and Edmund and Jasper, together with the distinct dissimilarity with Owen Tudor's arms, that would indeed be frail. JA-H also, however, points out that there were contemporary rumours of an Edmund-Catherine relationship, that it would have been illegal for her to re-marry anyone until her eldest son attained his majority (which happened after her 1436 death) so Edmund and Jasper were illegitimate whoever their father was, that Edmund Beaufort only married after her death, that the elder son was named Edmund and that (via Dr. Cliff Davies and our own Mary Friend) the surname and phrase "House of Tudor" were first used in English by Hume in the mid-eighteenth century. There is no real evidence connecting Catherine to Owen Tudor amorously, either. Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women". ----- Original Message ----- From: justcarol67@... To: Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM Subject: J A-H's new book I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?

Thanks,
Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-03 21:25:33

Durose David

Stephen and Doug,

The position of Steward of the Household, or sometimes Lord Steward is a position in the royal household and there is no higher position of Steward of the kingdom - they are the same thing.

As for importance of the position, it was held by Thomas Stanley in Richard's time. One of Henry's Stewards was Robert, Lord Willoughby de Broke. He had the title Steward of Household, but was still sent overseas at the head of military expeditions. Foreign sources refer to him as the great Lord of England, reflecting the importance of the position.

As for the families to which my examples belong, well I would not expect you to be aware of the work of Round, who established the Stewart descent from Alan Fitz Flaad, and the Dapifer of Dol in Brittany - so in the direct male liine the Stewarts were Breton. I am also sure they counted a number of noble crusaders and a companion of Saint Louis in their ranks.

I don't think that Pepin took the throne by force, it was more a case of the later Merovingians being less capable and the nobilty and the Pope handed the throne to the mayor. I am on very shaky ground with his family though - his dad was only Charles Martel, one of the great figures of european history, without whom we would all be muslim.

I know this is a digression from the original thread and I apologize for answering this before other questions that I have been asked.

Regards
David

------------------------------
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 17:08 BST Stephen Lark wrote:

>Correct, Doug.
>The "Mayors of the Palace" became Kings of France because one of them (Pepin) took the throne by force.
>The Stewarts became Kings of Scotland because one of them (Walter) married Marjorie Bruce, whose brother reigned for about forty years and married twice but had no children.
>The "Tudor" "historians" have a bad reputation for veracity - their track record does not compare well with JA-H and his earlier sources.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 5:43 PM
> Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: J A-H's new book
>
>
>
> ÿ
>
>
> Durose David wrote:
>
> "Hi,
> Thank you for providing my response for me.
> It is odd how certain contributors will emphasise any "fact" or rumour about Henry, provided it is negative - even when they contradict each other or are mutually exclusive.
> The steward was often from an important family and many notable royal lines originate from stewards of the royal household - the royal Stewarts of Scotland and the Carolingian Franks."
>
> Doug here:
> I'm not certain your examples support your thesis.
> My understanding of the originization of the Scottish Stewarts' name was that it came, not from their being stewards of the royal household, but stewards of the Kingdom. While it's true they were chosen for that latter position *because* of their royal bloodline, the positions, household steward versus steward for the kingdom, are entirely different positions, with the latter being more of a Regent or Protector.
> As for the Carolingian Franks, I know they were the Merovingians' Mayor of the Palace, but that, by itself, doesn't mean they *originally* were an "important family". All it does mean is that they parlayed one position into another of greater importance.
> I would also like to add that I don't find "certain contributors" conentrating on negative "facts" about Henry. What I do find is questioning about what has been passed down as "fact" about Henry without *any* provenance other than the assertion of the original author.
> If Vergil, Rous or any of the Chroniclers say something that either cannot be proven or is known to be false, then why should anyone be accused of picking and choosing what to believe from their writings? It would seem to me to be our duty to point out the inconsistencies, try to discover how or why those inconsistencies were first included and then to do our best to set the record straight.
> Much of what is "known" about Henry Tudor, and Richard for that matter, cannot be supported by facts available to us. While our not having all the same material available to us as was to those who wrote then *may* provide some of the explanation, we need only to look at events that have occurred since and are better recorded to see the difference between what really happened and the "official" version of history. The first example that comes to my mind is the (in)famous "warming pan" myth that assisted in the booting out of James II and VII in 1689.
> The difference between *that* and the late 15th century, to me anyway, is that the myths, stories, propaganda, whatever one wishes to call them, had two hundred years more to become established as "fact", regardless their relation to that word.
> Doug
> Kind regards
> David
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: tycroestrooper <[email protected]>;
> To: <>;
> Subject: RE: Re: Re: J A-H's new book
> Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 12:05:16 AM
>
>
>
>
> Ednyfed Fychan, the aforementioned Steward, married Princess Gwenllian ferch Rhys...the daughter of Lord Rhys, the greatest Welsh ruler of his day and effectively king of South Wales. It is through him that the Tudors claimed their Welsh princely line.
>
>
>
> ---In , <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
>
> Yes Ednyfed Fychan was Llewellyn Fawr's steward and was not of princely descent. Henry claimed descent from Cadwallader and King Arthur too. He coud easily have been lying. Be interested to know which books you are referring to David.
>
>
>
> ---In , <> wrote:
>
>
> ÿ
> Owen Tudor of princely descent? He was of the line of Llewellyn Fawr's steward whilst Richard was descended from Llewellyn himself.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Durose David
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 6:52 PM
> Subject: Re : Re: Re: J A-H's new book
>
>
>
> Stephen,
>
> I have checked another couple of my books, and they agree that the act did not ban the marriage at all. It was in fact, aimed at scaring off potential suitors and stipulated that if Catherine married without the kingx27;s permission, her husband would forfeit his land. So there was no ban on marriage itself.
>
> What made Owen an ideal husband - apart from their attraction for each other, was that he had no land to lose.
>
> And as for no recognition of their relationship, well Henry VI stated when he enobled Edmund and Jasper that there was no need to make them ligitimate, because their parents marriage was valid in law.
>
> I think the naming of Edmund may have been a dig at Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester who was behind the act that had scared off Edmund B.
>
> There is also record of Catherine presenting Owenx27;s family tree to parliament to prove he was of suitably princely descent, and of having meetings with her in-laws.
>
> Heraldry was not a means of hiding codes - there were ways of representing things like illegitimacy and there were some cases of puns. But I think you and J A-H are grasping at straws.
>
> Regards
> David
>
>
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
> To: <>;
> Subject: Re: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
> Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 11:36:59 AM
>
>
>
> ÿ
>
> It banned Catherine's remarriage until Henry attained his majority in 1437. She died in January 1436, so any later children would have been illegitimate. The evidence together suggests that they were possible Edward III descendants pretending not to be, yet boasted about it in code.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Durose David
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:18 PM
> Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book
>
>
>
> Stephen,
> Just replying to my own post.
>
> The law concerning Catherine did not ban the marriage, it penalized the husband. So any children would be royal and the marriage was legal but the husband would lose all lands.
>
> So Owen had little to lose.
>
> However, the marriage and any issue were legitimate.
>
> Regards
> David
>
>
>
> From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
> To: <>;
> Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book
> Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM
>
>
>
> Stephen,
> I have replied separately to Carol regarding the explanation for the similarity of the coats of arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor - and also Jasper Tudor (who was not mentioned).
>
> I donx27;t think that Catherinex27;s wish to marry Edmond Beaufort was a secret. In fact, the rule that you mention about not being able to marry until her son reached majority was not an old law of the land, but was brought in specifically to prevent the marriage, which seems a bit unfair.
>
> So, as you say, irrespective of their parentage, the brothers were illegitimate. However Henry VI did issue an edict declaring Edmund T legitimate before Henry was born.
>
> Regarding the absence of the arms of Owen in the sonsx27; own coats of arms, there are two explanations for this - firstly, the royal arms granted were the highest ranking in the land and it would not be common to quarter them with one of lower rank; secondly, there were punitive laws regarding the rights of Welshmen in England and the coats may not be valid / recognised. I am not sure of the second point, perhaps we might have an expert in the forum.
>
> However, I am sure the book will gain high praise in certain quarters.
>
> Regards
> David
>
>
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
> To: <>;
> Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
> Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:39:44 PM
>
>
>
> ÿ
>
> I have it and this issue was discussed extensively on FB.
>
> If the argument was based solely on the armorial similarity between Edmund Beaufort and Edmund and Jasper, together with the distinct dissimilarity with Owen Tudor's arms, that would indeed be frail.
> JA-H also, however, points out that there were contemporary rumours of an Edmund-Catherine relationship, that it would have been illegal for her to re-marry anyone until her eldest son attained his majority (which happened after her 1436 death) so Edmund and Jasper were illegitimate whoever their father was, that Edmund Beaufort only married after her death, that the elder son was named Edmund and that (via Dr. Cliff Davies and our own Mary Friend) the surname and phrase "House of Tudor" were first used in English by Hume in the mid-eighteenth century. There is no real evidence connecting Catherine to Owen Tudor amorously, either.
> Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67@...
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
> Subject: J A-H's new book
>
>
>
> I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
>
> Thanks,
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-04 11:49:43

mariewalsh2003

Sandra wrote:

"Am I right that Henry was actually christened Owen Henry, but MB decided he would be known as Henry? King Owen? Too Welsh by far, I guess. But would did MB (1) called him Owen in the first place, (2) then promptly banish the name?"

Marie replies:

Not heard this one. Double Christian names weren't yet in use in Britain, anyway. There was supposedly a completely separate Tudor brother, younger than Edmund and Jasper, named Owen, who became a monk at Westminster. And then, of course, there was Sir David Owen. I know one thing that interested Moira Habberjam was the very different treatment by Henry VI of the elder two Tudor brothers as opposed to the younger two (ie the two with Welsh names). I don't have a view on their paternity. Like the Edward IV question I believe it can only be resolved by DNA analysis. Edward IV's paternity is a legitimate subject for historical study in so far as it influenced events - mainly by influencing Clarence's behaviour. But since no one at the time claimed that Edmund Tudor was a Beaufort it is difficult to see the historical significance in the absence of DNA evidence.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Am I right that Henry was actually christened Owen Henry, but MB decided he would be known as Henry? King Owen? Too Welsh by far, I guess. But would did MB (1) called him Owen in the first place, (2) then promptly banish the name? Because she had second thoughts about reminding anyone of Henry's dubious Grand-Daddy'? To please Henry VI? If the latter, surely she would have opted for Henry in the first place? I may be wrong about this, of course, and he was never called Owen at all. =^..^= From: Stephen Lark Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:04 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Re: J A-H's new book

Stephen,

I have checked another couple of my books, and they agree that the act did not ban the marriage at all. It was in fact, aimed at scaring off potential suitors and stipulated that if Catherine married without the kingx27;s permission, her husband would forfeit his land. So there was no ban on marriage itself.

What made Owen an ideal husband - apart from their attraction for each other, was that he had no land to lose.

And as for no recognition of their relationship, well Henry VI stated when he enobled Edmund and Jasper that there was no need to make them ligitimate, because their parents marriage was valid in law.

I think the naming of Edmund may have been a dig at Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester who was behind the act that had scared off Edmund B.

There is also record of Catherine presenting Owenx27;s family tree to parliament to prove he was of suitably princely descent, and of having meetings with her in-laws.

Heraldry was not a means of hiding codes - there were ways of representing things like illegitimacy and there were some cases of puns. But I think you and J A-H are grasping at straws.

Regards
David From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-Hx27;s new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 11:36:59 AM

Stephen,
Just replying to my own post.

The law concerning Catherine did not ban the marriage, it penalized the husband. So any children would be royal and the marriage was legal but the husband would lose all lands.

So Owen had little to lose.

However, the marriage and any issue were legitimate.

Regards
David From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-04 12:14:53

SandraMachin

Marie, I am clearly wrong about him being an Owen Henry, but I have definitely read that he was Owen, and that Margaret Beaufort changed it to Henry. Maybe the original name had been something Edmund had wished, in honour of his father'? Whatever, the baby soon ceased to be an Owen and became a Henry. If I can find the reference, I will let you know. It's one of those things, where the heck did I see it? Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:49 AM To: Subject: RE: Re: J A-H's new book

Sandra wrote:

Marie replies:

Marie

Stephen,

I have checked another couple of my books, and they agree that the act did not ban the marriage at all. It was in fact, aimed at scaring off potential suitors and stipulated that if Catherine married without the kingx27;s permission, her husband would forfeit his land. So there was no ban on marriage itself.

What made Owen an ideal husband - apart from their attraction for each other, was that he had no land to lose.

And as for no recognition of their relationship, well Henry VI stated when he enobled Edmund and Jasper that there was no need to make them ligitimate, because their parents marriage was valid in law.

I think the naming of Edmund may have been a dig at Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester who was behind the act that had scared off Edmund B.

There is also record of Catherine presenting Owenx27;s family tree to parliament to prove he was of suitably princely descent, and of having meetings with her in-laws.

Heraldry was not a means of hiding codes - there were ways of representing things like illegitimacy and there were some cases of puns. But I think you and J A-H are grasping at straws.

Regards
David From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-Hx27;s new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 11:36:59 AM

Stephen,
Just replying to my own post.

The law concerning Catherine did not ban the marriage, it penalized the husband. So any children would be royal and the marriage was legal but the husband would lose all lands.

So Owen had little to lose.

However, the marriage and any issue were legitimate.

Regards
David From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-04 12:29:45

SandraMachin

Marie, it's in http://archive.org/stream/welshnationalism00joneuoft/welshnationalism00joneuoft_djvu.txt WELSH NATIONALISM AND HENRY TUDOR. 37 A curious story in the history of Ellis Griffith relates that Henry Tudor was first named Owen, and although by the command of the Lady Margaret the name was changed, the Welsh continued to call him Owen rather than Henry. Sandra =^..^= From: SandraMachin Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 12:14 PM To: Subject: Re: J A-H's new book

Sandra wrote:

Marie replies:

Marie

Stephen,

I have checked another couple of my books, and they agree that the act did not ban the marriage at all. It was in fact, aimed at scaring off potential suitors and stipulated that if Catherine married without the kingx27;s permission, her husband would forfeit his land. So there was no ban on marriage itself.

What made Owen an ideal husband - apart from their attraction for each other, was that he had no land to lose.

And as for no recognition of their relationship, well Henry VI stated when he enobled Edmund and Jasper that there was no need to make them ligitimate, because their parents marriage was valid in law.

I think the naming of Edmund may have been a dig at Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester who was behind the act that had scared off Edmund B.

There is also record of Catherine presenting Owenx27;s family tree to parliament to prove he was of suitably princely descent, and of having meetings with her in-laws.

Heraldry was not a means of hiding codes - there were ways of representing things like illegitimacy and there were some cases of puns. But I think you and J A-H are grasping at straws.

Regards
David From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-Hx27;s new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 11:36:59 AM

Stephen,
Just replying to my own post.

The law concerning Catherine did not ban the marriage, it penalized the husband. So any children would be royal and the marriage was legal but the husband would lose all lands.

So Owen had little to lose.

However, the marriage and any issue were legitimate.

Regards
David From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-04 14:41:46

mariewalsh2003

Sandra wrote:WELSH NATIONALISM AND HENRY TUDOR. 37 A curious story in the history of Ellis Griffith relates that Henry Tudor was first named Owen, and although by the command of the Lady Margaret the name was changed, the Welsh continued to call him Owen rather than Henry. Marie replies:Thanks very much for this reference, Sandra; the book is fascinating and I've saved a copy to my computer. But anyway, I suspected it might be something like this. Ellis Griffith's 'History of Wales' seems to date from c.1900 but is unpublished, and his own source is therefore difficult to gauge. Jones' 'Welsh Nationalism and Henry Tudor' refers the reader for further detail to Evans' 'Wales and the Wars of the Roses', which I have. Evans relates the story as he took it from Ellis Griffiths:"William ap Griffith was a chieftain of North Wales. Deeply disappointed by the death of Edmund Tudor, earl of Richmond, before a son had been born to him, he threw his bard, Robin Ddu, into prison, exclaiming angrily: "You made me believe that a scion of the House of Owen would one day restore us the crown of Britain. You now perceive that your prophecy was false, for Edmund has left no son to succeed him.' Soon it became known that the duchess [sic] was about to hive birth to a child. Robin Ddu was immediately set free and despatched to Pembroke. A son was born, and they called his name Owen, by which name young Henry Tudor was for many years known among the Welsh." I'd say this is pure fantasy. The point is that the Welsh strongly believed in a prophecy whereby their saviour would be a man named 'Owen the Deliverer'. Reality was therefore always being rammed into the prophetic framework. If anyone can find me instances of Henry Tudor being referred to as Owen in any other than poetic, prophetic contexts during his early life, then I'll gladly eat my hat. It was quite usual for the first son of someone of Margaret Beaufort's rank to be named for the King, and given that the father was Henry VI's half-brother makes that even more likely in this case. The fact that Henry VII was very fond of pointing out that Henry VI was his godfather strengthens the supposition that this would have been his baptismal name (it must have been by proxy, of course, but that is not unusual). Names were conferred sacramentally at baptism - babies who died unbaptized had no name - and therefore I don't think it was possible to change them. This is surely just a tall story to explain why the 'Welshman' who recovered Britain for the Cymru was called Henry and not Owen; it was presumably intended to quiet doubters who were starting to wonder if he really was the prophecied saviour.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Marie, it's in http://archive.org/stream/welshnationalism00joneuoft/welshnationalism00joneuoft_djvu.txt WELSH NATIONALISM AND HENRY TUDOR. 37 A curious story in the history of Ellis Griffith relates that Henry Tudor was first named Owen, and although by the command of the Lady Margaret the name was changed, the Welsh continued to call him Owen rather than Henry. Sandra =^..^= From: SandraMachin Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 12:14 PM To: Subject: Re: J A-H's new book

Sandra wrote:

Marie replies:

Marie

Stephen,

I have checked another couple of my books, and they agree that the act did not ban the marriage at all. It was in fact, aimed at scaring off potential suitors and stipulated that if Catherine married without the kingx27;s permission, her husband would forfeit his land. So there was no ban on marriage itself.

What made Owen an ideal husband - apart from their attraction for each other, was that he had no land to lose.

And as for no recognition of their relationship, well Henry VI stated when he enobled Edmund and Jasper that there was no need to make them ligitimate, because their parents marriage was valid in law.

I think the naming of Edmund may have been a dig at Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester who was behind the act that had scared off Edmund B.

There is also record of Catherine presenting Owenx27;s family tree to parliament to prove he was of suitably princely descent, and of having meetings with her in-laws.

Heraldry was not a means of hiding codes - there were ways of representing things like illegitimacy and there were some cases of puns. But I think you and J A-H are grasping at straws.

Regards
David From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-Hx27;s new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 11:36:59 AM

Stephen,
Just replying to my own post.

The law concerning Catherine did not ban the marriage, it penalized the husband. So any children would be royal and the marriage was legal but the husband would lose all lands.

So Owen had little to lose.

However, the marriage and any issue were legitimate.

Regards
David From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-04 14:50:40

Jonathan Evans

> 'Owen the Deliverer'

Lovely - makes him sound like postman in Criccieth.

Jonathan

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 4 October 2013, 14:41
Subject: RE: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

Sandra wrote:WELSH NATIONALISM AND HENRY TUDOR. 37 A curious story in the history of Ellis Griffith relates that Henry Tudor was first named Owen, and although by the command of the Lady Margaret the name was changed, the Welsh continued to call him Owen rather than Henry. Marie replies:Thanks very much for this reference, Sandra; the book is fascinating and I've saved a copy to my computer. But anyway, I suspected it might be something like this. Ellis Griffith's 'History of Wales' seems to date from c.1900 but is unpublished, and his own source is therefore difficult to gauge. Jones' 'Welsh Nationalism and Henry Tudor' refers the reader for further detail to Evans' 'Wales and the Wars of the Roses', which I have. Evans relates the story as he took it from Ellis Griffiths:"William ap Griffith was a chieftain of North Wales. Deeply disappointed by the death of Edmund Tudor, earl of Richmond, before a son had been born to him, he threw his bard, Robin Ddu, into prison, exclaiming angrily: "You made me believe that a scion of the House of Owen would one day restore us the crown of Britain. You now perceive that your prophecy was false, for Edmund has left no son to succeed him.' Soon it became known that the duchess [sic] was about to hive birth to a child. Robin Ddu was immediately set free and despatched to Pembroke. A son was born, and they called his name Owen, by which name young Henry Tudor was for many years known among the Welsh." I'd say this is pure fantasy. The point is that the Welsh strongly believed in a prophecy whereby their saviour would be a man named 'Owen the Deliverer'. Reality was therefore always being rammed into the prophetic framework. If anyone can find me instances of Henry Tudor being referred to as Owen in any other than poetic, prophetic contexts during his early life, then I'll gladly eat my hat. It was quite usual for the first son of someone of Margaret Beaufort's rank to be named for the King, and given that the father was Henry VI's half-brother makes that even more likely in this case. The fact that Henry VII was very fond of pointing out that Henry VI was his godfather strengthens the supposition that this would have been his baptismal name (it must have been by proxy, of course, but that is not unusual). Names were conferred sacramentally at baptism - babies who died unbaptized had no name - and therefore I don't think it was possible to change them. This is surely just a tall story to explain why the 'Welshman' who recovered Britain for the Cymru was called Henry and not Owen; it was presumably intended to quiet doubters who were starting to wonder if he really was the prophecied saviour.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Marie, it's in http://archive.org/stream/welshnationalism00joneuoft/welshnationalism00joneuoft_djvu.txt WELSH NATIONALISM AND HENRY TUDOR. 37 A curious story in the history of Ellis Griffith relates that Henry Tudor was first named Owen, and although by the command of the Lady Margaret the name was changed, the Welsh continued to call him Owen rather than Henry. Sandra =^..^= From: SandraMachin Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 12:14 PM To: Subject: Re: J A-H's new book Marie, I am clearly wrong about him being an Owen Henry, but I have definitely read that he was Owen, and that Margaret Beaufort changed it to Henry. Maybe the original name had been something Edmund had wished, in honour of his father'? Whatever, the baby soon ceased to be an Owen and became a Henry. If I can find the reference, I will let you know. It's one of those things, where the heck did I see it? Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:49 AM To: Subject: RE: Re: J A-H's new book Sandra wrote: "Am I right that Henry was actually christened Owen Henry, but MB decided he would be known as Henry? King Owen? Too Welsh by far, I guess. But would did MB (1) called him Owen in the first place, (2) then promptly banish the name?" Marie replies: Not heard this one. Double Christian names weren't yet in use in Britain, anyway. There was supposedly a completely separate Tudor brother, younger than Edmund and Jasper, named Owen, who became a monk at Westminster. And then, of course, there was Sir David Owen. I know one thing that interested Moira Habberjam was the very different treatment by Henry VI of the elder two Tudor brothers as opposed to the younger two (ie the two with Welsh names). I don't have a view on their paternity. Like the Edward IV question I believe it can only be resolved by DNA analysis. Edward IV's paternity is a legitimate subject for historical study in so far as it influenced events - mainly by influencing Clarence's behaviour. But since no one at the time claimed that Edmund Tudor was a Beaufort it is difficult to see the historical significance in the absence of DNA evidence. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Am I right that Henry was actually christened Owen Henry, but MB decided he would be known as Henry? King Owen? Too Welsh by far, I guess. But would did MB (1) called him Owen in the first place, (2) then promptly banish the name? Because she had second thoughts about reminding anyone of Henry's dubious Grand-Daddy'? To please Henry VI? If the latter, surely she would have opted for Henry in the first place? I may be wrong about this, of course, and he was never called Owen at all. =^..^= From: Stephen Lark Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:04 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Re: J A-H's new book ÿ Owen Tudor of princely descent? He was of the line of Llewellyn Fawr's steward whilst Richard was descended from Llewellyn himself. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 6:52 PM Subject: Re : Re: Re: J A-H's new book Stephen,

I have checked another couple of my books, and they agree that the act did not ban the marriage at all. It was in fact, aimed at scaring off potential suitors and stipulated that if Catherine married without the kingx27;s permission, her husband would forfeit his land. So there was no ban on marriage itself.

What made Owen an ideal husband - apart from their attraction for each other, was that he had no land to lose.

And as for no recognition of their relationship, well Henry VI stated when he enobled Edmund and Jasper that there was no need to make them ligitimate, because their parents marriage was valid in law.

I think the naming of Edmund may have been a dig at Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester who was behind the act that had scared off Edmund B.

There is also record of Catherine presenting Owenx27;s family tree to parliament to prove he was of suitably princely descent, and of having meetings with her in-laws.

Heraldry was not a means of hiding codes - there were ways of representing things like illegitimacy and there were some cases of puns. But I think you and J A-H are grasping at straws.

Regards
David From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-Hx27;s new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 11:36:59 AM

ÿ It banned Catherine's remarriage until Henry attained his majority in 1437. She died in January 1436, so any later children would have been illegitimate. The evidence together suggests that they were possible Edward III descendants pretending not to be, yet boasted about it in code. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:18 PM Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book Stephen,
Just replying to my own post.

The law concerning Catherine did not ban the marriage, it penalized the husband. So any children would be royal and the marriage was legal but the husband would lose all lands.

So Owen had little to lose.

However, the marriage and any issue were legitimate.

Regards
David From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM

Stephen,
I have replied separately to Carol regarding the explanation for the similarity of the coats of arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor - and also Jasper Tudor (who was not mentioned).

I donx27;t think that Catherinex27;s wish to marry Edmond Beaufort was a secret. In fact, the rule that you mention about not being able to marry until her son reached majority was not an old law of the land, but was brought in specifically to prevent the marriage, which seems a bit unfair.

So, as you say, irrespective of their parentage, the brothers were illegitimate. However Henry VI did issue an edict declaring Edmund T legitimate before Henry was born.

Regarding the absence of the arms of Owen in the sonsx27; own coats of arms, there are two explanations for this - firstly, the royal arms granted were the highest ranking in the land and it would not be common to quarter them with one of lower rank; secondly, there were punitive laws regarding the rights of Welshmen in England and the coats may not be valid / recognised. I am not sure of the second point, perhaps we might have an expert in the forum.

However, I am sure the book will gain high praise in certain quarters.

Regards
David From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:39:44 PM

ÿ I have it and this issue was discussed extensively on FB. If the argument was based solely on the armorial similarity between Edmund Beaufort and Edmund and Jasper, together with the distinct dissimilarity with Owen Tudor's arms, that would indeed be frail. JA-H also, however, points out that there were contemporary rumours of an Edmund-Catherine relationship, that it would have been illegal for her to re-marry anyone until her eldest son attained his majority (which happened after her 1436 death) so Edmund and Jasper were illegitimate whoever their father was, that Edmund Beaufort only married after her death, that the elder son was named Edmund and that (via Dr. Cliff Davies and our own Mary Friend) the surname and phrase "House of Tudor" were first used in English by Hume in the mid-eighteenth century. There is no real evidence connecting Catherine to Owen Tudor amorously, either. Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women". ----- Original Message ----- From: justcarol67@... To: Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM Subject: J A-H's new book I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?

Thanks,
Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-04 14:55:46

SandraMachin

Sandra wrote: WELSH NATIONALISM AND HENRY TUDOR. 37 A curious story in the history of Ellis Griffith relates that Henry Tudor was first named Owen, and although by the command of the Lady Margaret the name was changed, the Welsh continued to call him Owen rather than Henry. Marie replies: Thanks very much for this reference, Sandra; the book is fascinating and I've saved a copy to my computer. But anyway, I suspected it might be something like this. Ellis Griffith's 'History of Wales' seems to date from c.1900 but is unpublished, and his own source is therefore difficult to gauge. Jones' 'Welsh Nationalism and Henry Tudor' refers the reader for further detail to Evans' 'Wales and the Wars of the Roses', which I have. Evans relates the story as he took it from Ellis Griffiths: "William ap Griffith was a chieftain of North Wales. Deeply disappointed by the death of Edmund Tudor, earl of Richmond, before a son had been born to him, he threw his bard, Robin Ddu, into prison, exclaiming angrily: "You made me believe that a scion of the House of Owen would one day restore us the crown of Britain. You now perceive that your prophecy was false, for Edmund has left no son to succeed him.' Soon it became known that the duchess [sic] was about to hive birth to a child. Robin Ddu was immediately set free and despatched to Pembroke. A son was born, and they called his name Owen, by which name young Henry Tudor was for many years known among the Welsh." I'd say this is pure fantasy. The point is that the Welsh strongly believed in a prophecy whereby their saviour would be a man named 'Owen the Deliverer'. Reality was therefore always being rammed into the prophetic framework. If anyone can find me instances of Henry Tudor being referred to as Owen in any other than poetic, prophetic contexts during his early life, then I'll gladly eat my hat. It was quite usual for the first son of someone of Margaret Beaufort's rank to be named for the King, and given that the father was Henry VI's half-brother makes that even more likely in this case. The fact that Henry VII was very fond of pointing out that Henry VI was his godfather strengthens the supposition that this would have been his baptismal name (it must have been by proxy, of course, but that is not unusual). Names were conferred sacramentally at baptism - babies who died unbaptized had no name - and therefore I don't think it was possible to change them. This is surely just a tall story to explain why the 'Welshman' who recovered Britain for the Cymru was called Henry and not Owen; it was presumably intended to quiet doubters who were starting to wonder if he really was the prophecied saviour. Marie Sandra, shocked, responds: >>>>This is surely just a tall story to explain why the 'Welshman' who recovered Britain for the Cymru was called Henry and not Owen; it was presumably intended to quiet doubters who were starting to wonder if he really was the prophecied saviour.<<<< Oh, come now, Marie, of course he was the saviour. How could the Welsh be wrong about such a thing???? Well, except with hindsight, of course, when he did next to nothing for them. He was very definitely a Henry then, not even a Harri, and entirely his English mother's son. <g>

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-04 15:10:30

SandraMachin

Or the man-midwife. Ye gods, I hope his eyes were in unison when he brandished the forceps! =^..^= From: Jonathan Evans Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 2:50 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: J A-H's new book

> 'Owen the Deliverer'

Lovely - makes him sound like postman in Criccieth.

Jonathan

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 4 October 2013, 14:41
Subject: RE: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book
Sandra wrote: WELSH NATIONALISM AND HENRY TUDOR. 37 A curious story in the history of Ellis Griffith relates that Henry Tudor was first named Owen, and although by the command of the Lady Margaret the name was changed, the Welsh continued to call him Owen rather than Henry. Marie replies: Thanks very much for this reference, Sandra; the book is fascinating and I've saved a copy to my computer. But anyway, I suspected it might be something like this. Ellis Griffith's 'History of Wales' seems to date from c.1900 but is unpublished, and his own source is therefore difficult to gauge. Jones' 'Welsh Nationalism and Henry Tudor' refers the reader for further detail to Evans' 'Wales and the Wars of the Roses', which I have. Evans relates the story as he took it from Ellis Griffiths: "William ap Griffith was a chieftain of North Wales. Deeply disappointed by the death of Edmund Tudor, earl of Richmond, before a son had been born to him, he threw his bard, Robin Ddu, into prison, exclaiming angrily: "You made me believe that a scion of the House of Owen would one day restore us the crown of Britain. You now perceive that your prophecy was false, for Edmund has left no son to succeed him.' Soon it became known that the duchess [sic] was about to hive birth to a child. Robin Ddu was immediately set free and despatched to Pembroke. A son was born, and they called his name Owen, by which name young Henry Tudor was for many years known among the Welsh." I'd say this is pure fantasy. The point is that the Welsh strongly believed in a prophecy whereby their saviour would be a man named 'Owen the Deliverer'. Reality was therefore always being rammed into the prophetic framework. If anyone can find me instances of Henry Tudor being referred to as Owen in any other than poetic, prophetic contexts during his early life, then I'll gladly eat my hat. It was quite usual for the first son of someone of Margaret Beaufort's rank to be named for the King, and given that the father was Henry VI's half-brother makes that even more likely in this case. The fact that Henry VII was very fond of pointing out that Henry VI was his godfather strengthens the supposition that this would have been his baptismal name (it must have been by proxy, of course, but that is not unusual). Names were conferred sacramentally at baptism - babies who died unbaptized had no name - and therefore I don't think it was possible to change them. This is surely just a tall story to explain why the 'Welshman' who recovered Britain for the Cymru was called Henry and not Owen; it was presumably intended to quiet doubters who were starting to wonder if he really was the prophecied saviour. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Marie, it's in http://archive.org/stream/welshnationalism00joneuoft/welshnationalism00joneuoft_djvu.txt WELSH NATIONALISM AND HENRY TUDOR. 37 A curious story in the history of Ellis Griffith relates that Henry Tudor was first named Owen, and although by the command of the Lady Margaret the name was changed, the Welsh continued to call him Owen rather than Henry. Sandra =^..^= From: SandraMachin Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 12:14 PM To: Subject: Re: J A-H's new book Marie, I am clearly wrong about him being an Owen Henry, but I have definitely read that he was Owen, and that Margaret Beaufort changed it to Henry. Maybe the original name had been something Edmund had wished, in honour of his father'? Whatever, the baby soon ceased to be an Owen and became a Henry. If I can find the reference, I will let you know. It's one of those things, where the heck did I see it? Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:49 AM To: Subject: RE: Re: J A-H's new book Sandra wrote: "Am I right that Henry was actually christened Owen Henry, but MB decided he would be known as Henry? King Owen? Too Welsh by far, I guess. But would did MB (1) called him Owen in the first place, (2) then promptly banish the name?" Marie replies: Not heard this one. Double Christian names weren't yet in use in Britain, anyway. There was supposedly a completely separate Tudor brother, younger than Edmund and Jasper, named Owen, who became a monk at Westminster. And then, of course, there was Sir David Owen. I know one thing that interested Moira Habberjam was the very different treatment by Henry VI of the elder two Tudor brothers as opposed to the younger two (ie the two with Welsh names). I don't have a view on their paternity. Like the Edward IV question I believe it can only be resolved by DNA analysis. Edward IV's paternity is a legitimate subject for historical study in so far as it influenced events - mainly by influencing Clarence's behaviour. But since no one at the time claimed that Edmund Tudor was a Beaufort it is difficult to see the historical significance in the absence of DNA evidence. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Am I right that Henry was actually christened Owen Henry, but MB decided he would be known as Henry? King Owen? Too Welsh by far, I guess. But would did MB (1) called him Owen in the first place, (2) then promptly banish the name? Because she had second thoughts about reminding anyone of Henry's dubious Grand-Daddy'? To please Henry VI? If the latter, surely she would have opted for Henry in the first place? I may be wrong about this, of course, and he was never called Owen at all. =^..^= From: Stephen Lark Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:04 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Re: J A-H's new book ÿ Owen Tudor of princely descent? He was of the line of Llewellyn Fawr's steward whilst Richard was descended from Llewellyn himself. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 6:52 PM Subject: Re : Re: Re: J A-H's new book Stephen,

I have checked another couple of my books, and they agree that the act did not ban the marriage at all. It was in fact, aimed at scaring off potential suitors and stipulated that if Catherine married without the kingx27;s permission, her husband would forfeit his land. So there was no ban on marriage itself.

What made Owen an ideal husband - apart from their attraction for each other, was that he had no land to lose.

And as for no recognition of their relationship, well Henry VI stated when he enobled Edmund and Jasper that there was no need to make them ligitimate, because their parents marriage was valid in law.

I think the naming of Edmund may have been a dig at Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester who was behind the act that had scared off Edmund B.

There is also record of Catherine presenting Owenx27;s family tree to parliament to prove he was of suitably princely descent, and of having meetings with her in-laws.

Heraldry was not a means of hiding codes - there were ways of representing things like illegitimacy and there were some cases of puns. But I think you and J A-H are grasping at straws.

Regards
David From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 11:36:59 AM

ÿ It banned Catherine's remarriage until Henry attained his majority in 1437. She died in January 1436, so any later children would have been illegitimate. The evidence together suggests that they were possible Edward III descendants pretending not to be, yet boasted about it in code. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:18 PM Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book Stephen,
Just replying to my own post.

The law concerning Catherine did not ban the marriage, it penalized the husband. So any children would be royal and the marriage was legal but the husband would lose all lands.

So Owen had little to lose.

However, the marriage and any issue were legitimate.

Regards
David From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM

Stephen,
I have replied separately to Carol regarding the explanation for the similarity of the coats of arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor - and also Jasper Tudor (who was not mentioned).

I donx27;t think that Catherinex27;s wish to marry Edmond Beaufort was a secret. In fact, the rule that you mention about not being able to marry until her son reached majority was not an old law of the land, but was brought in specifically to prevent the marriage, which seems a bit unfair.

So, as you say, irrespective of their parentage, the brothers were illegitimate. However Henry VI did issue an edict declaring Edmund T legitimate before Henry was born.

Regarding the absence of the arms of Owen in the sonsx27; own coats of arms, there are two explanations for this - firstly, the royal arms granted were the highest ranking in the land and it would not be common to quarter them with one of lower rank; secondly, there were punitive laws regarding the rights of Welshmen in England and the coats may not be valid / recognised. I am not sure of the second point, perhaps we might have an expert in the forum.

However, I am sure the book will gain high praise in certain quarters.

Regards
David From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:39:44 PM

ÿ I have it and this issue was discussed extensively on FB. If the argument was based solely on the armorial similarity between Edmund Beaufort and Edmund and Jasper, together with the distinct dissimilarity with Owen Tudor's arms, that would indeed be frail. JA-H also, however, points out that there were contemporary rumours of an Edmund-Catherine relationship, that it would have been illegal for her to re-marry anyone until her eldest son attained his majority (which happened after her 1436 death) so Edmund and Jasper were illegitimate whoever their father was, that Edmund Beaufort only married after her death, that the elder son was named Edmund and that (via Dr. Cliff Davies and our own Mary Friend) the surname and phrase "House of Tudor" were first used in English by Hume in the mid-eighteenth century. There is no real evidence connecting Catherine to Owen Tudor amorously, either. Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women". ----- Original Message ----- From: justcarol67@... To: Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM Subject: J A-H's new book I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?

Thanks,
Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-04 18:23:14

Jessie Skinner

Love it, Jonathan.
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 4 October 2013, 14:50
Subject: Re: Re: J A-H's new book

> 'Owen the Deliverer'

Lovely - makes him sound like postman in Criccieth.

Jonathan

style="font-weight:bold;">From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 4 October 2013, 14:41
Subject: RE: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book

Sandra wrote:WELSH NATIONALISM AND HENRY TUDOR. 37 A curious story in the history of Ellis Griffith relates that Henry Tudor was first named Owen, and although by the command of the Lady Margaret the name was changed, the Welsh continued to call him Owen rather than Henry. Marie replies:Thanks very much for this reference, Sandra; the book is fascinating and I've saved a copy to my computer. But anyway, I suspected it might be something like this. Ellis Griffith's 'History of Wales' seems to date from c.1900 but is unpublished, and his own source is therefore difficult to gauge. Jones' 'Welsh Nationalism and Henry Tudor' refers the reader for further detail to Evans' 'Wales and the Wars of the Roses', which I have. Evans relates the story as he took it from Ellis Griffiths:"William ap Griffith was a chieftain of North Wales. Deeply disappointed by the death of Edmund Tudor, earl of Richmond, before a son had been born to him, he threw his bard, Robin Ddu, into prison, exclaiming angrily: "You made me believe that a scion of the House of Owen would one day restore us the crown of Britain. You now perceive that your prophecy was false, for Edmund has left no son to succeed him.' Soon it became known that the duchess [sic] was about to hive birth to a child. Robin Ddu was immediately set free and despatched to Pembroke. A son was born, and they called his name Owen, by which name young Henry Tudor was for many years known among the Welsh." I'd say this is pure fantasy. The point is that the Welsh strongly believed in a prophecy whereby their saviour would be a man named 'Owen the Deliverer'. Reality was therefore always being rammed into the prophetic framework. If anyone can find me instances of Henry Tudor being referred to as Owen in any other than poetic, prophetic contexts during his early life, then I'll gladly eat my hat. It was quite usual for the first son of someone of Margaret Beaufort's rank to be named for the King, and given that the father was Henry VI's half-brother makes that even more likely in this case. The fact that Henry VII was very fond of pointing out that Henry VI was his godfather strengthens the supposition that this would have been his baptismal name (it must have been by proxy, of course, but that is not unusual). Names were conferred sacramentally at baptism - babies who died unbaptized had no name - and therefore I don't think it was possible to change them. This is surely just a tall story to explain why the 'Welshman' who recovered Britain for the Cymru was called Henry and not Owen; it was presumably intended to quiet doubters who were starting to wonder if he really was the prophecied saviour.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Marie, it's in http://archive.org/stream/welshnationalism00joneuoft/welshnationalism00joneuoft_djvu.txt WELSH NATIONALISM AND HENRY TUDOR. 37 A curious story in the history of Ellis Griffith relates that Henry Tudor was first named Owen, and although by the command of the Lady Margaret the name was changed, the Welsh continued to call him Owen rather than Henry. Sandra =^..^= From: SandraMachin Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 12:14 PM To: Subject: Re: J A-H's new book Marie, I am clearly wrong about him being an Owen Henry, but I have definitely read that he was Owen, and that Margaret Beaufort changed it to Henry. Maybe the original name had been something Edmund had wished, in honour of his father'? Whatever, the baby soon ceased to be an Owen and became a Henry. If I can find the reference, I will let you know. It's one of those things, where the heck did I see it? Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:49 AM To: Subject: RE: Re: J A-H's new book Sandra wrote: "Am I right that Henry was actually christened Owen Henry, but MB decided he would be known as Henry? King Owen? Too Welsh by far, I guess. But would did MB (1) called him Owen in the first place, (2) then promptly banish the name?" Marie replies: Not heard this one. Double Christian names weren't yet in use in Britain, anyway. There was supposedly a completely separate Tudor brother, younger than Edmund and Jasper, named Owen, who became a monk at Westminster. And then, of course, there was Sir David Owen. I know one thing that interested Moira Habberjam was the very different treatment by Henry VI of the elder two Tudor brothers as opposed to the younger two (ie the two with Welsh names). I don't have a view on their paternity. Like the Edward IV question I believe it can only be resolved by DNA analysis. Edward IV's paternity is a legitimate subject for historical study in so far as it influenced events - mainly by influencing Clarence's behaviour. But since no one at the time claimed that Edmund Tudor was a Beaufort it is difficult to see the historical significance in the absence of DNA evidence. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Am I right that Henry was actually christened Owen Henry, but MB decided he would be known as Henry? King Owen? Too Welsh by far, I guess. But would did MB (1) called him Owen in the first place, (2) then promptly banish the name? Because she had second thoughts about reminding anyone of Henry's dubious Grand-Daddy'? To please Henry VI? If the latter, surely she would have opted for Henry in the first place? I may be wrong about this, of course, and he was never called Owen at all. =^..^= From: Stephen Lark Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:04 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Re: J A-H's new book ÿ Owen Tudor of princely descent? He was of the line of Llewellyn Fawr's steward whilst Richard was descended from Llewellyn himself. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 6:52 PM Subject: Re : Re: Re: J A-H's new book Stephen,

I have checked another couple of my books, and they agree that the act did not ban the marriage at all. It was in fact, aimed at scaring off potential suitors and stipulated that if Catherine married without the kingx27;s permission, her husband would forfeit his land. So there was no ban on marriage itself.

What made Owen an ideal husband - apart from their attraction for each other, was that he had no land to lose.

And as for no recognition of their relationship, well Henry VI stated when he enobled Edmund and Jasper that there was no need to make them ligitimate, because their parents marriage was valid in law.

I think the naming of Edmund may have been a dig at Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester who was behind the act that had scared off Edmund B.

There is also record of Catherine presenting Owenx27;s family tree to parliament to prove he was of suitably princely descent, and of having meetings with her in-laws.

Heraldry was not a means of hiding codes - there were ways of representing things like illegitimacy and there were some cases of puns. But I think you and J A-H are grasping at straws.

Regards
David From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-Hx27;s new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 11:36:59 AM

ÿ It banned Catherine's remarriage until Henry attained his majority in 1437. She died in January 1436, so any later children would have been illegitimate. The evidence together suggests that they were possible Edward III descendants pretending not to be, yet boasted about it in code. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:18 PM Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book Stephen,
Just replying to my own post.

The law concerning Catherine did not ban the marriage, it penalized the husband. So any children would be royal and the marriage was legal but the husband would lose all lands.

So Owen had little to lose.

However, the marriage and any issue were legitimate.

Regards
David From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM

Stephen,
I have replied separately to Carol regarding the explanation for the similarity of the coats of arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor - and also Jasper Tudor (who was not mentioned).

I donx27;t think that Catherinex27;s wish to marry Edmond Beaufort was a secret. In fact, the rule that you mention about not being able to marry until her son reached majority was not an old law of the land, but was brought in specifically to prevent the marriage, which seems a bit unfair.

So, as you say, irrespective of their parentage, the brothers were illegitimate. However Henry VI did issue an edict declaring Edmund T legitimate before Henry was born.

Regarding the absence of the arms of Owen in the sonsx27; own coats of arms, there are two explanations for this - firstly, the royal arms granted were the highest ranking in the land and it would not be common to quarter them with one of lower rank; secondly, there were punitive laws regarding the rights of Welshmen in England and the coats may not be valid / recognised. I am not sure of the second point, perhaps we might have an expert in the forum.

However, I am sure the book will gain high praise in certain quarters.

Regards
David From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:39:44 PM

ÿ I have it and this issue was discussed extensively on FB. If the argument was based solely on the armorial similarity between Edmund Beaufort and Edmund and Jasper, together with the distinct dissimilarity with Owen Tudor's arms, that would indeed be frail. JA-H also, however, points out that there were contemporary rumours of an Edmund-Catherine relationship, that it would have been illegal for her to re-marry anyone until her eldest son attained his majority (which happened after her 1436 death) so Edmund and Jasper were illegitimate whoever their father was, that Edmund Beaufort only married after her death, that the elder son was named Edmund and that (via Dr. Cliff Davies and our own Mary Friend) the surname and phrase "House of Tudor" were first used in English by Hume in the mid-eighteenth century. There is no real evidence connecting Catherine to Owen Tudor amorously, either. Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women". ----- Original Message ----- From: justcarol67@... To: Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM Subject: J A-H's new book I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?

Thanks,
Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-04 18:23:23

Jessie Skinner

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-04 19:15:12

Pamela Bain

Me too......sort of a Pony Express Rider!
On Oct 4, 2013, at 12:23 PM, "Jessie Skinner" <janjovian@...> wrote:

Love it, Jonathan.
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 4 October 2013, 14:50
Subject: Re: Re: J A-H's new book

> 'Owen the Deliverer'

Lovely - makes him sound like postman in Criccieth.

Jonathan

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 4 October 2013, 14:41
Subject: RE: Re: J A-H's new book

Sandra wrote: WELSH NATIONALISM AND HENRY TUDOR. 37 A curious story in the history of Ellis Griffith relates that Henry Tudor was first named Owen, and although by the command of the Lady Margaret the name was changed, the Welsh continued to call him Owen rather than Henry. Marie replies: Thanks very much for this reference, Sandra; the book is fascinating and I've saved a copy to my computer. But anyway, I suspected it might be something like this. Ellis Griffith's 'History of Wales' seems to date from c.1900 but is unpublished, and his own source is therefore difficult to gauge. Jones' 'Welsh Nationalism and Henry Tudor' refers the reader for further detail to Evans' 'Wales and the Wars of the Roses', which I have. Evans relates the story as he took it from Ellis Griffiths: "William ap Griffith was a chieftain of North Wales. Deeply disappointed by the death of Edmund Tudor, earl of Richmond, before a son had been born to him, he threw his bard, Robin Ddu, into prison, exclaiming angrily: "You made me believe that a scion of the House of Owen would one day restore us the crown of Britain. You now perceive that your prophecy was false, for Edmund has left no son to succeed him.' Soon it became known that the duchess [sic] was about to hive birth to a child. Robin Ddu was immediately set free and despatched to Pembroke. A son was born, and they called his name Owen, by which name young Henry Tudor was for many years known among the Welsh." I'd say this is pure fantasy. The point is that the Welsh strongly believed in a prophecy whereby their saviour would be a man named 'Owen the Deliverer'. Reality was therefore always being rammed into the prophetic framework. If anyone can find me instances of Henry Tudor being referred to as Owen in any other than poetic, prophetic contexts during his early life, then I'll gladly eat my hat. It was quite usual for the first son of someone of Margaret Beaufort's rank to be named for the King, and given that the father was Henry VI's half-brother makes that even more likely in this case. The fact that Henry VII was very fond of pointing out that Henry VI was his godfather strengthens the supposition that this would have been his baptismal name (it must have been by proxy, of course, but that is not unusual). Names were conferred sacramentally at baptism - babies who died unbaptized had no name - and therefore I don't think it was possible to change them. This is surely just a tall story to explain why the 'Welshman' who recovered Britain for the Cymru was called Henry and not Owen; it was presumably intended to quiet doubters who were starting to wonder if he really was the prophecied saviour. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Marie, it's in http://archive.org/stream/welshnationalism00joneuoft/welshnationalism00joneuoft_djvu.txt WELSH NATIONALISM AND HENRY TUDOR. 37 A curious story in the history of Ellis Griffith relates that Henry Tudor was first named Owen, and although by the command of the Lady Margaret the name was changed, the Welsh continued to call him Owen rather than Henry. Sandra =^..^= From: SandraMachin Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 12:14 PM To: Subject: Re: J A-H's new book Marie, I am clearly wrong about him being an Owen Henry, but I have definitely read that he was Owen, and that Margaret Beaufort changed it to Henry. Maybe the original name had been something Edmund had wished, in honour of his father'? Whatever, the baby soon ceased to be an Owen and became a Henry. If I can find the reference, I will let you know. It's one of those things, where the heck did I see it? Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:49 AM To: Subject: RE: Re: J A-H's new book Sandra wrote: "Am I right that Henry was actually christened Owen Henry, but MB decided he would be known as Henry? King Owen? Too Welsh by far, I guess. But would did MB (1) called him Owen in the first place, (2) then promptly banish the name?" Marie replies: Not heard this one. Double Christian names weren't yet in use in Britain, anyway. There was supposedly a completely separate Tudor brother, younger than Edmund and Jasper, named Owen, who became a monk at Westminster. And then, of course, there was Sir David Owen. I know one thing that interested Moira Habberjam was the very different treatment by Henry VI of the elder two Tudor brothers as opposed to the younger two (ie the two with Welsh names). I don't have a view on their paternity. Like the Edward IV question I believe it can only be resolved by DNA analysis. Edward IV's paternity is a legitimate subject for historical study in so far as it influenced events - mainly by influencing Clarence's behaviour. But since no one at the time claimed that Edmund Tudor was a Beaufort it is difficult to see the historical significance in the absence of DNA evidence. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Am I right that Henry was actually christened Owen Henry, but MB decided he would be known as Henry? King Owen? Too Welsh by far, I guess. But would did MB (1) called him Owen in the first place, (2) then promptly banish the name? Because she had second thoughts about reminding anyone of Henry's dubious Grand-Daddy'? To please Henry VI? If the latter, surely she would have opted for Henry in the first place? I may be wrong about this, of course, and he was never called Owen at all. =^..^= From: Stephen Lark Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:04 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Re: J A-H's new book ÿ Owen Tudor of princely descent? He was of the line of Llewellyn Fawr's steward whilst Richard was descended from Llewellyn himself. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 6:52 PM Subject: Re : Re: Re: J A-H's new book Stephen,

I have checked another couple of my books, and they agree that the act did not ban the marriage at all. It was in fact, aimed at scaring off potential suitors and stipulated that if Catherine married without the kingx27;s permission, her husband would forfeit his land. So there was no ban on marriage itself.

What made Owen an ideal husband - apart from their attraction for each other, was that he had no land to lose.

And as for no recognition of their relationship, well Henry VI stated when he enobled Edmund and Jasper that there was no need to make them ligitimate, because their parents marriage was valid in law.

I think the naming of Edmund may have been a dig at Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester who was behind the act that had scared off Edmund B.

There is also record of Catherine presenting Owenx27;s family tree to parliament to prove he was of suitably princely descent, and of having meetings with her in-laws.

Heraldry was not a means of hiding codes - there were ways of representing things like illegitimacy and there were some cases of puns. But I think you and J A-H are grasping at straws.

Regards
David From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 11:36:59 AM

ÿ It banned Catherine's remarriage until Henry attained his majority in 1437. She died in January 1436, so any later children would have been illegitimate. The evidence together suggests that they were possible Edward III descendants pretending not to be, yet boasted about it in code. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:18 PM Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book Stephen,
Just replying to my own post.

The law concerning Catherine did not ban the marriage, it penalized the husband. So any children would be royal and the marriage was legal but the husband would lose all lands.

So Owen had little to lose.

However, the marriage and any issue were legitimate.

Regards
David From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 10:57:21 AM

Stephen,
I have replied separately to Carol regarding the explanation for the similarity of the coats of arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor - and also Jasper Tudor (who was not mentioned).

I donx27;t think that Catherinex27;s wish to marry Edmond Beaufort was a secret. In fact, the rule that you mention about not being able to marry until her son reached majority was not an old law of the land, but was brought in specifically to prevent the marriage, which seems a bit unfair.

So, as you say, irrespective of their parentage, the brothers were illegitimate. However Henry VI did issue an edict declaring Edmund T legitimate before Henry was born.

Regarding the absence of the arms of Owen in the sonsx27; own coats of arms, there are two explanations for this - firstly, the royal arms granted were the highest ranking in the land and it would not be common to quarter them with one of lower rank; secondly, there were punitive laws regarding the rights of Welshmen in England and the coats may not be valid / recognised. I am not sure of the second point, perhaps we might have an expert in the forum.

However, I am sure the book will gain high praise in certain quarters.

Regards
David From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:39:44 PM

ÿ I have it and this issue was discussed extensively on FB. If the argument was based solely on the armorial similarity between Edmund Beaufort and Edmund and Jasper, together with the distinct dissimilarity with Owen Tudor's arms, that would indeed be frail. JA-H also, however, points out that there were contemporary rumours of an Edmund-Catherine relationship, that it would have been illegal for her to re-marry anyone until her eldest son attained his majority (which happened after her 1436 death) so Edmund and Jasper were illegitimate whoever their father was, that Edmund Beaufort only married after her death, that the elder son was named Edmund and that (via Dr. Cliff Davies and our own Mary Friend) the surname and phrase "House of Tudor" were first used in English by Hume in the mid-eighteenth century. There is no real evidence connecting Catherine to Owen Tudor amorously, either. Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women". ----- Original Message ----- From: justcarol67@... To: Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM Subject: J A-H's new book I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?

Thanks,
Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-05 13:55:30

Stephen Lark

ÿ You are right that we are at cross-purposes on this. However, we must all be careful of the propensity of some cyber-sources to assume the birth year of a child from a dubious extrapolation of their parents' marriage year. Many of those I have seen show Edmund as marrying after, or very slightly before, Catherine's death and this implies that he still carried a torch for her. I have just gone to Richmond in the ODNB (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1855?docPos=3) but this doesn't mention his wife or known offspring. I will consult the CP when next I have the chance but Richmond implies that JA-H may well be right here, as has been the case time after time. For now, whilst I have another book to complete, my interpretation will be detailed further in the December Bulletin. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 12:38 PM Subject: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book

Stephen,
We seem to have a pattern developing here.

My underatanding is that the date of Edmundx27;s marriage is uncertain - I have seen some stating that it was as early as 1425.

The date of birth of Eleanor is 1431 - so an earlier date is consistent with this.

The date you have is the pardon for an earlier unlicensed marriage. Perhaps Marie could explain what that means.

Kind regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Fri, Oct 4, 2013 2:07:12 PM

"After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. " Edmund married only after Catherine's 1436 death. The contemporary rumours about them are attested to by the ODNB. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:56 AM Subject: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book

Hi Tamara,
In response to the point about Catherine and the x27;rumoursx27; - actually referring to them as rumours actually gives the impression that there was something secret going on. It plays into the hands of those seeking out conspiracies.

The rumours prompted action by Humphrey of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Gloucester in the 1420s, resulting in the act that introduced a penalty for any potential husband. I think that there was no doubt that at that stage, Catherine wished to marry Edmund Beaufort.

After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. The relationship between Catherine and Owen occurred later while she was living at court.

So to make the inferrence that Beaufort was possibly Edmund Tx27;s father, you would have to tie down the rumours to the early 1430s - rather than simply x27;during her lifetimex27;.

Incidentally, the above-mentioned Humphrey of Lancaster also had a coat-of-arms even more like Edmund Beaufort - the arms of the kingdom, with a bordure of silver.

Kind regards
David

From: khafara@... <khafara@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 3:46:11 AM

To be fair to J A-H, rumors about whether Catherine of Valois was having an affair with Edmund Beaufort were apparently rampant during CoV's own lifetime and for some time afterwards. Richard Cavendish (make of him what you will) is one of many modern historians to presume that the affair was a fact: http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/birth-henry-tudor (A more respectable reference might be here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2007-08/1186697156 )

Speaking of Tudors, legitimacy, and timing, I was wondering about the timetable of Edmund Tudor's getting his 12-year-old bride Margaret Beaufort impregnated with the future Henry Tudor. I don't question that ET was HT's father; I'm just noting how quickly things went from marriage to pregnancy to husband's capture and death, and how little time ET might have actually had to beget his heir -- especially if MB's menarche didn't occur until after she had married ET. If Edmund Tudor had followed the usual practice of the time and waited until his wife was fifteen or sixteen, there would have been no Henry Tudor.

Here's the best I've been able to piece things together -- and if anyone knows differently, please jump in and correct me:

Edmund was off to the wars about eight months after the 1 November 1455 marriage, was captured in August 1456 by Yorkist forces, and died of the plague 3 November 1456. Henry was born nearly three months after Edmund's death, on 28 January 1457, which to me likely means he would have had to have been conceived sometime between mid-April and mid-May of 1456. I don't think it could have been later than mid-May.

Tamara

---In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

ÿ Yet they weren't descended from a King of England, unless they were Beauforts. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:29 PM Subject: Re : RE: Re : J A-H's new book

Hi Carol,

I had not mentioned Jasper intending that he was "next in line" in any way at all. If you look at his coat of arms it is also virtually the same in structure as Edmunds T and B.

I mention it to emphasise the fact that the arms of the brothers are indeed following the rules of Cadency. By the way I am sure the France / England quartering at this time were the arms of England rather than of Edward III specifically.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 4:18:11 PM

It does. Thank you. Of course, Edmund and Jasper had no claim whatever to the throne of England, or to the arms of England ("badge" was my word because I coulldn't think of the right one). No one has ever mentioned Jasper Tudor as being next in line after Henry (assuming Henry's claim to be valid) if Henry remained childless. And, of course, as far as Richard was concerned, they were both Tydders. I like J A-H, but I think he's on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I haven't had my morning coffee yet and can't think of the right word. I'm not sure that it matters, in any case, as having a Beaufort rather than a Tudor grandfather (which Henry never claimed) would in no way strengthen his shaky claim.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Carol,
I think you are very right to be dubious about J-AH's reasoning. Especially as far as the similarity of the - badges - is concerned.

I take it by badges, he is referring to the coats-of-arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor.

Heraldry has some rules, and the similarity of the two is easily explained by the fact that they are expressing similar concepts.

The central shield is quartering of fleurs-de-lys on blue (royal arms of France) and the 3 lions of England. This is the coat of arms of England at that time, and had been since Edward III and emphasised the kings of England's claim to France.

In theory, only the head of the family has the right to the arms plain - that is without a marker to indicate a junior member of the family. The border around both arms is called a bordure and it is one of the markers of a younger son. Another common marker is the label or lambel - a stripe across the top with a number of pendants, or points.

This system is referred to as Cadency.

A person could not simply draw up their own coat, it had to granted. The Beaufort arms were well established. in the case of Jasper and Edmund, the use of the royal arms must have been with the approval of their half brother.

So in the case of the Beauforts, the arms designate a younger brother of the royal house of England. You can trace the line back through younger brothers until you reach Edward III.

In the case of Jasper and Edmund, the arms designate similarly younger (half) brothers of the royal house. The devices within the bordure - fleurs-de-lys and martlets - may refer to Catherine's French royal status and the mythic arms of Edward the Confessor created by Richard II.

Another set of arms that show remarkable similarity are those of York and Lancaster - both are the royal arms of England with Labels of three points to indicate they are Cadet lines.

I hope this helps.

Kind regards
David

From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:05:41 PM

Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book

2013-10-07 19:45:52

Durose David

Stephen,
Just to show that I actually read some books favourable to Richard, I have a question about The Last Days... I have been recently reading Chris Skidmore's book on Bosworth.

In it he transcribes the text of letters written by Richard during his stay at Bestwood. Now I have re-read my copy of The Last Days and can find no mention of the letters at all.

The reason it is significant is that the authors draw different conclusions about Richard's time at Bestwood. J A-H paints a picture of a relaxed Richard enjoying a little hunting before having to deal with Henry's invasion. Skidmore says the letters - which threaten the recipients with the confiscation of their land and goods if they fail to turn out for Richard - are an indication of Richard's increasing desperation.

My copy of J A-H's book is an old one so the letters may have been included in a later edition.

I wondered if you were aware of the Bestwood letters.

Kind Regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Sat, Oct 5, 2013 12:56:49 PM

ÿ You are right that we are at cross-purposes on this. However, we must all be careful of the propensity of some cyber-sources to assume the birth year of a child from a dubious extrapolation of their parents' marriage year. Many of those I have seen show Edmund as marrying after, or very slightly before, Catherine's death and this implies that he still carried a torch for her. I have just gone to Richmond in the ODNB (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1855?docPos=3) but this doesn't mention his wife or known offspring. I will consult the CP when next I have the chance but Richmond implies that JA-H may well be right here, as has been the case time after time. For now, whilst I have another book to complete, my interpretation will be detailed further in the December Bulletin. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 12:38 PM Subject: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book
Stephen,
We seem to have a pattern developing here.

My underatanding is that the date of Edmundx27;s marriage is uncertain - I have seen some stating that it was as early as 1425.

The date of birth of Eleanor is 1431 - so an earlier date is consistent with this.

The date you have is the pardon for an earlier unlicensed marriage. Perhaps Marie could explain what that means.

Kind regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Fri, Oct 4, 2013 2:07:12 PM

ÿ "After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. " Edmund married only after Catherine's 1436 death. The contemporary rumours about them are attested to by the ODNB. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:56 AM Subject: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book
Hi Tamara,
In response to the point about Catherine and the x27;rumoursx27; - actually referring to them as rumours actually gives the impression that there was something secret going on. It plays into the hands of those seeking out conspiracies.

The rumours prompted action by Humphrey of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Gloucester in the 1420s, resulting in the act that introduced a penalty for any potential husband. I think that there was no doubt that at that stage, Catherine wished to marry Edmund Beaufort.

After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. The relationship between Catherine and Owen occurred later while she was living at court.

So to make the inferrence that Beaufort was possibly Edmund Tx27;s father, you would have to tie down the rumours to the early 1430s - rather than simply x27;during her lifetimex27;.

Incidentally, the above-mentioned Humphrey of Lancaster also had a coat-of-arms even more like Edmund Beaufort - the arms of the kingdom, with a bordure of silver.

Kind regards
David
From: khafara@... <khafara@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 3:46:11 AM

To be fair to J A-H, rumors about whether Catherine of Valois was having an affair with Edmund Beaufort were apparently rampant during CoV's own lifetime and for some time afterwards. Richard Cavendish (make of him what you will) is one of many modern historians to presume that the affair was a fact: http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/birth-henry-tudor (A more respectable reference might be here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2007-08/1186697156 )

Speaking of Tudors, legitimacy, and timing, I was wondering about the timetable of Edmund Tudor's getting his 12-year-old bride Margaret Beaufort impregnated with the future Henry Tudor. I don't question that ET was HT's father; I'm just noting how quickly things went from marriage to pregnancy to husband's capture and death, and how little time ET might have actually had to beget his heir -- especially if MB's menarche didn't occur until after she had married ET. If Edmund Tudor had followed the usual practice of the time and waited until his wife was fifteen or sixteen, there would have been no Henry Tudor.

Here's the best I've been able to piece things together -- and if anyone knows differently, please jump in and correct me:

Edmund was off to the wars about eight months after the 1 November 1455 marriage, was captured in August 1456 by Yorkist forces, and died of the plague 3 November 1456. Henry was born nearly three months after Edmund's death, on 28 January 1457, which to me likely means he would have had to have been conceived sometime between mid-April and mid-May of 1456. I don't think it could have been later than mid-May.

Tamara

---In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

ÿ Yet they weren't descended from a King of England, unless they were Beauforts. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:29 PM Subject: Re : RE: Re : J A-H's new book
Hi Carol,

I had not mentioned Jasper intending that he was "next in line" in any way at all. If you look at his coat of arms it is also virtually the same in structure as Edmunds T and B.

I mention it to emphasise the fact that the arms of the brothers are indeed following the rules of Cadency. By the way I am sure the France / England quartering at this time were the arms of England rather than of Edward III specifically.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 4:18:11 PM

It does. Thank you. Of course, Edmund and Jasper had no claim whatever to the throne of England, or to the arms of England ("badge" was my word because I coulldn't think of the right one). No one has ever mentioned Jasper Tudor as being next in line after Henry (assuming Henry's claim to be valid) if Henry remained childless. And, of course, as far as Richard was concerned, they were both Tydders. I like J A-H, but I think he's on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I haven't had my morning coffee yet and can't think of the right word. I'm not sure that it matters, in any case, as having a Beaufort rather than a Tudor grandfather (which Henry never claimed) would in no way strengthen his shaky claim.
Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Carol,
I think you are very right to be dubious about J-AH's reasoning. Especially as far as the similarity of the - badges - is concerned.

I take it by badges, he is referring to the coats-of-arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor.

Heraldry has some rules, and the similarity of the two is easily explained by the fact that they are expressing similar concepts.

The central shield is quartering of fleurs-de-lys on blue (royal arms of France) and the 3 lions of England. This is the coat of arms of England at that time, and had been since Edward III and emphasised the kings of England's claim to France.

In theory, only the head of the family has the right to the arms plain - that is without a marker to indicate a junior member of the family. The border around both arms is called a bordure and it is one of the markers of a younger son. Another common marker is the label or lambel - a stripe across the top with a number of pendants, or points.

This system is referred to as Cadency.

A person could not simply draw up their own coat, it had to granted. The Beaufort arms were well established. in the case of Jasper and Edmund, the use of the royal arms must have been with the approval of their half brother.

So in the case of the Beauforts, the arms designate a younger brother of the royal house of England. You can trace the line back through younger brothers until you reach Edward III.

In the case of Jasper and Edmund, the arms designate similarly younger (half) brothers of the royal house. The devices within the bordure - fleurs-de-lys and martlets - may refer to Catherine's French royal status and the mythic arms of Edward the Confessor created by Richard II.

Another set of arms that show remarkable similarity are those of York and Lancaster - both are the royal arms of England with Labels of three points to indicate they are Cadet lines.

I hope this helps.

Kind regards
David

From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:05:41 PM

I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?

Thanks,
Carol

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new bo

2013-10-07 21:10:22

Jan Mulrenan

I've just had a quick look back at C Skidmore's book & at P Hammond's book on Richard III and the Bosworth Campaign. Richard wrote to Henry Vernon from Beskwood/Bestwood. He also wrote to Norfolk, the city of York & Brackenbury, but it isn't clear to me from the books if this was from Beskwood/Bestwood or Nottingham. Nor is it clear these were the only letters then written. I assume others have been lost. The letters were basically following up earlier commissions of array sent out on 22nd June. Roger Wake appealed to Henry VIII after Bosworth to repeal his attainder, quoting from a letter commanding him to fight, and so did Margaret, daughter & heir to Geoffrey St. German who died the day after Bosworth,. This is thought odd because the wording of the commissions/letters was a standard form used in any royal command of the time. Wake & St German were addressed no more roughly than anyone else. "As they will avoid the kings high displeasure at their utmost perils" is given twice in a draft commission written by R Yve, a clerk of the crown in chancery, quoted by P Hammond.I hope this is of interest.Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 7 Oct 2013, at 19:45, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new bo

2013-10-07 21:16:01

Jan Mulrenan

Just read VII for VIII, please! The son is so much better known than his father that the predictive text kicks in fast.Apologies for cluttering,Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 7 Oct 2013, at 21:10, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-07 21:50:14

stephenmlark

I am familiar with these letters, that JA-H refers to, but they mean something else. I will consult the book in detail when I have a moment.

---In , <> wrote:

Stephen,
Just to show that I actually read some books favourable to Richard, I have a question about The Last Days... I have been recently reading Chris Skidmore's book on Bosworth.

In it he transcribes the text of letters written by Richard during his stay at Bestwood. Now I have re-read my copy of The Last Days and can find no mention of the letters at all.

The reason it is significant is that the authors draw different conclusions about Richard's time at Bestwood. J A-H paints a picture of a relaxed Richard enjoying a little hunting before having to deal with Henry's invasion. Skidmore says the letters - which threaten the recipients with the confiscation of their land and goods if they fail to turn out for Richard - are an indication of Richard's increasing desperation.

My copy of J A-H's book is an old one so the letters may have been included in a later edition.

I wondered if you were aware of the Bestwood letters.

Kind Regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Sat, Oct 5, 2013 12:56:49 PM

ÿ You are right that we are at cross-purposes on this. However, we must all be careful of the propensity of some cyber-sources to assume the birth year of a child from a dubious extrapolation of their parents' marriage year. Many of those I have seen show Edmund as marrying after, or very slightly before, Catherine's death and this implies that he still carried a torch for her. I have just gone to Richmond in the ODNB (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1855?docPos=3) but this doesn't mention his wife or known offspring. I will consult the CP when next I have the chance but Richmond implies that JA-H may well be right here, as has been the case time after time. For now, whilst I have another book to complete, my interpretation will be detailed further in the December Bulletin. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 12:38 PM Subject: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book
Stephen,
We seem to have a pattern developing here.

My underatanding is that the date of Edmundx27;s marriage is uncertain - I have seen some stating that it was as early as 1425.

The date of birth of Eleanor is 1431 - so an earlier date is consistent with this.

The date you have is the pardon for an earlier unlicensed marriage. Perhaps Marie could explain what that means.

Kind regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Fri, Oct 4, 2013 2:07:12 PM

ÿ "After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. " Edmund married only after Catherine's 1436 death. The contemporary rumours about them are attested to by the ODNB. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:56 AM Subject: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book
Hi Tamara,
In response to the point about Catherine and the x27;rumoursx27; - actually referring to them as rumours actually gives the impression that there was something secret going on. It plays into the hands of those seeking out conspiracies.

The rumours prompted action by Humphrey of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Gloucester in the 1420s, resulting in the act that introduced a penalty for any potential husband. I think that there was no doubt that at that stage, Catherine wished to marry Edmund Beaufort.

After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. The relationship between Catherine and Owen occurred later while she was living at court.

So to make the inferrence that Beaufort was possibly Edmund Tx27;s father, you would have to tie down the rumours to the early 1430s - rather than simply x27;during her lifetimex27;.

Incidentally, the above-mentioned Humphrey of Lancaster also had a coat-of-arms even more like Edmund Beaufort - the arms of the kingdom, with a bordure of silver.

Kind regards
David
From: khafara@... <khafara@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 3:46:11 AM

To be fair to J A-H, rumors about whether Catherine of Valois was having an affair with Edmund Beaufort were apparently rampant during CoV's own lifetime and for some time afterwards. Richard Cavendish (make of him what you will) is one of many modern historians to presume that the affair was a fact: http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/birth-henry-tudor (A more respectable reference might be here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2007-08/1186697156 )

Speaking of Tudors, legitimacy, and timing, I was wondering about the timetable of Edmund Tudor's getting his 12-year-old bride Margaret Beaufort impregnated with the future Henry Tudor. I don't question that ET was HT's father; I'm just noting how quickly things went from marriage to pregnancy to husband's capture and death, and how little time ET might have actually had to beget his heir -- especially if MB's menarche didn't occur until after she had married ET. If Edmund Tudor had followed the usual practice of the time and waited until his wife was fifteen or sixteen, there would have been no Henry Tudor.

Here's the best I've been able to piece things together -- and if anyone knows differently, please jump in and correct me:

Edmund was off to the wars about eight months after the 1 November 1455 marriage, was captured in August 1456 by Yorkist forces, and died of the plague 3 November 1456. Henry was born nearly three months after Edmund's death, on 28 January 1457, which to me likely means he would have had to have been conceived sometime between mid-April and mid-May of 1456. I don't think it could have been later than mid-May.

Tamara

---In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

ÿ Yet they weren't descended from a King of England, unless they were Beauforts. ----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David To: Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:29 PM Subject: Re : RE: Re : J A-H's new book
Hi Carol,

I had not mentioned Jasper intending that he was "next in line" in any way at all. If you look at his coat of arms it is also virtually the same in structure as Edmunds T and B.

I mention it to emphasise the fact that the arms of the brothers are indeed following the rules of Cadency. By the way I am sure the France / England quartering at this time were the arms of England rather than of Edward III specifically.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : J A-H's new book
Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 4:18:11 PM

It does. Thank you. Of course, Edmund and Jasper had no claim whatever to the throne of England, or to the arms of England ("badge" was my word because I coulldn't think of the right one). No one has ever mentioned Jasper Tudor as being next in line after Henry (assuming Henry's claim to be valid) if Henry remained childless. And, of course, as far as Richard was concerned, they were both Tydders. I like J A-H, but I think he's on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I haven't had my morning coffee yet and can't think of the right word. I'm not sure that it matters, in any case, as having a Beaufort rather than a Tudor grandfather (which Henry never claimed) would in no way strengthen his shaky claim.
Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Carol,
I think you are very right to be dubious about J-AH's reasoning. Especially as far as the similarity of the - badges - is concerned.

I take it by badges, he is referring to the coats-of-arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor.

Heraldry has some rules, and the similarity of the two is easily explained by the fact that they are expressing similar concepts.

The central shield is quartering of fleurs-de-lys on blue (royal arms of France) and the 3 lions of England. This is the coat of arms of England at that time, and had been since Edward III and emphasised the kings of England's claim to France.

In theory, only the head of the family has the right to the arms plain - that is without a marker to indicate a junior member of the family. The border around both arms is called a bordure and it is one of the markers of a younger son. Another common marker is the label or lambel - a stripe across the top with a number of pendants, or points.

This system is referred to as Cadency.

A person could not simply draw up their own coat, it had to granted. The Beaufort arms were well established. in the case of Jasper and Edmund, the use of the royal arms must have been with the approval of their half brother.

So in the case of the Beauforts, the arms designate a younger brother of the royal house of England. You can trace the line back through younger brothers until you reach Edward III.

In the case of Jasper and Edmund, the arms designate similarly younger (half) brothers of the royal house. The devices within the bordure - fleurs-de-lys and martlets - may refer to Catherine's French royal status and the mythic arms of Edward the Confessor created by Richard II.

Another set of arms that show remarkable similarity are those of York and Lancaster - both are the royal arms of England with Labels of three points to indicate they are Cadet lines.

I hope this helps.

Kind regards
David

From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:05:41 PM

I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?

Thanks,
Carol

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-07 22:30:57

justcarol67

Jan wrote:

"I've just had a quick look back at C Skidmore's book & at P Hammond's book on Richard III and the Bosworth Campaign. Richard wrote to Henry Vernon from Beskwood/Bestwood. He also wrote to Norfolk, the city of York & Brackenbury, but it isn't clear to me from the books if this was from Beskwood/Bestwood or Nottingham. Nor is it clear these were the only letters then written. I assume others have been lost. The letters were basically following up earlier commissions of array sent out on 22nd June. Roger Wake appealed to Henry VIII after Bosworth to repeal his attainder, quoting from a letter commanding him to fight, and so did Margaret, daughter & heir to Geoffrey St. German who died the day after Bosworth,. This is thought odd because the wording of the commissions/letters was a standard form used in any royal command of the time. Wake & St German were addressed no more roughly than anyone else. "As they will avoid the kings high displeasure at their utmost perils" is given twice in a draft commission written by R Yve, a clerk of the crown in chancery, quoted by P Hammond.I hope this is of interest."

Carol responds:

I read somewhere that Henry, who wasn't even king at the time (and had no real claim), wrote similar letters threatening punishment to anyone who failed to obey his "command." He certainly signed those letters *as* king. Does anyone know where I might have read those letters? Are they in "Maligned King"? All the books I've read are running together in my head, but I know I didn't make them up.

The important point, as you say, Jan, s that these letters followed a standard format (they would have been written by Kendall or a scribe rather than Richard himself). We could compare letters by any king of the time, especially Edward IV and Henry VII after he became king, and I suspect that we would see very similar wording. Or Henry VIII, for that matter. And what punishments did Margaret of Anjou threaten to those who didn't support Henry VI? Skidmore seems to be reading threats and depression into form letters.

Carol

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-07 23:04:25

Jan Mulrenan

I respect C Skidmore having spoken to him twice now & noted his enthusiasm for the period. I didn't read threats & depression but I did feel he gave more importance to the ballads than others would allow. Perhaps this is due to the shortage of contemporary documentation; "everything" got put in to his book that could be related to HT 's invasion & journey to Redemore. I didn't take the opportunity to ask him about the ballads at the R3 Soc Members' Day because I got such a detailed answer to the only question I did ask.Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 7 Oct 2013, at 22:30, <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Jan wrote:

"I've just had a quick look back at C Skidmore's book & at P Hammond's book on Richard III and the Bosworth Campaign. Richard wrote to Henry Vernon from Beskwood/Bestwood. He also wrote to Norfolk, the city of York & Brackenbury, but it isn't clear to me from the books if this was from Beskwood/Bestwood or Nottingham. Nor is it clear these were the only letters then written. I assume others have been lost. The letters were basically following up earlier commissions of array sent out on 22nd June. Roger Wake appealed to Henry VIII after Bosworth to repeal his attainder, quoting from a letter commanding him to fight, and so did Margaret, daughter & heir to Geoffrey St. German who died the day after Bosworth,. This is thought odd because the wording of the commissions/letters was a standard form used in any royal command of the time. Wake & St German were addressed no more roughly than anyone else. "As they will avoid the kings high displeasure at their utmost perils" is given twice in a draft commission written by R Yve, a clerk of the crown in chancery, quoted by P Hammond.I hope this is of interest."

Carol responds:

Carol

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book

2013-10-08 05:44:32

Pamela Furmidge

I was at the Members' Day too, and really enjoyed Skidmore's talk - he manages to put complicated things over so well. I had been in two minds about buying his book, but by the time I finally made up my mind, the books and he had disappeared.
From: Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... wrote:
I respect C Skidmore having spoken to him twice now & noted his enthusiasm for the period. I didn't read threats & depression but I did feel he gave more importance to the ballads than others would allow. Perhaps this is due to the shortage of contemporary documentation; "everything" got put in to his book that could be related to HT 's invasion & journey to Redemore. I didn't take the opportunity to ask him about the ballads at the R3 Soc Members' Day because I got such a detailed answer to the only question I did ask.Jan.
Sent from my iPad On 7 Oct 2013, at 22:30, <justcarol67@...> wrote: Jan wrote:

"I've just had a quick look back at C Skidmore's book & at P Hammond's book on Richard III and the Bosworth Campaign. Richard wrote to Henry Vernon from Beskwood/Bestwood. He also wrote to Norfolk, the city of York & Brackenbury, but it isn't clear to me from the books if this was from Beskwood/Bestwood or Nottingham. Nor is it clear these were the only letters then written. I assume others have been lost. The letters were basically following up earlier commissions of array sent out on 22nd June. Roger Wake appealed to Henry VIII after Bosworth to repeal his attainder, quoting from a letter commanding him to fight, and so did Margaret, daughter & heir to Geoffrey St. German who died the day after Bosworth,. This is thought odd because the wording of the commissions/letters was a standard form used in any royal command of the time. Wake & St German were addressed no more roughly than anyone else. "As they will avoid the kings high displeasure at their utmost perils" is given twice in a draft commission written by R Yve, a clerk of the crown in chancery, quoted by P Hammond.I hope this is of interest." Carol responds:I read somewhere that Henry, who wasn't even king at the time (and had no real claim), wrote similar letters threatening punishment to anyone who failed to obey his "command." He certainly signed those letters *as* king. Does anyone know where I might have read those letters? Are they in "Maligned King"? All the books I've read are running together in my head, but I know I didn't make them up.
The important point, as you say, Jan, s that these letters followed a standard format (they would have been written by Kendall or a scribe rather than Richard himself). We could compare letters by any king of the time, especially Edward IV and Henry VII after he became king, and I suspect that we would see very similar wording. Or Henry VIII, for that matter. And what punishments did Margaret of Anjou threaten to those who didn't support Henry VI? Skidmore seems to be reading threats and depression into form letters.
Carol

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book

2013-10-08 12:09:04

Hilary Jones

Just to answer Jan, Bestwood is in Sherwood Forest, Nottingham. OT but there is a beautiful mausoleum chapel there to the Dukes of St Albans, illegitimate descendants of Charles II (after Richard's time of course). Hilary
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 22:30
Subject: RE: Re: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Jan wrote:

"I've just had a quick look back at C Skidmore's book & at P Hammond's book on Richard III and the Bosworth Campaign. Richard wrote to Henry Vernon from Beskwood/Bestwood. He also wrote to Norfolk, the city of York & Brackenbury, but it isn't clear to me from the books if this was from Beskwood/Bestwood or Nottingham. Nor is it clear these were the only letters then written. I assume others have been lost. The letters were basically following up earlier commissions of array sent out on 22nd June. Roger Wake appealed to Henry VIII after Bosworth to repeal his attainder, quoting from a letter commanding him to fight, and so did Margaret, daughter & heir to Geoffrey St. German who died the day after Bosworth,. This is thought odd because the wording of the commissions/letters was a standard form used in any royal command of the time. Wake & St German were addressed no more roughly than anyone else. "As they will avoid the kings high displeasure at their utmost perils" is given twice in a draft commission written by R Yve, a clerk of the crown in chancery, quoted by P Hammond.I hope this is of interest." Carol responds:I read somewhere that Henry, who wasn't even king at the time (and had no real claim), wrote similar letters threatening punishment to anyone who failed to obey his "command." He certainly signed those letters *as* king. Does anyone know where I might have read those letters? Are they in "Maligned King"? All the books I've read are running together in my head, but I know I didn't make them up.
The important point, as you say, Jan, s that these letters followed a standard format (they would have been written by Kendall or a scribe rather than Richard himself). We could compare letters by any king of the time, especially Edward IV and Henry VII after he became king, and I suspect that we would see very similar wording. Or Henry VIII, for that matter. And what punishments did Margaret of Anjou threaten to those who didn't support Henry VI? Skidmore seems to be reading threats and depression into form letters.
Carol

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book

2013-10-08 13:21:28

Jan Mulrenan

Jan adds:Sorry, I should have specified Nottingham Castle. JAH's book locates Bestwood & says it was called Beskwood in the C15.I' m off to China tomorrow for 3 weeks, so no major discoveries of new sources or advances in our understanding while I'm away, please!Best wishes in the meantime,Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 8 Oct 2013, at 12:00, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-08 19:07:07

mariewalsh2003

Hi,

Personally I don't have the same take on the Bestwood retreat as J A-H. Hunting was recommended to knights as an excellent preparation for warfare, and I think that is what Richard was doing.

But I also think the letters summoning people should be viewed in context - ie compared with letters of similar purpose written by other kings before engaging with the enemy. A bit of threatening was normal in many types of royal commands.

Marie

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-08 19:14:47

mariewalsh2003

Have a wonderful time, Jan.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Jan adds:Sorry, I should have specified Nottingham Castle. JAH's book locates Bestwood & says it was called Beskwood in the C15.I' m off to China tomorrow for 3 weeks, so no major discoveries of new sources or advances in our understanding while I'm away, please!Best wishes in the meantime,Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 8 Oct 2013, at 12:00, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Just to answer Jan, Bestwood is in Sherwood Forest, Nottingham. OT but there is a beautiful mausoleum chapel there to the Dukes of St Albans, illegitimate descendants of Charles II (after Richard's time of course). Hilary
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 22:30
Subject: RE: Re: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Jan wrote:

"I've just had a quick look back at C Skidmore's book & at P Hammond's book on Richard III and the Bosworth Campaign. Richard wrote to Henry Vernon from Beskwood/Bestwood. He also wrote to Norfolk, the city of York & Brackenbury, but it isn't clear to me from the books if this was from Beskwood/Bestwood or Nottingham. Nor is it clear these were the only letters then written. I assume others have been lost. The letters were basically following up earlier commissions of array sent out on 22nd June. Roger Wake appealed to Henry VIII after Bosworth to repeal his attainder, quoting from a letter commanding him to fight, and so did Margaret, daughter & heir to Geoffrey St. German who died the day after Bosworth,. This is thought odd because the wording of the commissions/letters was a standard form used in any royal command of the time. Wake & St German were addressed no more roughly than anyone else. "As they will avoid the kings high displeasure at their utmost perils" is given twice in a draft commission written by R Yve, a clerk of the crown in chancery, quoted by P Hammond.I hope this is of interest." Carol responds:I read somewhere that Henry, who wasn't even king at the time (and had no real claim), wrote similar letters threatening punishment to anyone who failed to obey his "command." He certainly signed those letters *as* king. Does anyone know where I might have read those letters? Are they in "Maligned King"? All the books I've read are running together in my head, but I know I didn't make them up.
The important point, as you say, Jan, s that these letters followed a standard format (they would have been written by Kendall or a scribe rather than Richard himself). We could compare letters by any king of the time, especially Edward IV and Henry VII after he became king, and I suspect that we would see very similar wording. Or Henry VIII, for that matter. And what punishments did Margaret of Anjou threaten to those who didn't support Henry VI? Skidmore seems to be reading threats and depression into form letters.
Carol

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-08 19:23:49

mariewalsh2003

I wrote:

"But I also think the letters summoning people should be viewed in context - ie compared with letters of similar purpose written by other kings before engaging with the enemy. A bit of threatening was normal in many types of royal commands."

I hadn't got to Jan's reply at that point, but we're saying the same thing. Incidentally Gill also makes a negative remark about the tone of Richard's letters in her book on Buckingham's Rebellion, although said letters were completely standard. I doubt Richard even drafted them. He'd just have instructed his clerks: writ letters to So-and-son and So-and-so about such-and such, and they'd have got out the relevant crib shee and got on with it.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi,

Personally I don't have the same take on the Bestwood retreat as J A-H. Hunting was recommended to knights as an excellent preparation for warfare, and I think that is what Richard was doing.

Marie

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-08 21:19:02

Jan Mulrenan

Thank you! It will be memorable. My daughter lives & works in Beijing, so that's why we're going, son,brother in law & self.Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 8 Oct 2013, at 19:14, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Have a wonderful time, Jan.

Marie

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book

2013-10-08 21:21:35

Durose David

Hi Marie,
I agree that the Bestwood letters need to be viewed in context of others issued under similar circumstances, but also in the context of whether the recipient believes the sender is likely to be in a position to carry out the threats - and have the disposition to carry them out.

Skidmore has an original letter and presumably has seen other examples. He feels the wording is quite unusually severe. One widow applying for her husband's attainder to be reversed said he had been "so manashed" by Richard's letter that he turned out for him against his will.

The date of the letter is 11th August. But the question was not so much about the letters themselves, as their absence from J A-H's Last Days.

Kind regards
David

------------------------------
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 19:23 BST mariewalsh2003 wrote:

>
> I wrote:
> "But I also think the letters summoning people should be viewed in context - ie compared with letters of similar purpose written by other kings before engaging with the enemy. A bit of threatening was normal in many types of royal commands."
>
> I hadn't got to Jan's reply at that point, but we're saying the same thing. Incidentally Gill also makes a negative remark about the tone of Richard's letters in her book on Buckingham's Rebellion, although said letters were completely standard. I doubt Richard even drafted them. He'd just have instructed his clerks: writ letters to So-and-son and So-and-so about such-and such, and they'd have got out the relevant crib shee and got on with it.
> Marie
>
>
>---In , <> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Personally I don't have the same take on the Bestwood retreat as J A-H. Hunting was recommended to knights as an excellent preparation for warfare, and I think that is what Richard was doing.
> But I also think the letters summoning people should be viewed in context - ie compared with letters of similar purpose written by other kings before engaging with the enemy. A bit of threatening was normal in many types of royal commands.
> Marie
>
>
>---In , <> wrote:
>
> Stephen, Just to show that I actually read some books favourable to Richard, I have a question about The Last Days... I have been recently reading Chris Skidmore's book on Bosworth. In it he transcribes the text of letters written by Richard during his stay at Bestwood. Now I have re-read my copy of The Last Days and can find no mention of the letters at all. The reason it is significant is that the authors draw different conclusions about Richard's time at Bestwood. J A-H paints a picture of a relaxed Richard enjoying a little hunting before having to deal with Henry's invasion. Skidmore says the letters - which threaten the recipients with the confiscation of their land and goods if they fail to turn out for Richard - are an indication of Richard's increasing desperation. My copy of J A-H's book is an old one so the letters may have been included in a later edition. I wondered if you were aware of the Bestwood letters. Kind Regards David
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book Sent: Sat, Oct 5, 2013 12:56:49 PM
> ÿ
> You are right that we are at cross-purposes on this. However, we must all be careful of the propensity of some cyber-sources to assume the birth year of a child from a dubious extrapolation of their parents' marriage year.
> Many of those I have seen show Edmund as marrying after, or very slightly before, Catherine's death and this implies that he still carried a torch for her. I have just gone to Richmond in the ODNB (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1855?docPos=3 http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1855?docPos=3) but this doesn't mention his wife or known offspring. I will consult the CP when next I have the chance but Richmond implies that JA-H may well be right here, as has been the case time after time.
>
> For now, whilst I have another book to complete, my interpretation will be detailed further in the December Bulletin.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Durose David
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 12:38 PM
> Subject: Re : Re: RE: J A-H's new book
>
>
> Stephen, We seem to have a pattern developing here. My underatanding is that the date of Edmundx27;s marriage is uncertain - I have seen some stating that it was as early as 1425. The date of birth of Eleanor is 1431 - so an earlier date is consistent with this. The date you have is the pardon for an earlier unlicensed marriage. Perhaps Marie could explain what that means. Kind regards David
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: RE: J A-H's new book Sent: Fri, Oct 4, 2013 2:07:12 PM
> ÿ
> "After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. "
>
> Edmund married only after Catherine's 1436 death. The contemporary rumours about them are attested to by the ODNB.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Durose David
> To:
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:56 AM
> Subject: Re : RE: J A-H's new book
>
>
> Hi Tamara, In response to the point about Catherine and the x27;rumoursx27; - actually referring to them as rumours actually gives the impression that there was something secret going on. It plays into the hands of those seeking out conspiracies. The rumours prompted action by Humphrey of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Gloucester in the 1420s, resulting in the act that introduced a penalty for any potential husband. I think that there was no doubt that at that stage, Catherine wished to marry Edmund Beaufort. After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. The relationship between Catherine and Owen occurred later while she was living at court. So to make the inferrence that Beaufort was possibly Edmund Tx27;s father, you would have to tie down the rumours to the early 1430s - rather than simply x27;during her lifetimex27;. Incidentally, the above-mentioned Humphrey of Lancaster also had a
coat-of-arms even more like Edmund Beaufort - the arms of the kingdom, with a bordure of silver. Kind regards David
>
> From: khafara@... <khafara@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: J A-H's new book Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 3:46:11 AM
> To be fair to J A-H, rumors about whether Catherine of Valois was having an affair with Edmund Beaufort were apparently rampant during CoV's own lifetime and for some time afterwards. Richard Cavendish (make of him what you will) is one of many modern historians to presume that the affair was a fact: http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/birth-henry-tudor (A more respectable reference might be here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2007-08/1186697156 ) Speaking of Tudors, legitimacy, and timing, I was wondering about the timetable of Edmund Tudor's getting his 12-year-old bride Margaret Beaufort impregnated with the future Henry Tudor. I don't question that ET was HT's father; I'm just noting how quickly things went from marriage to pregnancy to husband's capture and death, and how little time ET might have actually had to beget his heir -- especially if MB's menarche didn't
occur until after she had married ET. If Edmund Tudor had followed the usual practice of the time and waited until his wife was fifteen or sixteen, there would have been no Henry Tudor. Here's the best I've been able to piece things together -- and if anyone knows differently, please jump in and correct me: Edmund was off to the wars about eight months after the 1 November 1455 marriage, was captured in August 1456 by Yorkist forces, and died of the plague 3 November 1456. Henry was born nearly three months after Edmund's death, on 28 January 1457, which to me likely means he would have had to have been conceived sometime between mid-April and mid-May of 1456. I don't think it could have been later than mid-May. Tamara
> ---In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote: ÿ Yet they weren't descended from a King of England, unless they were Beauforts.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Durose David
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re : RE: Re : J A-H's new book
>
> Hi Carol, I had not mentioned Jasper intending that he was "next in line" in any way at all. If you look at his coat of arms it is also virtually the same in structure as Edmunds T and B. I mention it to emphasise the fact that the arms of the brothers are indeed following the rules of Cadency. By the way I am sure the France / England quartering at this time were the arms of England rather than of Edward III specifically. Kind regards David
>
> From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re : J A-H's new book Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 4:18:11 PM
> It does. Thank you. Of course, Edmund and Jasper had no claim whatever to the throne of England, or to the arms of England ("badge" was my word because I coulldn't think of the right one). No one has ever mentioned Jasper Tudor as being next in line after Henry (assuming Henry's claim to be valid) if Henry remained childless. And, of course, as far as Richard was concerned, they were both Tydders. I like J A-H, but I think he's on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I haven't had my morning coffee yet and can't think of the right word. I'm not sure that it matters, in any case, as having a Beaufort rather than a Tudor grandfather (which Henry never claimed) would in no way strengthen his shaky claim.
>
> Carol
> ---In , <> wrote: Carol, I think you are very right to be dubious about J-AH's reasoning. Especially as far as the similarity of the - badges - is concerned. I take it by badges, he is referring to the coats-of-arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor. Heraldry has some rules, and the similarity of the two is easily explained by the fact that they are expressing similar concepts. The central shield is quartering of fleurs-de-lys on blue (royal arms of France) and the 3 lions of England. This is the coat of arms of England at that time, and had been since Edward III and emphasised the kings of England's claim to France. In theory, only the head of the family has the right to the arms plain - that is without a marker to indicate a junior member of the family. The border around both arms is called a bordure and it is one of the markers of a younger son. Another common
marker is the label or lambel - a stripe across the top with a number of pendants, or points. This system is referred to as Cadency. A person could not simply draw up their own coat, it had to granted. The Beaufort arms were well established. in the case of Jasper and Edmund, the use of the royal arms must have been with the approval of their half brother. So in the case of the Beauforts, the arms designate a younger brother of the royal house of England. You can trace the line back through younger brothers until you reach Edward III. In the case of Jasper and Edmund, the arms designate similarly younger (half) brothers of the royal house. The devices within the bordure - fleurs-de-lys and martlets - may refer to Catherine's French royal status and the mythic arms of Edward the Confessor created by Richard II. Another set of arms that show remarkable similarity are those of York and Lancaster - both are the royal arms of England with Labels of
three points to indicate they are Cadet lines. I hope this helps. Kind regards David
>
> From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: J A-H's new book Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:05:41 PM
> I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)? Thanks, Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book

2013-10-08 22:28:20

Jessie Skinner

Do have a great time, Jan.

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 8, 2013 8:19:02 PM

Have a wonderful time, Jan.

Marie

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book

2013-10-08 22:38:18

Pamela Bain

Oh yes, and tell us marvelous stories!
On Oct 8, 2013, at 4:28 PM, "Jessie Skinner" <janjovian@...> wrote:

Do have a great time, Jan.

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Tue, Oct 8, 2013 8:19:02 PM

Thank you! It will be memorable. My daughter lives & works in Beijing, so that's why we're going, son,brother in law & self. Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 8 Oct 2013, at 19:14, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Have a wonderful time, Jan.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Jan adds: Sorry, I should have specified Nottingham Castle. JAH's book locates Bestwood & says it was called Beskwood in the C15. I' m off to China tomorrow for 3 weeks, so no major discoveries of new sources or advances in our understanding while I'm away, please! Best wishes in the meantime, Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 8 Oct 2013, at 12:00, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Just to answer Jan, Bestwood is in Sherwood Forest, Nottingham. OT but there is a beautiful mausoleum chapel there to the Dukes of St Albans, illegitimate descendants of Charles II (after Richard's time of course). Hilary
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 22:30
Subject: RE: Re: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Jan wrote:

"I've just had a quick look back at C Skidmore's book & at P Hammond's book on Richard III and the Bosworth Campaign. Richard wrote to Henry Vernon from Beskwood/Bestwood. He also wrote to Norfolk, the city of York & Brackenbury, but it isn't clear to me from the books if this was from Beskwood/Bestwood or Nottingham. Nor is it clear these were the only letters then written. I assume others have been lost. The letters were basically following up earlier commissions of array sent out on 22nd June. Roger Wake appealed to Henry VIII after Bosworth to repeal his attainder, quoting from a letter commanding him to fight, and so did Margaret, daughter & heir to Geoffrey St. German who died the day after Bosworth,. This is thought odd because the wording of the commissions/letters was a standard form used in any royal command of the time. Wake & St German were addressed no more roughly than anyone else. "As they will avoid the kings high displeasure at their utmost perils" is given twice in a draft commission written by R Yve, a clerk of the crown in chancery, quoted by P Hammond. I hope this is of interest." Carol responds: I read somewhere that Henry, who wasn't even king at the time (and had no real claim), wrote similar letters threatening punishment to anyone who failed to obey his "command." He certainly signed those letters *as* king. Does anyone know where I might have read those letters? Are they in "Maligned King"? All the books I've read are running together in my head, but I know I didn't make them up.
The important point, as you say, Jan, s that these letters followed a standard format (they would have been written by Kendall or a scribe rather than Richard himself). We could compare letters by any king of the time, especially Edward IV and Henry VII after he became king, and I suspect that we would see very similar wording. Or Henry VIII, for that matter. And what punishments did Margaret of Anjou threaten to those who didn't support Henry VI? Skidmore seems to be reading threats and depression into form letters.
Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-09 10:59:22

Durose David

Hilary,
I would take issue with part of what you said -
"Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs,"

I think that the logic here should be you-name-it AND Wormwood Scrubs. The original statement makes it appear that the Tower is everything but a prison. In reality the Tower was like a small town and had all you mention and also had very secure areas where people could be safe from people outside the Tower and from the people inside.

Most medieval castles will have been like that. For example, the Tour d'Elven in the Chateau de Largoët was a tall structure where Henry Tudor was kept in Brittany on the 6th or 7th floor - its secure area.

For any readers outside the UK, Wormwood Scrubs is a famous London prison.

The assumption that the Tower is a single entity can lead to a great many logical errors - for example, that anyone who had access to the tower would necessarily have access to someone imprisoned there, and could do away with them or that someone being in the Tower's prison area must be seen by other people.

Kind regards
David

------------------------------
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 16:53 BST Hilary Jones wrote:

>I'm not turning either. As you say the HT thing doesn't fit.
>
>What I can't understand is that, given the Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs, there must have been dozens of people going to and fro from there each day, let alone those employed on 'household' duties. They must have known if/when meals, clothes, bedmaking etc was not required for the two kids. But where is the gossip who sold it to the HT paparazzi afterwards? After all, he/she might have expected a grateful tenner. But ..... if staff did know that the kids were gone (and I don't mean dead) and were sworn to silence, then it's a different story isn't it? After all, who wants the thumbscrews put on by an anxious Morton or Reggie?
>In some ways it reminds me of when Charles II escaped after Worcester with a huge price on his head. He passed through I think they say 2000 folks and not one betrayed him. In fact we wouldn't have know if he hadn't told us himself. Where is the real London gossip - and I don't mean chroniclers' 'rumour'. I mean Jack/Tom/Bob talking over a mazer in the Boar's Head in 1604 about what Great Aunt Mildred saw when she was a cook at the Tower in 1483. It's such a big story (now and then) that you'd have thought there would be some proper oral history, in fact loads of it.
>
>Perhaps it's another non-barking dog? H.
>
>
>
>
>On Tuesday, 8 October 2013, 15:41, EILEEN BATES wrote:
>
>
>Thanks Hilary, Yes I've read Jones' Bosworth book...and he makes it, the supposed murder of the nephews, seem something that would have been regarded as a necessary evil and that Richard being a man of his time etc., etc., Of course we do have to take the possibility of Richard taking this step into consideration and weigh the likelihood of it up. I have many times and still conclude that it simply does not tie in with stuff we do know about Richard and indeed HT seemed pretty much in the dark as to their fate. But Jones has made some good points and I can see where he is coming from...however...nice try but I'm still not for turning...Eileen
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> Sorry Eileen I'd gone to cook the tea!
>> No he doesn't change. He believes that the events surrounding the attempted rescue from the Tower forced Richard's handÂ but that he was probably egged on by Buckingham.
>> What I am beginning to notice since the discovery though is that more writers, evenÂ if they believeÂ Richard did dispose of the princes, attempt to explain his actions as in keeping with what a monarch would have done in the circumstances ie that they are no worse than Bolingbroke's treatment of Richard II or Edward IV's treatment of Henry VI. This is in itself quite a shift. At a quick glance, Jones attributes part of Richard's actions in accepting the throne to his religious beliefs and his suspicions around the Woodvilles' 'witchcraft' but I have 'dipped' here. It wants reading as a whole. H.Â Â Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EILEEN BATES
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 17:23
>> Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>>
>> Â
>>
>> I do like Michael Jones...even though he believes Richard guilty of the nephew thingy. But are you saying Hilary, that in this new book Jones is changing tack here with the psychoanalysis bit? Eileen
>> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> >
>> > So far - and it is so far - the Michael Jones bits are quite good, though he does seem to believe (not unreasonably) that the scoliosis could have been taking its toll on Richard's health by the time of BosworthÃÂ - internally rather than externally I'd hasten to add. He also includes the psychoanalysis which says that Richard was more likely to have hidden his nephews rather than killed them. It'sÃÂ a strange book because if you dip into it after the diary bits it's hard to know who's saying what. Though Jones was ever a good writer and the styles tend to clash a bit.ÃÂ So I like Michael's writings (ever did) but I think the most damaging bit is the admission of the deal done with Leicester. That may come back to bite - hard.
>> > ÃÂ
>> > Don't know our Nigel though. And am no relation to either :)ÃÂ
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 15:01
>> > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>> >
>> > ÃÂ
>> > I've also received The Kings Grave.
>> >
>> > Firstly I cannot begin to read it yet as I'm midway through Murder in the Tower which I am enjoying but would love to meet the author as I have a couple of questions...
>> >
>> > BUT.....
>> >
>> > I read Nigel Jones review in the Sunday Express...
>> >
>> > Yes the very same Nigel Jones whose book the Tower...An Epic History of the Tower is the only book I have ever returned to Amazon. Jones states in that book that Richard definitely murdered his nephews because the bones in the urn are deFinitely their bones. He has reached this conclusion because one of the jaw bones, as we know, is very diseased and that Edward V had a disease of the jaw. In actual fact all that is on record is that Dr Argentine who was among the last of Edward's attendants to attend him only said that he was depressed...'like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him'...no mention of a painful jaw. If Jones can be wrong about something as basic as this can anything he has to say be trusted?
>> >
>> > Returning to his review 'Twisted truth of the not so lovely bones' he writes the quest for Richard's remains were based on an intuitive hunch of Ms Langley's . The 'lopsided' part of the book is her 'misguided plea that England's last Plantagenet King was merely misunderstood and not the murderous monster of Shakespeare and most SERIOUS historians have made him out to be". "Bizarrely Michael Jones, one such historian, co-wrote to book and he does his reputation no favours by appearing under the same covers as PL with her cranky hero worship of the child-killing King".
>> >
>> > He described the book as unbalanced, half sober history the other half sentimental, special pleading codswolllop and that the Richard lll society has made a 'strange cult' of the King. Jones he says insisted on including in an Appendix that the evidence points clearly to Richard being responsible for the murder of the princes and 'tactfully he omits to mention the King's other sins as he wades through blood to his usurped throne'.
>> >
>> > Last but not least "his spine twisted by the bone disease scoliosis, Richard in life was essential as the bard portrayed him on stage".
>> >
>> > I do say I find it a strange decision that Michael Jones was the co-author as although he clearly admires Richard...Bosworth, Psychology of a Battle....it is clear that he considers Richard was guilty of the murder of his nephews. I'm not sure if this is the kind of ending to The Kings Grave that some would have wished.
>> >
>> > Eileen
>> >
>> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Am just about to start The King's Grave, which was delivered Saturday. But going from memory only as I don't have the time to look for it at this moment, the statement put out by Wendy and David Johnson catalogued in detail the points and referred to this. Philippa was the client, which gave her the responsibility/power to enter into the arrangement with LCC and the UoL. I think it was part of LCC's conditions for allowing the dig that any remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral. In order for the dig to take place at all Philippa was left with a fait accompli. In addition, the UoL have reneged on their part of the agreement as they do not consider it binding.
>> > > Elaine
>> > >
>> > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Don't worry Eileen. I'm just about to start another controversy.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > I'm reading the Jones and Langley book 'The King's Grave' which came on Thursday.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > In it Philippa (page 16) says that Leicester CityÃ’â¬aÃÂ Council said they would give her permission to dig in its carpark on the understanding that 'if found, King Richard IIIÃ’â¬aÃÂ would be re-buried in the nearest consecrated ground, Leicester Cathedral'.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > Now I find this more than worrying. I admire Philippa greatly for her perseverenceÃ’â¬aÃÂ but should she honestly have been signing up to something likeÃ’â¬aÃÂ this without wider consultation and legal advice? And should LCC and Leicester Cathedral (sheÃ’â¬aÃÂ had talks with the Dean, commissioned a tomb etc) not also have sought proper legal advice given the very unusual circumstances, without jumping straight on the bandwagon? This was the re-burial of a King, however remote it seemed at the time. And the Society knew of this deal also because they helped to fund it all. Was one woman, however admirable she might be, (and tacitly by implication the Society) really going to have the power to decide all this, even his coffin and the design for his tomb? I don't doubt her enthusiasm and congratulate her on the discovery, but I find it disturbing that so many condoned and did not question this
> deal.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Very disturbing.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Of course it
>> suited some like LCC not to
>> > question it.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ H.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ________________________________
>> > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > To:
>> > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 11:27
>> > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > >
>> > > > If that is the case I apologise...but coming immediately after the message I posted about Hicks I took it to be aimed at that particular post....
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ JA-H was at the Leicester Conference.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > Come to think of it..what was Hicks doing at the conference, attendance of which clearly give one the entitlement to be as abrasive and judgemental as one likes towards other forum members postings...as he clearly hates Richard. He labels Richard as nothing less than a peadophile in his Anne Neville book and has not a single good word to say about him in his False Fleeting Perjured Clarence book either. I find it rather puzzling...Eileen
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Oh for heavens sake! ...it's hardly a 'sweeping statement' and I'm angry that you should describe it as such and I would appreciate it Marion if you did not resort to exaggeration to score a point just because you did not like something I have posted thank you very much. I gained this impression wrongly or rightly after reading Hicks' Anne Neville book. I also made my remark in a lighthearted way.....honestly you can hardly say anything sometimes on here without someone seeking to chastise you as if you were five years old or something. No wonder so few people post on here lately.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If you've met Hicks and liked him well good for you. I have not met him so I can only go by what he has written....which in the Anne Neville book was some very unpleasant stuff indeed. He has also written erroneously about the pre-contract so I think you should expect a small amount of negativity towards him on here without the need to go jumping on your high horse. Eileen Bates
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --- In , marion cheatham wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Having meet him at the conference, I would say he is a lovely polite and helpful person.Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ After reading some of his books which are excellent I found him a very grounded individual, I do wish sweeping statements were not made about people.Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > > > I for one cannot wait for his next book.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > > > > To:
>> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 21:54
>> > > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Oh I thought it was Prof Hicks who was the one who 'has problems with women' .
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Eileen
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67@
>> > > > > > > > To:
>> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
>> > > > > > > > Subject: J A-H's new book
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > > > Carol
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-09 11:14:12

Hilary Jones

David, I think you've mis-read my message. I didn't say anything about automatic access to people held under 'house arrest'. All medieval castles fufilled several functions, including accomodation for prisoners and hosting visitors. Warwick Castle, not far from me is a prime example of that and I know quite a few French chateau too. I was indeed implying that the Tower was a 'town' and there are forever rumours in towns. I doubt whether the princes were kept in a dark dungeon with food brought in by gaolers. Were there gaolers employed to cook, clean and stoke fires?In fact, as you probably know, the Tower only gained it's 'bad' reputation under the Tudors, when Henry VIII started slicing off women and 'saint's' heads.What I did forget to ask is where were MB's and Louis XI's spies? I don't believe they weren't amongst the dozens and, if they were, that would lend more weight to the theory that H7 really didn't know what happened to the princes.

On Wednesday, 9 October 2013, 10:59, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Hilary,
I would take issue with part of what you said -
"Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs,"

I think that the logic here should be you-name-it AND Wormwood Scrubs. The original statement makes it appear that the Tower is everything but a prison. In reality the Tower was like a small town and had all you mention and also had very secure areas where people could be safe from people outside the Tower and from the people inside.

Most medieval castles will have been like that. For example, the Tour dx27;Elven in the Chateau de Largoët was a tall structure where Henry Tudor was kept in Brittany on the 6th or 7th floor - its secure area.

For any readers outside the UK, Wormwood Scrubs is a famous London prison.

The assumption that the Tower is a single entity can lead to a great many logical errors - for example, that anyone who had access to the tower would necessarily have access to someone imprisoned there, and could do away with them or that someone being in the Towerx27;s prison area must be seen by other people.

Kind regards
David

------------------------------
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 16:53 BST Hilary Jones wrote:

>Ix27;m not turning either. As you say the HT thing doesnx27;t fit.
>
>What I canx27;t understand is that, given the Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs, there must have been dozens of people going to and fro from there each day, let alone those employed on x27;householdx27; duties. They must have known if/when meals, clothes, bedmaking etc was not required for the two kids. But where is the gossip who sold it to the HT paparazzi afterwards? After all, he/she might have expected a grateful tenner. But ..... if staff did know that the kids were gone (and I donx27;t mean dead) and were sworn to silence, then itx27;s a different story isnx27;t it? After all, who wants the thumbscrews put on by an anxious Morton or Reggie?
>In some ways it reminds me of when Charles II escaped after Worcester with a huge price on his head. He passed through I think they say 2000 folks and not one betrayed him. In fact we wouldnx27;t have know if he hadnx27;t told us himself. Where is the real London gossip - and I donx27;t mean chroniclersx27; x27;rumourx27;. I mean Jack/Tom/Bob talking over a mazer in the Boarx27;s Head in 1604 about what Great Aunt Mildred saw when she was a cook at the Tower in 1483. Itx27;s such a big story (now and then) that youx27;d have thought there would be some proper oral history, in fact loads of it.
>
>Perhaps itx27;s another non-barking dog? H.
>
>
>
>
>On Tuesday, 8 October 2013, 15:41, EILEEN BATES wrote:
>
>
>Thanks Hilary, Yes Ix27;ve read Jonesx27; Bosworth book...and he makes it, the supposed murder of the nephews, seem something that would have been regarded as a necessary evil and that Richard being a man of his time etc., etc., Of course we do have to take the possibility of Richard taking this step into consideration and weigh the likelihood of it up. I have many times and still conclude that it simply does not tie in with stuff we do know about Richard and indeed HT seemed pretty much in the dark as to their fate. But Jones has made some good points and I can see where he is coming from...however...nice try but Ix27;m still not for turning...Eileen
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> Sorry Eileen Ix27;d gone to cook the tea!
>> No he doesnx27;t change. He believes that the events surrounding the attempted rescue from the Tower forced Richardx27;s handÂ but that he was probably egged on by Buckingham.
>> What I am beginning to notice since the discovery though is that more writers, evenÂ if they believeÂ Richard did dispose of the princes, attempt to explain his actions as in keeping with what a monarch would have done in the circumstances ie that they are no worse than Bolingbrokex27;s treatment of Richard II or Edward IVx27;s treatment of Henry VI. This is in itself quite a shift. At a quick glance, Jones attributes part of Richardx27;s actions in accepting the throne to his religious beliefs and his suspicions around the Woodvillesx27; x27;witchcraftx27; but I have x27;dippedx27; here. It wants reading as a whole. H.Â Â Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EILEEN BATES
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 17:23
>> Subject: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
>>
>> Â
>>
>> I do like Michael Jones...even though he believes Richard guilty of the nephew thingy. But are you saying Hilary, that in this new book Jones is changing tack here with the psychoanalysis bit? Eileen
>> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> >
>> > So far - and it is so far - the Michael Jones bits are quite good, though he does seem to believe (not unreasonably) that the scoliosis could have been taking its toll on Richardx27;s health by the time of BosworthÃÂ - internally rather than externally Ix27;d hasten to add. He also includes the psychoanalysis which says that Richard was more likely to have hidden his nephews rather than killed them. Itx27;sÃÂ a strange book because if you dip into it after the diary bits itx27;s hard to know whox27;s saying what. Though Jones was ever a good writer and the styles tend to clash a bit.ÃÂ So I like Michaelx27;s writings (ever did) but I think the most damaging bit is the admission of the deal done with Leicester. That may come back to bite - hard.
>> > ÃÂ
>> > Donx27;t know our Nigel though. And am no relation to either :)ÃÂ
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 15:01
>> > Subject: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
>> >
>> > ÃÂ
>> > Ix27;ve also received The Kings Grave.
>> >
>> > Firstly I cannot begin to read it yet as Ix27;m midway through Murder in the Tower which I am enjoying but would love to meet the author as I have a couple of questions...
>> >
>> > BUT.....
>> >
>> > I read Nigel Jones review in the Sunday Express...
>> >
>> > Yes the very same Nigel Jones whose book the Tower...An Epic History of the Tower is the only book I have ever returned to Amazon. Jones states in that book that Richard definitely murdered his nephews because the bones in the urn are deFinitely their bones. He has reached this conclusion because one of the jaw bones, as we know, is very diseased and that Edward V had a disease of the jaw. In actual fact all that is on record is that Dr Argentine who was among the last of Edwardx27;s attendants to attend him only said that he was depressed...x27;like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing himx27;...no mention of a painful jaw. If Jones can be wrong about something as basic as this can anything he has to say be trusted?
>> >
>> > Returning to his review x27;Twisted truth of the not so lovely bonesx27; he writes the quest for Richardx27;s remains were based on an intuitive hunch of Ms Langleyx27;s . The x27;lopsidedx27; part of the book is her x27;misguided plea that Englandx27;s last Plantagenet King was merely misunderstood and not the murderous monster of Shakespeare and most SERIOUS historians have made him out to be". "Bizarrely Michael Jones, one such historian, co-wrote to book and he does his reputation no favours by appearing under the same covers as PL with her cranky hero worship of the child-killing King".
>> >
>> > He described the book as unbalanced, half sober history the other half sentimental, special pleading codswolllop and that the Richard lll society has made a x27;strange cultx27; of the King. Jones he says insisted on including in an Appendix that the evidence points clearly to Richard being responsible for the murder of the princes and x27;tactfully he omits to mention the Kingx27;s other sins as he wades through blood to his usurped thronex27;.
>> >
>> > Last but not least "his spine twisted by the bone disease scoliosis, Richard in life was essential as the bard portrayed him on stage".
>> >
>> > I do say I find it a strange decision that Michael Jones was the co-author as although he clearly admires Richard...Bosworth, Psychology of a Battle....it is clear that he considers Richard was guilty of the murder of his nephews. Ix27;m not sure if this is the kind of ending to The Kings Grave that some would have wished.
>> >
>> > Eileen
>> >
>> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Am just about to start The Kingx27;s Grave, which was delivered Saturday. But going from memory only as I donx27;t have the time to look for it at this moment, the statement put out by Wendy and David Johnson catalogued in detail the points and referred to this. Philippa was the client, which gave her the responsibility/power to enter into the arrangement with LCC and the UoL. I think it was part of LCCx27;s conditions for allowing the dig that any remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral. In order for the dig to take place at all Philippa was left with a fait accompli. In addition, the UoL have reneged on their part of the agreement as they do not consider it binding.
>> > > Elaine
>> > >
>> > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Donx27;t worry Eileen. Ix27;m just about to start another controversy.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > Ix27;m reading the Jones and Langley book x27;The Kingx27;s Gravex27; which came on Thursday.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > In it Philippa (page 16) says that Leicester CityÃ’â¬aÃÂ Council said they would give her permission to dig in its carpark on the understanding that x27;if found, King Richard IIIÃ’â¬aÃÂ would be re-buried in the nearest consecrated ground, Leicester Cathedralx27;.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > Now I find this more than worrying. I admire Philippa greatly for her perseverenceÃ’â¬aÃÂ but should she honestly have been signing up to something likeÃ’â¬aÃÂ this without wider consultation and legal advice? And should LCC and Leicester Cathedral (sheÃ’â¬aÃÂ had talks with the Dean, commissioned a tomb etc) not also have sought proper legal advice given the very unusual circumstances, without jumping straight on the bandwagon? This was the re-burial of a King, however remote it seemed at the time. And the Society knew of this deal also because they helped to fund it all. Was one woman, however admirable she might be, (and tacitly by implication the Society) really going to have the power to decide all this, even his coffin and the design for his tomb? I donx27;t doubt her enthusiasm and congratulate her on the discovery, but I find it disturbing that so many condoned and did not question this
> deal.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Very disturbing.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Of course it
>> suited some like LCC not to
>> > question it.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ H.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ________________________________
>> > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > To:
>> > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 11:27
>> > > > Subject: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > >
>> > > > If that is the case I apologise...but coming immediately after the message I posted about Hicks I took it to be aimed at that particular post....
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ JA-H was at the Leicester Conference.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > Come to think of it..what was Hicks doing at the conference, attendance of which clearly give one the entitlement to be as abrasive and judgemental as one likes towards other forum members postings...as he clearly hates Richard. He labels Richard as nothing less than a peadophile in his Anne Neville book and has not a single good word to say about him in his False Fleeting Perjured Clarence book either. I find it rather puzzling...Eileen
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Oh for heavens sake! ...itx27;s hardly a x27;sweeping statementx27; and Ix27;m angry that you should describe it as such and I would appreciate it Marion if you did not resort to exaggeration to score a point just because you did not like something I have posted thank you very much. I gained this impression wrongly or rightly after reading Hicksx27; Anne Neville book. I also made my remark in a lighthearted way.....honestly you can hardly say anything sometimes on here without someone seeking to chastise you as if you were five years old or something. No wonder so few people post on here lately.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If youx27;ve met Hicks and liked him well good for you. I have not met him so I can only go by what he has written....which in the Anne Neville book was some very unpleasant stuff indeed. He has also written erroneously about the pre-contract so I think you should expect a small amount of negativity towards him on here without the need to go jumping on your high horse. Eileen Bates
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --- In , marion cheatham wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Having meet him at the conference, I would say he is a lovely polite and helpful person.Ã’Æx27;Ã x27;Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ After reading some of his books which are excellent I found him a very grounded individual, I do wish sweeping statements were not made about people.Ã’Æx27;Ã x27;Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > > > I for one cannot wait for his next book.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > > > > To:
>> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 21:54
>> > > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Ã’Æx27;Ã x27;Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Oh I thought it was Prof Hicks who was the one who x27;has problems with womenx27; .
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Eileen
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67@
>> > > > > > > > To:
>> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
>> > > > > > > > Subject: J A-Hx27;s new book
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudorx27;s father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > > > Carol
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
clear="none">>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-09 11:27:50

Hilary Jones

Sorry, forgot the 'x' on chateaux

On Wednesday, 9 October 2013, 11:14, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
David, I think you've mis-read my message. I didn't say anything about automatic access to people held under 'house arrest'. All medieval castles fufilled several functions, including accomodation for prisoners and hosting visitors. Warwick Castle, not far from me is a prime example of that and I know quite a few French chateau too. I was indeed implying that the Tower was a 'town' and there are forever rumours in towns. I doubt whether the princes were kept in a dark dungeon with food brought in by gaolers. Were there gaolers employed to cook, clean and stoke fires?In fact, as you probably know, the Tower only gained it's 'bad' reputation under the Tudors, when Henry VIII started slicing off women and 'saint's' heads.What I did forget to ask is where were MB's and Louis XI's spies? I don't believe they weren't amongst the dozens and, if they were, that would lend more weight to the theory that H7 really didn't know what happened to the princes.

On Wednesday, 9 October 2013, 10:59, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Hilary,
I would take issue with part of what you said -
"Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs,"

I think that the logic here should be you-name-it AND Wormwood Scrubs. The original statement makes it appear that the Tower is everything but a prison. In reality the Tower was like a small town and had all you mention and also had very secure areas where people could be safe from people outside the Tower and from the people inside.

Most medieval castles will have been like that. For example, the Tour dx27;Elven in the Chateau de Largoët was a tall structure where Henry Tudor was kept in Brittany on the 6th or 7th floor - its secure area.

For any readers outside the UK, Wormwood Scrubs is a famous London prison.

The assumption that the Tower is a single entity can lead to a great many logical errors - for example, that anyone who had access to the tower would necessarily have access to someone imprisoned there, and could do away with them or that someone being in the Towerx27;s prison area must be seen by other people.

Kind regards
David

------------------------------
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 16:53 BST Hilary Jones wrote:

>Ix27;m not turning either. As you say the HT thing doesnx27;t fit.
>
>What I canx27;t understand is that, given the Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs, there must have been dozens of people going to and fro from there each day, let alone those employed on x27;householdx27; duties. They must have known if/when meals, clothes, bedmaking etc was not required for the two kids. But where is the gossip who sold it to the HT paparazzi afterwards? After all, he/she might have expected a grateful tenner. But ..... if staff did know that the kids were gone (and I donx27;t mean dead) and were sworn to silence, then itx27;s a different story isnx27;t it? After all, who wants the thumbscrews put on by an anxious Morton or Reggie?
>In some ways it reminds me of when Charles II escaped after Worcester with a huge price on his head. He passed through I think they say 2000 folks and not one betrayed him. In fact we wouldnx27;t have know if he hadnx27;t told us himself. Where is the real London gossip - and I donx27;t mean chroniclersx27; x27;rumourx27;. I mean Jack/Tom/Bob talking over a mazer in the Boarx27;s Head in 1604 about what Great Aunt Mildred saw when she was a cook at the Tower in 1483. Itx27;s such a big story (now and then) that youx27;d have thought there would be some proper oral history, in fact loads of it.
>
>Perhaps itx27;s another non-barking dog? H.
>
>
>
>
>On Tuesday, 8 October 2013, 15:41, EILEEN BATES wrote:
>
>
>Thanks Hilary, Yes Ix27;ve read Jonesx27; Bosworth book...and he makes it, the supposed murder of the nephews, seem something that would have been regarded as a necessary evil and that Richard being a man of his time etc., etc., Of course we do have to take the possibility of Richard taking this step into consideration and weigh the likelihood of it up. I have many times and still conclude that it simply does not tie in with stuff we do know about Richard and indeed HT seemed pretty much in the dark as to their fate. But Jones has made some good points and I can see where he is coming from...however...nice try but Ix27;m still not for turning...Eileen
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> Sorry Eileen Ix27;d gone to cook the tea!
>> No he doesnx27;t change. He believes that the events surrounding the attempted rescue from the Tower forced Richardx27;s handÂ but that he was probably egged on by Buckingham.
>> What I am beginning to notice since the discovery though is that more writers, evenÂ if they believeÂ Richard did dispose of the princes, attempt to explain his actions as in keeping with what a monarch would have done in the circumstances ie that they are no worse than Bolingbrokex27;s treatment of Richard II or Edward IVx27;s treatment of Henry VI. This is in itself quite a shift. At a quick glance, Jones attributes part of Richardx27;s actions in accepting the throne to his religious beliefs and his suspicions around the Woodvillesx27; x27;witchcraftx27; but I have x27;dippedx27; here. It wants reading as a whole. H.Â Â Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EILEEN BATES
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 17:23
>> Subject: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
>>
>> Â
>>
>> I do like Michael Jones...even though he believes Richard guilty of the nephew thingy. But are you saying Hilary, that in this new book Jones is changing tack here with the psychoanalysis bit? Eileen
>> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> >
>> > So far - and it is so far - the Michael Jones bits are quite good, though he does seem to believe (not unreasonably) that the scoliosis could have been taking its toll on Richardx27;s health by the time of BosworthÃÂ - internally rather than externally Ix27;d hasten to add. He also includes the psychoanalysis which says that Richard was more likely to have hidden his nephews rather than killed them. Itx27;sÃÂ a strange book because if you dip into it after the diary bits itx27;s hard to know whox27;s saying what. Though Jones was ever a good writer and the styles tend to clash a bit.ÃÂ So I like Michaelx27;s writings (ever did) but I think the most damaging bit is the admission of the deal done with Leicester. That may come back to bite - hard.
>> > ÃÂ
>> > Donx27;t know our Nigel though. And am no relation to either :)ÃÂ
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 15:01
>> > Subject: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
>> >
>> > ÃÂ
>> > Ix27;ve also received The Kings Grave.
>> >
>> > Firstly I cannot begin to read it yet as Ix27;m midway through Murder in the Tower which I am enjoying but would love to meet the author as I have a couple of questions...
>> >
>> > BUT.....
>> >
>> > I read Nigel Jones review in the Sunday Express...
>> >
>> > Yes the very same Nigel Jones whose book the Tower...An Epic History of the Tower is the only book I have ever returned to Amazon. Jones states in that book that Richard definitely murdered his nephews because the bones in the urn are deFinitely their bones. He has reached this conclusion because one of the jaw bones, as we know, is very diseased and that Edward V had a disease of the jaw. In actual fact all that is on record is that Dr Argentine who was among the last of Edwardx27;s attendants to attend him only said that he was depressed...x27;like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing himx27;...no mention of a painful jaw. If Jones can be wrong about something as basic as this can anything he has to say be trusted?
>> >
>> > Returning to his review x27;Twisted truth of the not so lovely bonesx27; he writes the quest for Richardx27;s remains were based on an intuitive hunch of Ms Langleyx27;s . The x27;lopsidedx27; part of the book is her x27;misguided plea that Englandx27;s last Plantagenet King was merely misunderstood and not the murderous monster of Shakespeare and most SERIOUS historians have made him out to be". "Bizarrely Michael Jones, one such historian, co-wrote to book and he does his reputation no favours by appearing under the same covers as PL with her cranky hero worship of the child-killing King".
>> >
>> > He described the book as unbalanced, half sober history the other half sentimental, special pleading codswolllop and that the Richard lll society has made a x27;strange cultx27; of the King. Jones he says insisted on including in an Appendix that the evidence points clearly to Richard being responsible for the murder of the princes and x27;tactfully he omits to mention the Kingx27;s other sins as he wades through blood to his usurped thronex27;.
>> >
>> > Last but not least "his spine twisted by the bone disease scoliosis, Richard in life was essential as the bard portrayed him on stage".
>> >
>> > I do say I find it a strange decision that Michael Jones was the co-author as although he clearly admires Richard...Bosworth, Psychology of a Battle....it is clear that he considers Richard was guilty of the murder of his nephews. Ix27;m not sure if this is the kind of ending to The Kings Grave that some would have wished.
>> >
>> > Eileen
>> >
>> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Am just about to start The Kingx27;s Grave, which was delivered Saturday. But going from memory only as I donx27;t have the time to look for it at this moment, the statement put out by Wendy and David Johnson catalogued in detail the points and referred to this. Philippa was the client, which gave her the responsibility/power to enter into the arrangement with LCC and the UoL. I think it was part of LCCx27;s conditions for allowing the dig that any remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral. In order for the dig to take place at all Philippa was left with a fait accompli. In addition, the UoL have reneged on their part of the agreement as they do not consider it binding.
>> > > Elaine
>> > >
>> > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Donx27;t worry Eileen. Ix27;m just about to start another controversy.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > Ix27;m reading the Jones and Langley book x27;The Kingx27;s Gravex27; which came on Thursday.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > In it Philippa (page 16) says that Leicester CityÃ’â¬aÃÂ Council said they would give her permission to dig in its carpark on the understanding that x27;if found, King Richard IIIÃ’â¬aÃÂ would be re-buried in the nearest consecrated ground, Leicester Cathedralx27;.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > Now I find this more than worrying. I admire Philippa greatly for her perseverenceÃ’â¬aÃÂ but should she honestly have been signing up to something likeÃ’â¬aÃÂ this without wider consultation and legal advice? And should LCC and Leicester Cathedral (sheÃ’â¬aÃÂ had talks with the Dean, commissioned a tomb etc) not also have sought proper legal advice given the very unusual circumstances, without jumping straight on the bandwagon? This was the re-burial of a King, however remote it seemed at the time. And the Society knew of this deal also because they helped to fund it all. Was one woman, however admirable she might be, (and tacitly by implication the Society) really going to have the power to decide all this, even his coffin and the design for his tomb? I donx27;t doubt her enthusiasm and congratulate her on the discovery, but I find it disturbing that so many condoned and did not question this
> deal.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Very disturbing.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Of course it
>> suited some like LCC not to
>> > question it.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ H.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ________________________________
>> > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > To:
>> > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 11:27
>> > > > Subject: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > >
>> > > > If that is the case I apologise...but coming immediately after the message I posted about Hicks I took it to be aimed at that particular post....
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ JA-H was at the Leicester Conference.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > Come to think of it..what was Hicks doing at the conference, attendance of which clearly give one the entitlement to be as abrasive and judgemental as one likes towards other forum members postings...as he clearly hates Richard. He labels Richard as nothing less than a peadophile in his Anne Neville book and has not a single good word to say about him in his False Fleeting Perjured Clarence book either. I find it rather puzzling...Eileen
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Oh for heavens sake! ...itx27;s hardly a x27;sweeping statementx27; and Ix27;m angry that you should describe it as such and I would appreciate it Marion if you did not resort to exaggeration to score a point just because you did not like something I have posted thank you very much. I gained this impression wrongly or rightly after reading Hicksx27; Anne Neville book. I also made my remark in a lighthearted way.....honestly you can hardly say anything sometimes on here without someone seeking to chastise you as if you were five years old or something. No wonder so few people post on here lately.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If youx27;ve met Hicks and liked him well good for you. I have not met him so I can only go by what he has written....which in the Anne Neville book was some very unpleasant stuff indeed. He has also written erroneously about the pre-contract so I think you should expect a small amount of negativity towards him on here without the need to go jumping on your high horse. Eileen Bates
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --- In , marion cheatham wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Having meet him at the conference, I would say he is a lovely polite and helpful person.Ã’Æx27;Ã x27;Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ After reading some of his books which are excellent I found him a very grounded individual, I do wish sweeping statements were not made about people.Ã’Æx27;Ã x27;Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > > > I for one cannot wait for his next book.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > > > > To:
>> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 21:54
>> > > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Ã’Æx27;Ã x27;Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Oh I thought it was Prof Hicks who was the one who x27;has problems with womenx27; .
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Eileen
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67@
>> > > > > > > > To:
>> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
>> > > > > > > > Subject: J A-Hx27;s new book
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudorx27;s father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > > > Carol
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
clear="none">>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-09 13:38:20

mariewalsh2003

David wrote:

"Skidmore has an original letter and presumably has seen other examples. He feels the wording is quite unusually severe. One widow applying for her husband's attainder to be reversed said he had been "so manashed" by Richard's letter that he turned out for him against his will."

Marie responds:

Well she would say that, wouldn't she? What other grounds could she plead? It really doesn't tell us anything about her husband's actual disposition at the time.

Interesting that Skidmore retains the original spelling for the verb, presumably because 'manashed' sounds grim, but I think it is only an old form of admonish.

Skidmore "feeling" is not really enough. He needs to make a comparison with other examples from similar situations. And saying that, even if the wording is standard, Richard really meant it because this widow said her husband feared it in order to get the family lands back - well if that is really his reasoning then it's poor.

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
I agree that the Bestwood letters need to be viewed in context of others issued under similar circumstances, but also in the context of whether the recipient believes the sender is likely to be in a position to carry out the threats - and have the disposition to carry them out.

Skidmore has an original letter and presumably has seen other examples. He feels the wording is quite unusually severe. One widow applying for her husband's attainder to be reversed said he had been "so manashed" by Richard's letter that he turned out for him against his will.

The date of the letter is 11th August. But the question was not so much about the letters themselves, as their absence from J A-H's Last Days.

Kind regards
David

------------------------------
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 19:23 BST mariewalsh2003 wrote:

>
> I wrote:
> "But I also think the letters summoning people should be viewed in context - ie compared with letters of similar purpose written by other kings before engaging with the enemy. A bit of threatening was normal in many types of royal commands."
>
> I hadn't got to Jan's reply at that point, but we're saying the same thing. Incidentally Gill also makes a negative remark about the tone of Richard's letters in her book on Buckingham's Rebellion, although said letters were completely standard. I doubt Richard even drafted them. He'd just have instructed his clerks: writ letters to So-and-son and So-and-so about such-and such, and they'd have got out the relevant crib shee and got on with it.
> Marie
>
>
>---In , <> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Personally I don't have the same take on the Bestwood retreat as J A-H. Hunting was recommended to knights as an excellent preparation for warfare, and I think that is what Richard was doing.
> But I also think the letters summoning people should be viewed in context - ie compared with letters of similar purpose written by other kings before engaging with the enemy. A bit of threatening was normal in many types of royal commands.
> Marie
>
>
>---In , <> wrote:
>
> Stephen, Just to show that I actually read some books favourable to Richard, I have a question about The Last Days... I have been recently reading Chris Skidmore's book on Bosworth. In it he transcribes the text of letters written by Richard during his stay at Bestwood. Now I have re-read my copy of The Last Days and can find no mention of the letters at all. The reason it is significant is that the authors draw different conclusions about Richard's time at Bestwood. J A-H paints a picture of a relaxed Richard enjoying a little hunting before having to deal with Henry's invasion. Skidmore says the letters - which threaten the recipients with the confiscation of their land and goods if they fail to turn out for Richard - are an indication of Richard's increasing desperation. My copy of J A-H's book is an old one so the letters may have been included in a later edition. I wondered if you were aware of the Bestwood letters. Kind Regards David
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book Sent: Sat, Oct 5, 2013 12:56:49 PM
> ÿ
> You are right that we are at cross-purposes on this. However, we must all be careful of the propensity of some cyber-sources to assume the birth year of a child from a dubious extrapolation of their parents' marriage year.
> Many of those I have seen show Edmund as marrying after, or very slightly before, Catherine's death and this implies that he still carried a torch for her. I have just gone to Richmond in the ODNB (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1855?docPos=3 http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1855?docPos=3) but this doesn't mention his wife or known offspring. I will consult the CP when next I have the chance but Richmond implies that JA-H may well be right here, as has been the case time after time.
>
> For now, whilst I have another book to complete, my interpretation will be detailed further in the December Bulletin.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Durose David
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 12:38 PM
> Subject: Re : Re: RE: J A-H's new book
>
>
> Stephen, We seem to have a pattern developing here. My underatanding is that the date of Edmundx27;s marriage is uncertain - I have seen some stating that it was as early as 1425. The date of birth of Eleanor is 1431 - so an earlier date is consistent with this. The date you have is the pardon for an earlier unlicensed marriage. Perhaps Marie could explain what that means. Kind regards David
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: RE: J A-H's new book Sent: Fri, Oct 4, 2013 2:07:12 PM
> ÿ
> "After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. "
>
> Edmund married only after Catherine's 1436 death. The contemporary rumours about them are attested to by the ODNB.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Durose David
> To:
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:56 AM
> Subject: Re : RE: J A-H's new book
>
>
> Hi Tamara, In response to the point about Catherine and the x27;rumoursx27; - actually referring to them as rumours actually gives the impression that there was something secret going on. It plays into the hands of those seeking out conspiracies. The rumours prompted action by Humphrey of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Gloucester in the 1420s, resulting in the act that introduced a penalty for any potential husband. I think that there was no doubt that at that stage, Catherine wished to marry Edmund Beaufort. After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. The relationship between Catherine and Owen occurred later while she was living at court. So to make the inferrence that Beaufort was possibly Edmund Tx27;s father, you would have to tie down the rumours to the early 1430s - rather than simply x27;during her lifetimex27;. Incidentally, the above-mentioned Humphrey of Lancaster also had a
coat-of-arms even more like Edmund Beaufort - the arms of the kingdom, with a bordure of silver. Kind regards David
>
> From: khafara@... <khafara@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: J A-H's new book Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 3:46:11 AM
> To be fair to J A-H, rumors about whether Catherine of Valois was having an affair with Edmund Beaufort were apparently rampant during CoV's own lifetime and for some time afterwards. Richard Cavendish (make of him what you will) is one of many modern historians to presume that the affair was a fact: http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/birth-henry-tudor (A more respectable reference might be here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2007-08/1186697156 ) Speaking of Tudors, legitimacy, and timing, I was wondering about the timetable of Edmund Tudor's getting his 12-year-old bride Margaret Beaufort impregnated with the future Henry Tudor. I don't question that ET was HT's father; I'm just noting how quickly things went from marriage to pregnancy to husband's capture and death, and how little time ET might have actually had to beget his heir -- especially if MB's menarche didn't
occur until after she had married ET. If Edmund Tudor had followed the usual practice of the time and waited until his wife was fifteen or sixteen, there would have been no Henry Tudor. Here's the best I've been able to piece things together -- and if anyone knows differently, please jump in and correct me: Edmund was off to the wars about eight months after the 1 November 1455 marriage, was captured in August 1456 by Yorkist forces, and died of the plague 3 November 1456. Henry was born nearly three months after Edmund's death, on 28 January 1457, which to me likely means he would have had to have been conceived sometime between mid-April and mid-May of 1456. I don't think it could have been later than mid-May. Tamara
> ---In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote: ÿ Yet they weren't descended from a King of England, unless they were Beauforts.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Durose David
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re : RE: Re : J A-H's new book
>
> Hi Carol, I had not mentioned Jasper intending that he was "next in line" in any way at all. If you look at his coat of arms it is also virtually the same in structure as Edmunds T and B. I mention it to emphasise the fact that the arms of the brothers are indeed following the rules of Cadency. By the way I am sure the France / England quartering at this time were the arms of England rather than of Edward III specifically. Kind regards David
>
> From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re : J A-H's new book Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 4:18:11 PM
> It does. Thank you. Of course, Edmund and Jasper had no claim whatever to the throne of England, or to the arms of England ("badge" was my word because I coulldn't think of the right one). No one has ever mentioned Jasper Tudor as being next in line after Henry (assuming Henry's claim to be valid) if Henry remained childless. And, of course, as far as Richard was concerned, they were both Tydders. I like J A-H, but I think he's on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I haven't had my morning coffee yet and can't think of the right word. I'm not sure that it matters, in any case, as having a Beaufort rather than a Tudor grandfather (which Henry never claimed) would in no way strengthen his shaky claim.
>
> Carol
> ---In , <> wrote: Carol, I think you are very right to be dubious about J-AH's reasoning. Especially as far as the similarity of the - badges - is concerned. I take it by badges, he is referring to the coats-of-arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor. Heraldry has some rules, and the similarity of the two is easily explained by the fact that they are expressing similar concepts. The central shield is quartering of fleurs-de-lys on blue (royal arms of France) and the 3 lions of England. This is the coat of arms of England at that time, and had been since Edward III and emphasised the kings of England's claim to France. In theory, only the head of the family has the right to the arms plain - that is without a marker to indicate a junior member of the family. The border around both arms is called a bordure and it is one of the markers of a younger son. Another common
marker is the label or lambel - a stripe across the top with a number of pendants, or points. This system is referred to as Cadency. A person could not simply draw up their own coat, it had to granted. The Beaufort arms were well established. in the case of Jasper and Edmund, the use of the royal arms must have been with the approval of their half brother. So in the case of the Beauforts, the arms designate a younger brother of the royal house of England. You can trace the line back through younger brothers until you reach Edward III. In the case of Jasper and Edmund, the arms designate similarly younger (half) brothers of the royal house. The devices within the bordure - fleurs-de-lys and martlets - may refer to Catherine's French royal status and the mythic arms of Edward the Confessor created by Richard II. Another set of arms that show remarkable similarity are those of York and Lancaster - both are the royal arms of England with Labels of
three points to indicate they are Cadet lines. I hope this helps. Kind regards David
>
> From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: J A-H's new book Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:05:41 PM
> I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)? Thanks, Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-09 14:22:37

mariewalsh2003

David,

I agree with what you say about the Tower. The secure area, however, was not simply, or even primarily, a prison: it housed the royal apartments. Access was via Coldharbour Gate at the SW corner of the White Tower. The White Tower itself was not used by the royal family at this time, but was a favoured place for housing prisoners of high rank (Alencon, for instance) and was also used for storage, garrison, etc.

The middle-access area was the rest of Tower Green and the buildings around and within it. The public area consisted of the outer tower, where the menagerie was housed, (called the Lion Tower today) and the space between the inner and outer curtain walls.

So after they were moved further in, the Princes would not have been visible to the general public, but plenty of the Tower staff must have known they were there, and were presumably unable to give Henry VII any information about their fate that he found usable. That is to say, it must have been something as vague as "they were there one day, and gone the next." Certainly major digging operations under existing foundations, of the sort necessary to bury them in the location where the bones were unearthed in 1674, could bsolutely not have passed unnoticed.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hilary,
I would take issue with part of what you said -
"Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs,"

I think that the logic here should be you-name-it AND Wormwood Scrubs. The original statement makes it appear that the Tower is everything but a prison. In reality the Tower was like a small town and had all you mention and also had very secure areas where people could be safe from people outside the Tower and from the people inside.

Most medieval castles will have been like that. For example, the Tour d'Elven in the Chateau de Largoët was a tall structure where Henry Tudor was kept in Brittany on the 6th or 7th floor - its secure area.

For any readers outside the UK, Wormwood Scrubs is a famous London prison.

The assumption that the Tower is a single entity can lead to a great many logical errors - for example, that anyone who had access to the tower would necessarily have access to someone imprisoned there, and could do away with them or that someone being in the Tower's prison area must be seen by other people.

Kind regards
David

------------------------------
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 16:53 BST Hilary Jones wrote:

>I'm not turning either. As you say the HT thing doesn't fit.
>
>What I can't understand is that, given the Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs, there must have been dozens of people going to and fro from there each day, let alone those employed on 'household' duties. They must have known if/when meals, clothes, bedmaking etc was not required for the two kids. But where is the gossip who sold it to the HT paparazzi afterwards? After all, he/she might have expected a grateful tenner. But ..... if staff did know that the kids were gone (and I don't mean dead) and were sworn to silence, then it's a different story isn't it? After all, who wants the thumbscrews put on by an anxious Morton or Reggie?
>In some ways it reminds me of when Charles II escaped after Worcester with a huge price on his head. He passed through I think they say 2000 folks and not one betrayed him. In fact we wouldn't have know if he hadn't told us himself. Where is the real London gossip - and I don't mean chroniclers' 'rumour'. I mean Jack/Tom/Bob talking over a mazer in the Boar's Head in 1604 about what Great Aunt Mildred saw when she was a cook at the Tower in 1483. It's such a big story (now and then) that you'd have thought there would be some proper oral history, in fact loads of it.
>
>Perhaps it's another non-barking dog? H.
>
>
>
>
>On Tuesday, 8 October 2013, 15:41, EILEEN BATES wrote:
>
>
>Thanks Hilary, Yes I've read Jones' Bosworth book...and he makes it, the supposed murder of the nephews, seem something that would have been regarded as a necessary evil and that Richard being a man of his time etc., etc., Of course we do have to take the possibility of Richard taking this step into consideration and weigh the likelihood of it up. I have many times and still conclude that it simply does not tie in with stuff we do know about Richard and indeed HT seemed pretty much in the dark as to their fate. But Jones has made some good points and I can see where he is coming from...however...nice try but I'm still not for turning...Eileen
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> Sorry Eileen I'd gone to cook the tea!
>> No he doesn't change. He believes that the events surrounding the attempted rescue from the Tower forced Richard's handÂ but that he was probably egged on by Buckingham.
>> What I am beginning to notice since the discovery though is that more writers, evenÂ if they believeÂ Richard did dispose of the princes, attempt to explain his actions as in keeping with what a monarch would have done in the circumstances ie that they are no worse than Bolingbroke's treatment of Richard II or Edward IV's treatment of Henry VI. This is in itself quite a shift. At a quick glance, Jones attributes part of Richard's actions in accepting the throne to his religious beliefs and his suspicions around the Woodvilles' 'witchcraft' but I have 'dipped' here. It wants reading as a whole. H.Â Â Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EILEEN BATES
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 17:23
>> Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>>
>> Â
>>
>> I do like Michael Jones...even though he believes Richard guilty of the nephew thingy. But are you saying Hilary, that in this new book Jones is changing tack here with the psychoanalysis bit? Eileen
>> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> >
>> > So far - and it is so far - the Michael Jones bits are quite good, though he does seem to believe (not unreasonably) that the scoliosis could have been taking its toll on Richard's health by the time of BosworthÃÂ - internally rather than externally I'd hasten to add. He also includes the psychoanalysis which says that Richard was more likely to have hidden his nephews rather than killed them. It'sÃÂ a strange book because if you dip into it after the diary bits it's hard to know who's saying what. Though Jones was ever a good writer and the styles tend to clash a bit.ÃÂ So I like Michael's writings (ever did) but I think the most damaging bit is the admission of the deal done with Leicester. That may come back to bite - hard.
>> > ÃÂ
>> > Don't know our Nigel though. And am no relation to either :)ÃÂ
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 15:01
>> > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>> >
>> > ÃÂ
>> > I've also received The Kings Grave.
>> >
>> > Firstly I cannot begin to read it yet as I'm midway through Murder in the Tower which I am enjoying but would love to meet the author as I have a couple of questions...
>> >
>> > BUT.....
>> >
>> > I read Nigel Jones review in the Sunday Express...
>> >
>> > Yes the very same Nigel Jones whose book the Tower...An Epic History of the Tower is the only book I have ever returned to Amazon. Jones states in that book that Richard definitely murdered his nephews because the bones in the urn are deFinitely their bones. He has reached this conclusion because one of the jaw bones, as we know, is very diseased and that Edward V had a disease of the jaw. In actual fact all that is on record is that Dr Argentine who was among the last of Edward's attendants to attend him only said that he was depressed...'like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him'...no mention of a painful jaw. If Jones can be wrong about something as basic as this can anything he has to say be trusted?
>> >
>> > Returning to his review 'Twisted truth of the not so lovely bones' he writes the quest for Richard's remains were based on an intuitive hunch of Ms Langley's . The 'lopsided' part of the book is her 'misguided plea that England's last Plantagenet King was merely misunderstood and not the murderous monster of Shakespeare and most SERIOUS historians have made him out to be". "Bizarrely Michael Jones, one such historian, co-wrote to book and he does his reputation no favours by appearing under the same covers as PL with her cranky hero worship of the child-killing King".
>> >
>> > He described the book as unbalanced, half sober history the other half sentimental, special pleading codswolllop and that the Richard lll society has made a 'strange cult' of the King. Jones he says insisted on including in an Appendix that the evidence points clearly to Richard being responsible for the murder of the princes and 'tactfully he omits to mention the King's other sins as he wades through blood to his usurped throne'.
>> >
>> > Last but not least "his spine twisted by the bone disease scoliosis, Richard in life was essential as the bard portrayed him on stage".
>> >
>> > I do say I find it a strange decision that Michael Jones was the co-author as although he clearly admires Richard...Bosworth, Psychology of a Battle....it is clear that he considers Richard was guilty of the murder of his nephews. I'm not sure if this is the kind of ending to The Kings Grave that some would have wished.
>> >
>> > Eileen
>> >
>> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Am just about to start The King's Grave, which was delivered Saturday. But going from memory only as I don't have the time to look for it at this moment, the statement put out by Wendy and David Johnson catalogued in detail the points and referred to this. Philippa was the client, which gave her the responsibility/power to enter into the arrangement with LCC and the UoL. I think it was part of LCC's conditions for allowing the dig that any remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral. In order for the dig to take place at all Philippa was left with a fait accompli. In addition, the UoL have reneged on their part of the agreement as they do not consider it binding.
>> > > Elaine
>> > >
>> > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Don't worry Eileen. I'm just about to start another controversy.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > I'm reading the Jones and Langley book 'The King's Grave' which came on Thursday.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > In it Philippa (page 16) says that Leicester CityÃ’â¬aÃÂ Council said they would give her permission to dig in its carpark on the understanding that 'if found, King Richard IIIÃ’â¬aÃÂ would be re-buried in the nearest consecrated ground, Leicester Cathedral'.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > Now I find this more than worrying. I admire Philippa greatly for her perseverenceÃ’â¬aÃÂ but should she honestly have been signing up to something likeÃ’â¬aÃÂ this without wider consultation and legal advice? And should LCC and Leicester Cathedral (sheÃ’â¬aÃÂ had talks with the Dean, commissioned a tomb etc) not also have sought proper legal advice given the very unusual circumstances, without jumping straight on the bandwagon? This was the re-burial of a King, however remote it seemed at the time. And the Society knew of this deal also because they helped to fund it all. Was one woman, however admirable she might be, (and tacitly by implication the Society) really going to have the power to decide all this, even his coffin and the design for his tomb? I don't doubt her enthusiasm and congratulate her on the discovery, but I find it disturbing that so many condoned and did not question this
> deal.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Very disturbing.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Of course it
>> suited some like LCC not to
>> > question it.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ H.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ________________________________
>> > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > To:
>> > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 11:27
>> > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > >
>> > > > If that is the case I apologise...but coming immediately after the message I posted about Hicks I took it to be aimed at that particular post....
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ JA-H was at the Leicester Conference.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > Come to think of it..what was Hicks doing at the conference, attendance of which clearly give one the entitlement to be as abrasive and judgemental as one likes towards other forum members postings...as he clearly hates Richard. He labels Richard as nothing less than a peadophile in his Anne Neville book and has not a single good word to say about him in his False Fleeting Perjured Clarence book either. I find it rather puzzling...Eileen
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Oh for heavens sake! ...it's hardly a 'sweeping statement' and I'm angry that you should describe it as such and I would appreciate it Marion if you did not resort to exaggeration to score a point just because you did not like something I have posted thank you very much. I gained this impression wrongly or rightly after reading Hicks' Anne Neville book. I also made my remark in a lighthearted way.....honestly you can hardly say anything sometimes on here without someone seeking to chastise you as if you were five years old or something. No wonder so few people post on here lately.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If you've met Hicks and liked him well good for you. I have not met him so I can only go by what he has written....which in the Anne Neville book was some very unpleasant stuff indeed. He has also written erroneously about the pre-contract so I think you should expect a small amount of negativity towards him on here without the need to go jumping on your high horse. Eileen Bates
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --- In , marion cheatham wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Having meet him at the conference, I would say he is a lovely polite and helpful person.Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ After reading some of his books which are excellent I found him a very grounded individual, I do wish sweeping statements were not made about people.Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > > > I for one cannot wait for his next book.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > > > > To:
>> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 21:54
>> > > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Oh I thought it was Prof Hicks who was the one who 'has problems with women' .
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Eileen
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67@
>> > > > > > > > To:
>> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
>> > > > > > > > Subject: J A-H's new book
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > > > Carol
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-09 14:41:49

Hilary Jones

Thanks for endorsing my explanation Marie. Charles d'Orleans could hardly have written his verses in a dungeon, could he? And I agree with your views on the disturbance that digging would have caused. H.

On Wednesday, 9 October 2013, 14:31, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
David,I agree with what you say about the Tower. The secure area, however, was not simply, or even primarily, a prison: it housed the royal apartments. Access was via Coldharbour Gate at the SW corner of the White Tower. The White Tower itself was not used by the royal family at this time, but was a favoured place for housing prisoners of high rank (Alencon, for instance) and was also used for storage, garrison, etc. The middle-access area was the rest of Tower Green and the buildings around and within it. The public area consisted of the outer tower, where the menagerie was housed, (called the Lion Tower today) and the space between the inner and outer curtain walls. So after they were moved further in, the Princes would not have been visible to the general public, but plenty of the Tower staff must have known they were there, and were presumably unable to give Henry VII any information about their fate that he found usable. That is to say, it must have been something as vague as "they were there one day, and gone the next." Certainly major digging operations under existing foundations, of the sort necessary to bury them in the location where the bones were unearthed in 1674, could bsolutely not have passed unnoticed.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hilary,
I would take issue with part of what you said -
"Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs,"

I think that the logic here should be you-name-it AND Wormwood Scrubs. The original statement makes it appear that the Tower is everything but a prison. In reality the Tower was like a small town and had all you mention and also had very secure areas where people could be safe from people outside the Tower and from the people inside.

Most medieval castles will have been like that. For example, the Tour d'Elven in the Chateau de Largoët was a tall structure where Henry Tudor was kept in Brittany on the 6th or 7th floor - its secure area.

For any readers outside the UK, Wormwood Scrubs is a famous London prison.

The assumption that the Tower is a single entity can lead to a great many logical errors - for example, that anyone who had access to the tower would necessarily have access to someone imprisoned there, and could do away with them or that someone being in the Tower's prison area must be seen by other people.

Kind regards
David

------------------------------
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 16:53 BST Hilary Jones wrote:

>I'm not turning either. As you say the HT thing doesn't fit.
>
>What I can't understand is that, given the Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs, there must have been dozens of people going to and fro from there each day, let alone those employed on 'household' duties. They must have known if/when meals, clothes, bedmaking etc was not required for the two kids. But where is the gossip who sold it to the HT paparazzi afterwards? After all, he/she might have expected a grateful tenner. But ..... if staff did know that the kids were gone (and I don't mean dead) and were sworn to silence, then it's a different story isn't it? After all, who wants the thumbscrews put on by an anxious Morton or Reggie?
>In some ways it reminds me of when Charles II escaped after Worcester with a huge price on his head. He passed through I think they say 2000 folks and not one betrayed him. In fact we wouldn't have know if he hadn't told us himself. Where is the real London gossip - and I don't mean chroniclers' 'rumour'. I mean Jack/Tom/Bob talking over a mazer in the Boar's Head in 1604 about what Great Aunt Mildred saw when she was a cook at the Tower in 1483. It's such a big story (now and then) that you'd have thought there would be some proper oral history, in fact loads of it.
>
>Perhaps it's another non-barking dog? H.
>
>
>
>
>On Tuesday, 8 October 2013, 15:41, EILEEN BATES wrote:
>
>
>Thanks Hilary, Yes I've read Jones' Bosworth book...and he makes it, the supposed murder of the nephews, seem something that would have been regarded as a necessary evil and that Richard being a man of his time etc., etc., Of course we do have to take the possibility of Richard taking this step into consideration and weigh the likelihood of it up. I have many times and still conclude that it simply does not tie in with stuff we do know about Richard and indeed HT seemed pretty much in the dark as to their fate. But Jones has made some good points and I can see where he is coming from...however...nice try but I'm still not for turning...Eileen
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> Sorry Eileen I'd gone to cook the tea!
>> No he doesn't change. He believes that the events surrounding the attempted rescue from the Tower forced Richard's handÂ but that he was probably egged on by Buckingham.
>> What I am beginning to notice since the discovery though is that more writers, evenÂ if they believeÂ Richard did dispose of the princes, attempt to explain his actions as in keeping with what a monarch would have done in the circumstances ie that they are no worse than Bolingbroke's treatment of Richard II or Edward IV's treatment of Henry VI. This is in itself quite a shift. At a quick glance, Jones attributes part of Richard's actions in accepting the throne to his religious beliefs and his suspicions around the Woodvilles' 'witchcraft' but I have 'dipped' here. It wants reading as a whole. H.Â Â Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EILEEN BATES
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 17:23
>> Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>>
>> Â
>>
>> I do like Michael Jones...even though he believes Richard guilty of the nephew thingy. But are you saying Hilary, that in this new book Jones is changing tack here with the psychoanalysis bit? Eileen
>> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> >
>> > So far - and it is so far - the Michael Jones bits are quite good, though he does seem to believe (not unreasonably) that the scoliosis could have been taking its toll on Richard's health by the time of BosworthÃÂ - internally rather than externally I'd hasten to add. He also includes the psychoanalysis which says that Richard was more likely to have hidden his nephews rather than killed them. It'sÃÂ a strange book because if you dip into it after the diary bits it's hard to know who's saying what. Though Jones was ever a good writer and the styles tend to clash a bit.ÃÂ So I like Michael's writings (ever did) but I think the most damaging bit is the admission of the deal done with Leicester. That may come back to bite - hard.
>> > ÃÂ
>> > Don't know our Nigel though. And am no relation to either :)ÃÂ
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 15:01
>> > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>> >
>> > ÃÂ
>> > I've also received The Kings Grave.
>> >
>> > Firstly I cannot begin to read it yet as I'm midway through Murder in the Tower which I am enjoying but would love to meet the author as I have a couple of questions...
>> >
>> > BUT.....
>> >
>> > I read Nigel Jones review in the Sunday Express...
>> >
>> > Yes the very same Nigel Jones whose book the Tower...An Epic History of the Tower is the only book I have ever returned to Amazon. Jones states in that book that Richard definitely murdered his nephews because the bones in the urn are deFinitely their bones. He has reached this conclusion because one of the jaw bones, as we know, is very diseased and that Edward V had a disease of the jaw. In actual fact all that is on record is that Dr Argentine who was among the last of Edward's attendants to attend him only said that he was depressed...'like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him'...no mention of a painful jaw. If Jones can be wrong about something as basic as this can anything he has to say be trusted?
>> >
>> > Returning to his review 'Twisted truth of the not so lovely bones' he writes the quest for Richard's remains were based on an intuitive hunch of Ms Langley's . The 'lopsided' part of the book is her 'misguided plea that England's last Plantagenet King was merely misunderstood and not the murderous monster of Shakespeare and most SERIOUS historians have made him out to be". "Bizarrely Michael Jones, one such historian, co-wrote to book and he does his reputation no favours by appearing under the same covers as PL with her cranky hero worship of the child-killing King".
>> >
>> > He described the book as unbalanced, half sober history the other half sentimental, special pleading codswolllop and that the Richard lll society has made a 'strange cult' of the King. Jones he says insisted on including in an Appendix that the evidence points clearly to Richard being responsible for the murder of the princes and 'tactfully he omits to mention the King's other sins as he wades through blood to his usurped throne'.
>> >
>> > Last but not least "his spine twisted by the bone disease scoliosis, Richard in life was essential as the bard portrayed him on stage".
>> >
>> > I do say I find it a strange decision that Michael Jones was the co-author as although he clearly admires Richard...Bosworth, Psychology of a Battle....it is clear that he considers Richard was guilty of the murder of his nephews. I'm not sure if this is the kind of ending to The Kings Grave that some would have wished.
>> >
>> > Eileen
>> >
>> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Am just about to start The King's Grave, which was delivered Saturday. But going from memory only as I don't have the time to look for it at this moment, the statement put out by Wendy and David Johnson catalogued in detail the points and referred to this. Philippa was the client, which gave her the responsibility/power to enter into the arrangement with LCC and the UoL. I think it was part of LCC's conditions for allowing the dig that any remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral. In order for the dig to take place at all Philippa was left with a fait accompli. In addition, the UoL have reneged on their part of the agreement as they do not consider it binding.
>> > > Elaine
>> > >
>> > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Don't worry Eileen. I'm just about to start another controversy.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > I'm reading the Jones and Langley book 'The King's Grave' which came on Thursday.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > In it Philippa (page 16) says that Leicester CityÃ’â¬aÃÂ Council said they would give her permission to dig in its carpark on the understanding that 'if found, King Richard IIIÃ’â¬aÃÂ would be re-buried in the nearest consecrated ground, Leicester Cathedral'.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > Now I find this more than worrying. I admire Philippa greatly for her perseverenceÃ’â¬aÃÂ but should she honestly have been signing up to something likeÃ’â¬aÃÂ this without wider consultation and legal advice? And should LCC and Leicester Cathedral (sheÃ’â¬aÃÂ had talks with the Dean, commissioned a tomb etc) not also have sought proper legal advice given the very unusual circumstances, without jumping straight on the bandwagon? This was the re-burial of a King, however remote it seemed at the time. And the Society knew of this deal also because they helped to fund it all. Was one woman, however admirable she might be, (and tacitly by implication the Society) really going to have the power to decide all this, even his coffin and the design for his tomb? I don't doubt her enthusiasm and congratulate her on the discovery, but I find it disturbing that so many condoned and did not question this
> deal.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Very disturbing.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Of course it
>> suited some like LCC not to
>> > question it.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ H.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ________________________________
>> > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > To:
>> > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 11:27
>> > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > >
>> > > > If that is the case I apologise...but coming immediately after the message I posted about Hicks I took it to be aimed at that particular post....
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ JA-H was at the Leicester Conference.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > Come to think of it..what was Hicks doing at the conference, attendance of which clearly give one the entitlement to be as abrasive and judgemental as one likes towards other forum members postings...as he clearly hates Richard. He labels Richard as nothing less than a peadophile in his Anne Neville book and has not a single good word to say about him in his False Fleeting Perjured Clarence book either. I find it rather puzzling...Eileen
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Oh for heavens sake! ...it's hardly a 'sweeping statement' and I'm angry that you should describe it as such and I would appreciate it Marion if you did not resort to exaggeration to score a point just because you did not like something I have posted thank you very much. I gained this impression wrongly or rightly after reading Hicks' Anne Neville book. I also made my remark in a lighthearted way.....honestly you can hardly say anything sometimes on here without someone seeking to chastise you as if you were five years old or something. No wonder so few people post on here lately.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If you've met Hicks and liked him well good for you. I have not met him so I can only go by what he has written....which in the Anne Neville book was some very unpleasant stuff indeed. He has also written erroneously about the pre-contract so I think you should expect a small amount of negativity towards him on here without the need to go jumping on your high horse. Eileen Bates
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --- In , marion cheatham wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Having meet him at the conference, I would say he is a lovely polite and helpful person.Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ After reading some of his books which are excellent I found him a very grounded individual, I do wish sweeping statements were not made about people.Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > > > I for one cannot wait for his next book.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > > > > To:
>> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 21:54
>> > > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Oh I thought it was Prof Hicks who was the one who 'has problems with women' .
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Eileen
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67@
>> > > > > > > > To:
>> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
>> > > > > > > > Subject: J A-H's new book
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > > > Carol
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-09 16:25:45

maroonnavywhite

Tamara butts in: And Carol has mentioned seeing it stated in books besides Skidmore's that Henry Tydder sent out similar "threatening" letters pre-Bosworth wherein he cited himself *as king* even though he had yet to seize the throne with the aid of his French troops and pikemen.

I can well believe that Henry would have started calling himself king well beforehand. One of Henry's first post-Bosworth acts was to have several of those who fought for Richard executed on charges of treason. Henry justified this backdating his reign to have started the day before Bosworth. And of course his claimed Lancastrian blood was so homeopathically thin as to be non-existent for all practical purposes, so much so that his written claim to the throne puts the "by right of conquest" claim before the blood claim - "de jure belli et de jure Lancastriae".

Tamara

---In , <> wrote:

David wrote:

Marie responds:

Well she would say that, wouldn't she? What other grounds could she plead? It really doesn't tell us anything about her husband's actual disposition at the time.

Interesting that Skidmore retains the original spelling for the verb, presumably because 'manashed' sounds grim, but I think it is only an old form of admonish.

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-09 16:27:15

mariewalsh2003

Yes, sorry, I meant Orleans, not Alencon.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Thanks for endorsing my explanation Marie. Charles d'Orleans could hardly have written his verses in a dungeon, could he? And I agree with your views on the disturbance that digging would have caused. H.

On Wednesday, 9 October 2013, 14:31, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
David,I agree with what you say about the Tower. The secure area, however, was not simply, or even primarily, a prison: it housed the royal apartments. Access was via Coldharbour Gate at the SW corner of the White Tower. The White Tower itself was not used by the royal family at this time, but was a favoured place for housing prisoners of high rank (Alencon, for instance) and was also used for storage, garrison, etc. The middle-access area was the rest of Tower Green and the buildings around and within it. The public area consisted of the outer tower, where the menagerie was housed, (called the Lion Tower today) and the space between the inner and outer curtain walls. So after they were moved further in, the Princes would not have been visible to the general public, but plenty of the Tower staff must have known they were there, and were presumably unable to give Henry VII any information about their fate that he found usable. That is to say, it must have been something as vague as "they were there one day, and gone the next." Certainly major digging operations under existing foundations, of the sort necessary to bury them in the location where the bones were unearthed in 1674, could bsolutely not have passed unnoticed.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hilary,
I would take issue with part of what you said -
"Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs,"

I think that the logic here should be you-name-it AND Wormwood Scrubs. The original statement makes it appear that the Tower is everything but a prison. In reality the Tower was like a small town and had all you mention and also had very secure areas where people could be safe from people outside the Tower and from the people inside.

Most medieval castles will have been like that. For example, the Tour d'Elven in the Chateau de Largoët was a tall structure where Henry Tudor was kept in Brittany on the 6th or 7th floor - its secure area.

For any readers outside the UK, Wormwood Scrubs is a famous London prison.

The assumption that the Tower is a single entity can lead to a great many logical errors - for example, that anyone who had access to the tower would necessarily have access to someone imprisoned there, and could do away with them or that someone being in the Tower's prison area must be seen by other people.

Kind regards
David

------------------------------
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 16:53 BST Hilary Jones wrote:

>I'm not turning either. As you say the HT thing doesn't fit.
>
>What I can't understand is that, given the Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs, there must have been dozens of people going to and fro from there each day, let alone those employed on 'household' duties. They must have known if/when meals, clothes, bedmaking etc was not required for the two kids. But where is the gossip who sold it to the HT paparazzi afterwards? After all, he/she might have expected a grateful tenner. But ..... if staff did know that the kids were gone (and I don't mean dead) and were sworn to silence, then it's a different story isn't it? After all, who wants the thumbscrews put on by an anxious Morton or Reggie?
>In some ways it reminds me of when Charles II escaped after Worcester with a huge price on his head. He passed through I think they say 2000 folks and not one betrayed him. In fact we wouldn't have know if he hadn't told us himself. Where is the real London gossip - and I don't mean chroniclers' 'rumour'. I mean Jack/Tom/Bob talking over a mazer in the Boar's Head in 1604 about what Great Aunt Mildred saw when she was a cook at the Tower in 1483. It's such a big story (now and then) that you'd have thought there would be some proper oral history, in fact loads of it.
>
>Perhaps it's another non-barking dog? H.
>
>
>
>
>On Tuesday, 8 October 2013, 15:41, EILEEN BATES wrote:
>
>
>Thanks Hilary, Yes I've read Jones' Bosworth book...and he makes it, the supposed murder of the nephews, seem something that would have been regarded as a necessary evil and that Richard being a man of his time etc., etc., Of course we do have to take the possibility of Richard taking this step into consideration and weigh the likelihood of it up. I have many times and still conclude that it simply does not tie in with stuff we do know about Richard and indeed HT seemed pretty much in the dark as to their fate. But Jones has made some good points and I can see where he is coming from...however...nice try but I'm still not for turning...Eileen
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> Sorry Eileen I'd gone to cook the tea!
>> No he doesn't change. He believes that the events surrounding the attempted rescue from the Tower forced Richard's handÂ but that he was probably egged on by Buckingham.
>> What I am beginning to notice since the discovery though is that more writers, evenÂ if they believeÂ Richard did dispose of the princes, attempt to explain his actions as in keeping with what a monarch would have done in the circumstances ie that they are no worse than Bolingbroke's treatment of Richard II or Edward IV's treatment of Henry VI. This is in itself quite a shift. At a quick glance, Jones attributes part of Richard's actions in accepting the throne to his religious beliefs and his suspicions around the Woodvilles' 'witchcraft' but I have 'dipped' here. It wants reading as a whole. H.Â Â Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EILEEN BATES
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 17:23
>> Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>>
>> Â
>>
>> I do like Michael Jones...even though he believes Richard guilty of the nephew thingy. But are you saying Hilary, that in this new book Jones is changing tack here with the psychoanalysis bit? Eileen
>> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> >
>> > So far - and it is so far - the Michael Jones bits are quite good, though he does seem to believe (not unreasonably) that the scoliosis could have been taking its toll on Richard's health by the time of BosworthÃÂ - internally rather than externally I'd hasten to add. He also includes the psychoanalysis which says that Richard was more likely to have hidden his nephews rather than killed them. It'sÃÂ a strange book because if you dip into it after the diary bits it's hard to know who's saying what. Though Jones was ever a good writer and the styles tend to clash a bit.ÃÂ So I like Michael's writings (ever did) but I think the most damaging bit is the admission of the deal done with Leicester. That may come back to bite - hard.
>> > ÃÂ
>> > Don't know our Nigel though. And am no relation to either :)ÃÂ
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 15:01
>> > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>> >
>> > ÃÂ
>> > I've also received The Kings Grave.
>> >
>> > Firstly I cannot begin to read it yet as I'm midway through Murder in the Tower which I am enjoying but would love to meet the author as I have a couple of questions...
>> >
>> > BUT.....
>> >
>> > I read Nigel Jones review in the Sunday Express...
>> >
>> > Yes the very same Nigel Jones whose book the Tower...An Epic History of the Tower is the only book I have ever returned to Amazon. Jones states in that book that Richard definitely murdered his nephews because the bones in the urn are deFinitely their bones. He has reached this conclusion because one of the jaw bones, as we know, is very diseased and that Edward V had a disease of the jaw. In actual fact all that is on record is that Dr Argentine who was among the last of Edward's attendants to attend him only said that he was depressed...'like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing him'...no mention of a painful jaw. If Jones can be wrong about something as basic as this can anything he has to say be trusted?
>> >
>> > Returning to his review 'Twisted truth of the not so lovely bones' he writes the quest for Richard's remains were based on an intuitive hunch of Ms Langley's . The 'lopsided' part of the book is her 'misguided plea that England's last Plantagenet King was merely misunderstood and not the murderous monster of Shakespeare and most SERIOUS historians have made him out to be". "Bizarrely Michael Jones, one such historian, co-wrote to book and he does his reputation no favours by appearing under the same covers as PL with her cranky hero worship of the child-killing King".
>> >
>> > He described the book as unbalanced, half sober history the other half sentimental, special pleading codswolllop and that the Richard lll society has made a 'strange cult' of the King. Jones he says insisted on including in an Appendix that the evidence points clearly to Richard being responsible for the murder of the princes and 'tactfully he omits to mention the King's other sins as he wades through blood to his usurped throne'.
>> >
>> > Last but not least "his spine twisted by the bone disease scoliosis, Richard in life was essential as the bard portrayed him on stage".
>> >
>> > I do say I find it a strange decision that Michael Jones was the co-author as although he clearly admires Richard...Bosworth, Psychology of a Battle....it is clear that he considers Richard was guilty of the murder of his nephews. I'm not sure if this is the kind of ending to The Kings Grave that some would have wished.
>> >
>> > Eileen
>> >
>> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Am just about to start The King's Grave, which was delivered Saturday. But going from memory only as I don't have the time to look for it at this moment, the statement put out by Wendy and David Johnson catalogued in detail the points and referred to this. Philippa was the client, which gave her the responsibility/power to enter into the arrangement with LCC and the UoL. I think it was part of LCC's conditions for allowing the dig that any remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral. In order for the dig to take place at all Philippa was left with a fait accompli. In addition, the UoL have reneged on their part of the agreement as they do not consider it binding.
>> > > Elaine
>> > >
>> > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Don't worry Eileen. I'm just about to start another controversy.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > I'm reading the Jones and Langley book 'The King's Grave' which came on Thursday.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > In it Philippa (page 16) says that Leicester CityÃ’â¬aÃÂ Council said they would give her permission to dig in its carpark on the understanding that 'if found, King Richard IIIÃ’â¬aÃÂ would be re-buried in the nearest consecrated ground, Leicester Cathedral'.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > Now I find this more than worrying. I admire Philippa greatly for her perseverenceÃ’â¬aÃÂ but should she honestly have been signing up to something likeÃ’â¬aÃÂ this without wider consultation and legal advice? And should LCC and Leicester Cathedral (sheÃ’â¬aÃÂ had talks with the Dean, commissioned a tomb etc) not also have sought proper legal advice given the very unusual circumstances, without jumping straight on the bandwagon? This was the re-burial of a King, however remote it seemed at the time. And the Society knew of this deal also because they helped to fund it all. Was one woman, however admirable she might be, (and tacitly by implication the Society) really going to have the power to decide all this, even his coffin and the design for his tomb? I don't doubt her enthusiasm and congratulate her on the discovery, but I find it disturbing that so many condoned and did not question this
> deal.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Very disturbing.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Of course it
>> suited some like LCC not to
>> > question it.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ H.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ________________________________
>> > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > To:
>> > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 11:27
>> > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > >
>> > > > If that is the case I apologise...but coming immediately after the message I posted about Hicks I took it to be aimed at that particular post....
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ JA-H was at the Leicester Conference.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > Come to think of it..what was Hicks doing at the conference, attendance of which clearly give one the entitlement to be as abrasive and judgemental as one likes towards other forum members postings...as he clearly hates Richard. He labels Richard as nothing less than a peadophile in his Anne Neville book and has not a single good word to say about him in his False Fleeting Perjured Clarence book either. I find it rather puzzling...Eileen
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Oh for heavens sake! ...it's hardly a 'sweeping statement' and I'm angry that you should describe it as such and I would appreciate it Marion if you did not resort to exaggeration to score a point just because you did not like something I have posted thank you very much. I gained this impression wrongly or rightly after reading Hicks' Anne Neville book. I also made my remark in a lighthearted way.....honestly you can hardly say anything sometimes on here without someone seeking to chastise you as if you were five years old or something. No wonder so few people post on here lately.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If you've met Hicks and liked him well good for you. I have not met him so I can only go by what he has written....which in the Anne Neville book was some very unpleasant stuff indeed. He has also written erroneously about the pre-contract so I think you should expect a small amount of negativity towards him on here without the need to go jumping on your high horse. Eileen Bates
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --- In , marion cheatham wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Having meet him at the conference, I would say he is a lovely polite and helpful person.Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ After reading some of his books which are excellent I found him a very grounded individual, I do wish sweeping statements were not made about people.Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > > > I for one cannot wait for his next book.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > > > > To:
>> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 21:54
>> > > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-H's new book
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Ã’Æ'Ã 'Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Oh I thought it was Prof Hicks who was the one who 'has problems with women' .
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Eileen
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67@
>> > > > > > > > To:
>> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
>> > > > > > > > Subject: J A-H's new book
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > > > Carol
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-09 16:56:50

mariewalsh2003

I wrote: "Interesting that Skidmore retains the original spelling for the verb, presumably because 'manashed' sounds grim, but I think it is only an old form of admonish."

Or, as it occurred to me later (I don't know why it took so long), it could mean menaced. Maybe Skidmore didn't know what the lady meant either.

Just a further thought, and that is that it would be rather odd for such a reluctant turner-out in favour of Richard to have been singled out for attainder.

Checking my copy of Skidmore, I see that the letter from Bestwood which he quotes is the one to Henry Vernon, which is in the MS collection of the Duke of Rutland, and which Skidmore almost certainly viewed second hand, like myself, in the published version of the Rutland MSS.

I've also checked the reference to the widow of the "manashed" individual. This was Geoffrey St Germyn, and it was his daughter Margaret who petitioned for the reversal of the attainder, not his widow. It would be interesting to know whether Margaret was Geoffrey's heir. Perhaps Geoffrey hadn't been as hostile to Richard as Margaret suggested, because he was one of the men who lent Richard money in the spring of 1485.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

David wrote:

Marie responds:

Well she would say that, wouldn't she? What other grounds could she plead? It really doesn't tell us anything about her husband's actual disposition at the time.

Interesting that Skidmore retains the original spelling for the verb, presumably because 'manashed' sounds grim, but I think it is only an old form of admonish.

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-09 19:01:09

justcarol67

David wrote:

"I agree that the Bestwood letters need to be viewed in context of others issued under similar circumstances, but also in the context of whether the recipient believes the sender is likely to be in a position to carry out the threats - and have the disposition to carry them out.

"Skidmore has an original letter and presumably has seen other examples. He feels the wording is quite unusually severe. One widow applying for her husband's attainder to be reversed said he had been "so manashed" by Richard's letter that he turned out for him against his will. <snip>"

Carol responds:

No doubt the recipients of letters from Henry Tudor calling himself king would have made similar pleas had Richard won the battle. They were clearly trying to escape punishment as "traitors" after they or a relative had fought for King Richard. Remember, Henry had dated his reign to August 21, making everyone who fought for the rightful king, Richard, "traitors."

Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-09 19:46:20

mariewalsh2003

Hi Carol,

Yes, it's rather odd that Skidmore castigates Richard for being scary enough for people to take his threatening letters seriously, whilst he praises the leniency of Henry VII who, whilst only an exile never recognised as king by any proper English forum - made similar threats from France and carried them through. Yes, sneaking ahead, I see Skidmore is indeed very impressed with Henry's leniency in later reversing the attainders of some of the hapless non-entities who should never have been attainted in the first place as their only offence had been to obey the summons of the incumbent king. I does seem that his background in the Tudor era hasn't loosened its grip sufficiently to enable to stand back (yes, I'm also finding a peppering of "Vergil says").

Marie

---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-10 01:26:31

justcarol67

Hilary asked:
What I did forget to ask is where were MB's and Louis XI's spies? I don't believe they weren't amongst the dozens and, if they were, that would lend more weight to the theory that H7 really didn't know what happened to the princes."

Carol responds:

Good question. Would Mancini qualify as a spy of Louis XI's, if only indirectly, considering that he was working for Angelo Cato? (Semi-rhetorical question addressed to anyone who wants to answer.)

Apologies for the font. It will probably post as forty point at this rate!

Carol

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-10 03:17:43

justcarol67

Tamara wrote:

"Carol has mentioned seeing it stated in books besides Skidmore's that Henry Tydder sent out similar "threatening" letters pre-Bosworth wherein he cited himself *as king* even though he had yet to seize the throne with the aid of his French troops and pikemen.

"I can well believe that Henry would have started calling himself king well beforehand. One of Henry's first post-Bosworth acts was to have several of those who fought for Richard executed on charges of treason. Henry justified this backdating his reign to have started the day before Bosworth. And of course his claimed Lancastrian blood was so homeopathically thin as to be non-existent for all practical purposes, so much so that his written claim to the throne puts the "by right of conquest" claim before the blood claim - "de jure belli et de jure Lancastriae".

Hi, Tamara. Henry definitely signed letters with a royal signet and the initial H. as if he were king as early as 1484, but I can't find the threatening letters from him that I remember reading. (Possibly, they were written after Henry was crowned.) All I can find so far is a letter from 1484 in which Henry relies on bribes, pleas for support in his "just quarrel," and anti-Richard propaganda. Henry presents himself as "your poor exiled friend" who needs help in defending his "rightful claim" against 'that homicide and unnatural tyrant which now unjustly bears dominion over you." (No wonder Richard responded by saying that Tudor "usurpeth upon him the name and title of royal estate of this Roialme.") Maybe he was afraid of losing rather than gaining supporters if he used threats prematurely. As for the promised rewards, he was not exactly generous in handing them out once he actually became king.

Richard, on the other hand, *was* king and was threatened by genuine traitors, so he would and did use the standard commissions of array to recruit followers. Now if we could only find one from another king, whether Plantagenet or Tudor, to compare ithemwith. They were in use clear up to Elizabeth I's time and revived by Charles I if I recall correctly.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
I agree that the Bestwood letters need to be viewed in context of others issued under similar circumstances, but also in the context of whether the recipient believes the sender is likely to be in a position to carry out the threats - and have the disposition to carry them out.

Skidmore has an original letter and presumably has seen other examples. He feels the wording is quite unusually severe. One widow applying for her husband's attainder to be reversed said he had been "so manashed" by Richard's letter that he turned out for him against his will.

The date of the letter is 11th August. But the question was not so much about the letters themselves, as their absence from J A-H's Last Days.

Kind regards
David

------------------------------
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 19:23 BST mariewalsh2003 wrote:

>
> I wrote:
> "But I also think the letters summoning people should be viewed in context - ie compared with letters of similar purpose written by other kings before engaging with the enemy. A bit of threatening was normal in many types of royal commands."
>
> I hadn't got to Jan's reply at that point, but we're saying the same thing. Incidentally Gill also makes a negative remark about the tone of Richard's letters in her book on Buckingham's Rebellion, although said letters were completely standard. I doubt Richard even drafted them. He'd just have instructed his clerks: writ letters to So-and-son and So-and-so about such-and such, and they'd have got out the relevant crib shee and got on with it.
> Marie
>
>
>---In , <> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Personally I don't have the same take on the Bestwood retreat as J A-H. Hunting was recommended to knights as an excellent preparation for warfare, and I think that is what Richard was doing.
> But I also think the letters summoning people should be viewed in context - ie compared with letters of similar purpose written by other kings before engaging with the enemy. A bit of threatening was normal in many types of royal commands.
> Marie
>
>
>---In , <> wrote:
>
> Stephen, Just to show that I actually read some books favourable to Richard, I have a question about The Last Days... I have been recently reading Chris Skidmore's book on Bosworth. In it he transcribes the text of letters written by Richard during his stay at Bestwood. Now I have re-read my copy of The Last Days and can find no mention of the letters at all. The reason it is significant is that the authors draw different conclusions about Richard's time at Bestwood. J A-H paints a picture of a relaxed Richard enjoying a little hunting before having to deal with Henry's invasion. Skidmore says the letters - which threaten the recipients with the confiscation of their land and goods if they fail to turn out for Richard - are an indication of Richard's increasing desperation. My copy of J A-H's book is an old one so the letters may have been included in a later edition. I wondered if you were aware of the Bestwood letters. Kind Regards David
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book Sent: Sat, Oct 5, 2013 12:56:49 PM
> ÿ
> You are right that we are at cross-purposes on this. However, we must all be careful of the propensity of some cyber-sources to assume the birth year of a child from a dubious extrapolation of their parents' marriage year.
> Many of those I have seen show Edmund as marrying after, or very slightly before, Catherine's death and this implies that he still carried a torch for her. I have just gone to Richmond in the ODNB (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1855?docPos=3 http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1855?docPos=3) but this doesn't mention his wife or known offspring. I will consult the CP when next I have the chance but Richmond implies that JA-H may well be right here, as has been the case time after time.
>
> For now, whilst I have another book to complete, my interpretation will be detailed further in the December Bulletin.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Durose David
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 12:38 PM
> Subject: Re : Re: RE: J A-H's new book
>
>
> Stephen, We seem to have a pattern developing here. My underatanding is that the date of Edmundx27;s marriage is uncertain - I have seen some stating that it was as early as 1425. The date of birth of Eleanor is 1431 - so an earlier date is consistent with this. The date you have is the pardon for an earlier unlicensed marriage. Perhaps Marie could explain what that means. Kind regards David
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: RE: J A-H's new book Sent: Fri, Oct 4, 2013 2:07:12 PM
> ÿ
> "After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. "
>
> Edmund married only after Catherine's 1436 death. The contemporary rumours about them are attested to by the ODNB.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Durose David
> To:
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:56 AM
> Subject: Re : RE: J A-H's new book
>
>
> Hi Tamara, In response to the point about Catherine and the x27;rumoursx27; - actually referring to them as rumours actually gives the impression that there was something secret going on. It plays into the hands of those seeking out conspiracies. The rumours prompted action by Humphrey of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Gloucester in the 1420s, resulting in the act that introduced a penalty for any potential husband. I think that there was no doubt that at that stage, Catherine wished to marry Edmund Beaufort. After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. The relationship between Catherine and Owen occurred later while she was living at court. So to make the inferrence that Beaufort was possibly Edmund Tx27;s father, you would have to tie down the rumours to the early 1430s - rather than simply x27;during her lifetimex27;. Incidentally, the above-mentioned Humphrey of Lancaster also had a
coat-of-arms even more like Edmund Beaufort - the arms of the kingdom, with a bordure of silver. Kind regards David
>
> From: khafara@... <khafara@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: J A-H's new book Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 3:46:11 AM
> To be fair to J A-H, rumors about whether Catherine of Valois was having an affair with Edmund Beaufort were apparently rampant during CoV's own lifetime and for some time afterwards. Richard Cavendish (make of him what you will) is one of many modern historians to presume that the affair was a fact: http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/birth-henry-tudor (A more respectable reference might be here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2007-08/1186697156 ) Speaking of Tudors, legitimacy, and timing, I was wondering about the timetable of Edmund Tudor's getting his 12-year-old bride Margaret Beaufort impregnated with the future Henry Tudor. I don't question that ET was HT's father; I'm just noting how quickly things went from marriage to pregnancy to husband's capture and death, and how little time ET might have actually had to beget his heir -- especially if MB's menarche didn't
occur until after she had married ET. If Edmund Tudor had followed the usual practice of the time and waited until his wife was fifteen or sixteen, there would have been no Henry Tudor. Here's the best I've been able to piece things together -- and if anyone knows differently, please jump in and correct me: Edmund was off to the wars about eight months after the 1 November 1455 marriage, was captured in August 1456 by Yorkist forces, and died of the plague 3 November 1456. Henry was born nearly three months after Edmund's death, on 28 January 1457, which to me likely means he would have had to have been conceived sometime between mid-April and mid-May of 1456. I don't think it could have been later than mid-May. Tamara
> ---In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote: ÿ Yet they weren't descended from a King of England, unless they were Beauforts.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Durose David
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re : RE: Re : J A-H's new book
>
> Hi Carol, I had not mentioned Jasper intending that he was "next in line" in any way at all. If you look at his coat of arms it is also virtually the same in structure as Edmunds T and B. I mention it to emphasise the fact that the arms of the brothers are indeed following the rules of Cadency. By the way I am sure the France / England quartering at this time were the arms of England rather than of Edward III specifically. Kind regards David
>
> From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re : J A-H's new book Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 4:18:11 PM
> It does. Thank you. Of course, Edmund and Jasper had no claim whatever to the throne of England, or to the arms of England ("badge" was my word because I coulldn't think of the right one). No one has ever mentioned Jasper Tudor as being next in line after Henry (assuming Henry's claim to be valid) if Henry remained childless. And, of course, as far as Richard was concerned, they were both Tydders. I like J A-H, but I think he's on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I haven't had my morning coffee yet and can't think of the right word. I'm not sure that it matters, in any case, as having a Beaufort rather than a Tudor grandfather (which Henry never claimed) would in no way strengthen his shaky claim.
>
> Carol
> ---In , <> wrote: Carol, I think you are very right to be dubious about J-AH's reasoning. Especially as far as the similarity of the - badges - is concerned. I take it by badges, he is referring to the coats-of-arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor. Heraldry has some rules, and the similarity of the two is easily explained by the fact that they are expressing similar concepts. The central shield is quartering of fleurs-de-lys on blue (royal arms of France) and the 3 lions of England. This is the coat of arms of England at that time, and had been since Edward III and emphasised the kings of England's claim to France. In theory, only the head of the family has the right to the arms plain - that is without a marker to indicate a junior member of the family. The border around both arms is called a bordure and it is one of the markers of a younger son. Another common
marker is the label or lambel - a stripe across the top with a number of pendants, or points. This system is referred to as Cadency. A person could not simply draw up their own coat, it had to granted. The Beaufort arms were well established. in the case of Jasper and Edmund, the use of the royal arms must have been with the approval of their half brother. So in the case of the Beauforts, the arms designate a younger brother of the royal house of England. You can trace the line back through younger brothers until you reach Edward III. In the case of Jasper and Edmund, the arms designate similarly younger (half) brothers of the royal house. The devices within the bordure - fleurs-de-lys and martlets - may refer to Catherine's French royal status and the mythic arms of Edward the Confessor created by Richard II. Another set of arms that show remarkable similarity are those of York and Lancaster - both are the royal arms of England with Labels of
three points to indicate they are Cadet lines. I hope this helps. Kind regards David
>
> From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: J A-H's new book Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:05:41 PM
> I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)? Thanks, Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-10 03:36:08

justcarol67

The daughter was definitely the heir, which as you imply explains her motivation:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gstCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=manashed&source=bl&ots=fycj6ZnQAg&sig=dGS8UNQ6DNbOBvpjdJufQD186s4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VBBWUvKAJI3liwK2q4DACA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q=manashed&f=false

Tinyurl:

http://tinyurl.com/kccyqpo

I can't find anything on "manashed," though, except as an error for "managed," which I doubt was the meaning in this instance.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

I wrote: "Interesting that Skidmore retains the original spelling for the verb, presumably because 'manashed' sounds grim, but I think it is only an old form of admonish."

Or, as it occurred to me later (I don't know why it took so long), it could mean menaced. Maybe Skidmore didn't know what the lady meant either.

Just a further thought, and that is that it would be rather odd for such a reluctant turner-out in favour of Richard to have been singled out for attainder.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

David wrote:

Marie responds:

Well she would say that, wouldn't she? What other grounds could she plead? It really doesn't tell us anything about her husband's actual disposition at the time.

Interesting that Skidmore retains the original spelling for the verb, presumably because 'manashed' sounds grim, but I think it is only an old form of admonish.

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book

2013-10-10 10:15:56

Jessie Skinner

Forgive me if I am being naive but I am so new to this subject, but why was Henry Tudor calling Richard a "homicide and unnatural tyrant" in1484?"
I
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 10, 2013 2:16:42 AM

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-10 14:03:42

maroonnavywhite

Thanks for the correction, Carol -- I thought that's what you had said, but this new Yahoo message format stinks to high heaven.

Speaking of which:

David, I believe it was you who was wondering why J A-H didn't have copies of the "threatening letters" in his book. I'll hazard a guess that not very many books on or about Richard have copies of those particular letters, so if it's a fault it's one he shares with many historians considered to be eminently respectable.

Tamara

---In , <> wrote:

Tamara wrote:

"Carol has mentioned seeing it stated in books besides Skidmore's that Henry Tydder sent out similar "threatening" letters pre-Bosworth wherein he cited himself *as king* even though he had yet to seize the throne with the aid of his French troops and pikemen.

"I can well believe that Henry would have started calling himself king well beforehand. One of Henry's first post-Bosworth acts was to have several of those who fought for Richard executed on charges of treason. Henry justified this backdating his reign to have started the day before Bosworth. And of course his claimed Lancastrian blood was so homeopathically thin as to be non-existent for all practical purposes, so much so that his written claim to the throne puts the "by right of conquest" claim before the blood claim - "de jure belli et de jure Lancastriae".

Hi, Tamara. Henry definitely signed letters with a royal signet and the initial H. as if he were king as early as 1484, but I can't find the threatening letters from him that I remember reading. (Possibly, they were written after Henry was crowned.) All I can find so far is a letter from 1484 in which Henry relies on bribes, pleas for support in his "just quarrel," and anti-Richard propaganda. Henry presents himself as "your poor exiled friend" who needs help in defending his "rightful claim" against 'that homicide and unnatural tyrant which now unjustly bears dominion over you." (No wonder Richard responded by saying that Tudor "usurpeth upon him the name and title of royal estate of this Roialme.") Maybe he was afraid of losing rather than gaining supporters if he used threats prematurely. As for the promised rewards, he was not exactly generous in handing them out once he actually became king.

Richard, on the other hand, *was* king and was threatened by genuine traitors, so he would and did use the standard commissions of array to recruit followers. Now if we could only find one from another king, whether Plantagenet or Tudor, to compare ithemwith. They were in use clear up to Elizabeth I's time and revived by Charles I if I recall correctly.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
I agree that the Bestwood letters need to be viewed in context of others issued under similar circumstances, but also in the context of whether the recipient believes the sender is likely to be in a position to carry out the threats - and have the disposition to carry them out.

Skidmore has an original letter and presumably has seen other examples. He feels the wording is quite unusually severe. One widow applying for her husband's attainder to be reversed said he had been "so manashed" by Richard's letter that he turned out for him against his will.

The date of the letter is 11th August. But the question was not so much about the letters themselves, as their absence from J A-H's Last Days.

Kind regards
David

------------------------------
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 19:23 BST mariewalsh2003 wrote:

>
> I wrote:
> "But I also think the letters summoning people should be viewed in context - ie compared with letters of similar purpose written by other kings before engaging with the enemy. A bit of threatening was normal in many types of royal commands."
>
> I hadn't got to Jan's reply at that point, but we're saying the same thing. Incidentally Gill also makes a negative remark about the tone of Richard's letters in her book on Buckingham's Rebellion, although said letters were completely standard. I doubt Richard even drafted them. He'd just have instructed his clerks: writ letters to So-and-son and So-and-so about such-and such, and they'd have got out the relevant crib shee and got on with it.
> Marie
>
>
>---In , <> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Personally I don't have the same take on the Bestwood retreat as J A-H. Hunting was recommended to knights as an excellent preparation for warfare, and I think that is what Richard was doing.
> But I also think the letters summoning people should be viewed in context - ie compared with letters of similar purpose written by other kings before engaging with the enemy. A bit of threatening was normal in many types of royal commands.
> Marie
>
>
>---In , <> wrote:
>
> Stephen, Just to show that I actually read some books favourable to Richard, I have a question about The Last Days... I have been recently reading Chris Skidmore's book on Bosworth. In it he transcribes the text of letters written by Richard during his stay at Bestwood. Now I have re-read my copy of The Last Days and can find no mention of the letters at all. The reason it is significant is that the authors draw different conclusions about Richard's time at Bestwood. J A-H paints a picture of a relaxed Richard enjoying a little hunting before having to deal with Henry's invasion. Skidmore says the letters - which threaten the recipients with the confiscation of their land and goods if they fail to turn out for Richard - are an indication of Richard's increasing desperation. My copy of J A-H's book is an old one so the letters may have been included in a later edition. I wondered if you were aware of the Bestwood letters. Kind Regards David
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book Sent: Sat, Oct 5, 2013 12:56:49 PM
> ÿ
> You are right that we are at cross-purposes on this. However, we must all be careful of the propensity of some cyber-sources to assume the birth year of a child from a dubious extrapolation of their parents' marriage year.
> Many of those I have seen show Edmund as marrying after, or very slightly before, Catherine's death and this implies that he still carried a torch for her. I have just gone to Richmond in the ODNB (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1855?docPos=3 http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1855?docPos=3) but this doesn't mention his wife or known offspring. I will consult the CP when next I have the chance but Richmond implies that JA-H may well be right here, as has been the case time after time.
>
> For now, whilst I have another book to complete, my interpretation will be detailed further in the December Bulletin.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Durose David
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 12:38 PM
> Subject: Re : Re: RE: J A-H's new book
>
>
> Stephen, We seem to have a pattern developing here. My underatanding is that the date of Edmundx27;s marriage is uncertain - I have seen some stating that it was as early as 1425. The date of birth of Eleanor is 1431 - so an earlier date is consistent with this. The date you have is the pardon for an earlier unlicensed marriage. Perhaps Marie could explain what that means. Kind regards David
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: RE: J A-H's new book Sent: Fri, Oct 4, 2013 2:07:12 PM
> ÿ
> "After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. "
>
> Edmund married only after Catherine's 1436 death. The contemporary rumours about them are attested to by the ODNB.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Durose David
> To:
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:56 AM
> Subject: Re : RE: J A-H's new book
>
>
> Hi Tamara, In response to the point about Catherine and the x27;rumoursx27; - actually referring to them as rumours actually gives the impression that there was something secret going on. It plays into the hands of those seeking out conspiracies. The rumours prompted action by Humphrey of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Gloucester in the 1420s, resulting in the act that introduced a penalty for any potential husband. I think that there was no doubt that at that stage, Catherine wished to marry Edmund Beaufort. After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. The relationship between Catherine and Owen occurred later while she was living at court. So to make the inferrence that Beaufort was possibly Edmund Tx27;s father, you would have to tie down the rumours to the early 1430s - rather than simply x27;during her lifetimex27;. Incidentally, the above-mentioned Humphrey of Lancaster also had a
coat-of-arms even more like Edmund Beaufort - the arms of the kingdom, with a bordure of silver. Kind regards David
>
> From: khafara@... <khafara@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: J A-H's new book Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 3:46:11 AM
> To be fair to J A-H, rumors about whether Catherine of Valois was having an affair with Edmund Beaufort were apparently rampant during CoV's own lifetime and for some time afterwards. Richard Cavendish (make of him what you will) is one of many modern historians to presume that the affair was a fact: http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/birth-henry-tudor (A more respectable reference might be here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2007-08/1186697156 ) Speaking of Tudors, legitimacy, and timing, I was wondering about the timetable of Edmund Tudor's getting his 12-year-old bride Margaret Beaufort impregnated with the future Henry Tudor. I don't question that ET was HT's father; I'm just noting how quickly things went from marriage to pregnancy to husband's capture and death, and how little time ET might have actually had to beget his heir -- especially if MB's menarche didn't
occur until after she had married ET. If Edmund Tudor had followed the usual practice of the time and waited until his wife was fifteen or sixteen, there would have been no Henry Tudor. Here's the best I've been able to piece things together -- and if anyone knows differently, please jump in and correct me: Edmund was off to the wars about eight months after the 1 November 1455 marriage, was captured in August 1456 by Yorkist forces, and died of the plague 3 November 1456. Henry was born nearly three months after Edmund's death, on 28 January 1457, which to me likely means he would have had to have been conceived sometime between mid-April and mid-May of 1456. I don't think it could have been later than mid-May. Tamara
> ---In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote: ÿ Yet they weren't descended from a King of England, unless they were Beauforts.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Durose David
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re : RE: Re : J A-H's new book
>
> Hi Carol, I had not mentioned Jasper intending that he was "next in line" in any way at all. If you look at his coat of arms it is also virtually the same in structure as Edmunds T and B. I mention it to emphasise the fact that the arms of the brothers are indeed following the rules of Cadency. By the way I am sure the France / England quartering at this time were the arms of England rather than of Edward III specifically. Kind regards David
>
> From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re : J A-H's new book Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 4:18:11 PM
> It does. Thank you. Of course, Edmund and Jasper had no claim whatever to the throne of England, or to the arms of England ("badge" was my word because I coulldn't think of the right one). No one has ever mentioned Jasper Tudor as being next in line after Henry (assuming Henry's claim to be valid) if Henry remained childless. And, of course, as far as Richard was concerned, they were both Tydders. I like J A-H, but I think he's on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I haven't had my morning coffee yet and can't think of the right word. I'm not sure that it matters, in any case, as having a Beaufort rather than a Tudor grandfather (which Henry never claimed) would in no way strengthen his shaky claim.
>
> Carol
> ---In , <> wrote: Carol, I think you are very right to be dubious about J-AH's reasoning. Especially as far as the similarity of the - badges - is concerned. I take it by badges, he is referring to the coats-of-arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor. Heraldry has some rules, and the similarity of the two is easily explained by the fact that they are expressing similar concepts. The central shield is quartering of fleurs-de-lys on blue (royal arms of France) and the 3 lions of England. This is the coat of arms of England at that time, and had been since Edward III and emphasised the kings of England's claim to France. In theory, only the head of the family has the right to the arms plain - that is without a marker to indicate a junior member of the family. The border around both arms is called a bordure and it is one of the markers of a younger son. Another common
marker is the label or lambel - a stripe across the top with a number of pendants, or points. This system is referred to as Cadency. A person could not simply draw up their own coat, it had to granted. The Beaufort arms were well established. in the case of Jasper and Edmund, the use of the royal arms must have been with the approval of their half brother. So in the case of the Beauforts, the arms designate a younger brother of the royal house of England. You can trace the line back through younger brothers until you reach Edward III. In the case of Jasper and Edmund, the arms designate similarly younger (half) brothers of the royal house. The devices within the bordure - fleurs-de-lys and martlets - may refer to Catherine's French royal status and the mythic arms of Edward the Confessor created by Richard II. Another set of arms that show remarkable similarity are those of York and Lancaster - both are the royal arms of England with Labels of
three points to indicate they are Cadet lines. I hope this helps. Kind regards David
>
> From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: J A-H's new book Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:05:41 PM
> I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)? Thanks, Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-10 17:22:14

mariewalsh2003

Jessie wrote:

" Forgive me if I am being naive but I am so new to this subject, but why was Henry Tudor calling Richard a "homicide and unnatural tyrant" in1484?"

Marie responds:

Henry was fond of calling Richard a tyrant but never backed this up with evidence. It's useful to be aware that the definition of tyrant at the time had more to do with whether the king in question had attained power by legitimate means and a rightful title, or whether he had seized power by a rupture of the accepted order. In the latter case everything the usurper did was without rightful sanction and therefore tyranny. Henry not only claimed to be the right heir of Lancaster (which he wasn't) but he accused Richard of attaining the throne by means of a heinous lie (ie that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was null and void) and therefore of not being even the proper head of the House of York. According to Richard's enemies he was a usurper and therefore a tyrant, merely 'the duke of Gloucester' as he was named in the Act that attainted him and his followers. Therefore every person who had been executed for treason against him had been unlawfully killed, so he was a common homicide. Was Henry also hinting about the Princes? Possibly, but hinting was all he was ever able to do.

Henry certainly ignored the effect of Richard's anointing at his coronation. Given what he himself had caused to happen to Richard at Bosworth, it is no wonder that the Tudors were so keen to deny his kingship and to accuse him of killing Henry VI (and so keen to pretend that Henry VI was a saint). Nothing else could justify what Henry had done to Richard.

---In , <> wrote:

Forgive me if I am being naive but I am so new to this subject, but why was Henry Tudor calling Richard a "homicide and unnatural tyrant" in1484?"
I
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 10, 2013 2:16:42 AM

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book

2013-10-10 17:57:29

Jessie Skinner

Thank you, Marie. I was wondering who he was suspected of murdering st that time, and also if the "unnatural" term was regarding his scolliosis.
If Henry Tudor was not yet king he would not have known that the princes were no longer in the tower. Also "unnatural" would more appropriately be applied to a homosexual at that time, but could also have been applied to a disability.

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 10, 2013 4:22:14 PM

Jessie wrote:

" Forgive me if I am being naive but I am so new to this subject, but why was Henry Tudor calling Richard a "homicide and unnatural tyrant" in1484?"

Marie responds:

---In , <> wrote:

Forgive me if I am being naive but I am so new to this subject, but why was Henry Tudor calling Richard a "homicide and unnatural tyrant" in1484?"
I
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 10, 2013 2:16:42 AM

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-10 18:31:00

wednesday\_mc

Carol wrote:

Richard, on the other hand, *was* king and was threatened by genuine traitors, so he would and did use the standard commissions of array to recruit followers. Now if we could only find one from another king, whether Plantagenet or Tudor, to compare them with.

Weds writes:

I can't come up with commissions of array from other kings, but I found something in James Gairdner's 1899 pro-Henry VII biography that might be merely amusing or even worse than the standard threats issues to traitors in letters of array. The following incident dates from when the Earl of Lincoln and Francis Lovell were in transit to join Simnel in Ireland with their 2000 Germans, and Henry and Oxford, et. al. were darting about England trying to figure out where the rebellion would land.

In mid-April 1486, in Coventry and with Henry in attendance, bulls from the Pope were read out by Morton (as Archbishop of Canterbury) and five other bishops and "a host of clergy". The bulls declared the kings right to the crown and that of Elizabeth (joined to Henry's by marriage -- which hadn't taken place yet). Pretty standard stuff for an insecure king. But next came something I don't think was standard procedure when a new king took the throne?

According to Gairdner, page 53 in the original print edition, Morton and his bishops and clergy then "cursed with book, bell, and candle" (Gairdner's quotes) 'all who should in any way oppose these rights.' (My quotes.)

So traitors to Henry were excommunicated/damned to Hell before and/or after the fact of their treason? That's pretty nasty. Did any other king dare have his minions excommunicate traitors while a rebellion was brewing, or even after it had taken place? Executions, I've heard of. But excommunications? Isn't that a bit harsh?

~Weds

Source: James Gairdner's ancient History of Henry VII. Portion cited (and the entire book) available for reading online here:

http://tudorhistory.org/secondary/henry7/c4.html

Just search for the paragraph beginning, "After paying his devotions there". I don't know his sources, Gairdner doesn't seem to cite any. Gah.

~Weds

In reading Gairdner's old biography on Henry VII, I came across this, when Henry was worried about the rebellion surrounding Lambert Simnel:

---In , <> wrote:

Tamara wrote:

"Carol has mentioned seeing it stated in books besides Skidmore's that Henry Tydder sent out similar "threatening" letters pre-Bosworth wherein he cited himself *as king* even though he had yet to seize the throne with the aid of his French troops and pikemen.

"I can well believe that Henry would have started calling himself king well beforehand. One of Henry's first post-Bosworth acts was to have several of those who fought for Richard executed on charges of treason. Henry justified this backdating his reign to have started the day before Bosworth. And of course his claimed Lancastrian blood was so homeopathically thin as to be non-existent for all practical purposes, so much so that his written claim to the throne puts the "by right of conquest" claim before the blood claim - "de jure belli et de jure Lancastriae".

Hi, Tamara. Henry definitely signed letters with a royal signet and the initial H. as if he were king as early as 1484, but I can't find the threatening letters from him that I remember reading. (Possibly, they were written after Henry was crowned.) All I can find so far is a letter from 1484 in which Henry relies on bribes, pleas for support in his "just quarrel," and anti-Richard propaganda. Henry presents himself as "your poor exiled friend" who needs help in defending his "rightful claim" against 'that homicide and unnatural tyrant which now unjustly bears dominion over you." (No wonder Richard responded by saying that Tudor "usurpeth upon him the name and title of royal estate of this Roialme.") Maybe he was afraid of losing rather than gaining supporters if he used threats prematurely. As for the promised rewards, he was not exactly generous in handing them out once he actually became king.

Richard, on the other hand, *was* king and was threatened by genuine traitors, so he would and did use the standard commissions of array to recruit followers. Now if we could only find one from another king, whether Plantagenet or Tudor, to compare ithemwith. They were in use clear up to Elizabeth I's time and revived by Charles I if I recall correctly.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
I agree that the Bestwood letters need to be viewed in context of others issued under similar circumstances, but also in the context of whether the recipient believes the sender is likely to be in a position to carry out the threats - and have the disposition to carry them out.

Skidmore has an original letter and presumably has seen other examples. He feels the wording is quite unusually severe. One widow applying for her husband's attainder to be reversed said he had been "so manashed" by Richard's letter that he turned out for him against his will.

The date of the letter is 11th August. But the question was not so much about the letters themselves, as their absence from J A-H's Last Days.

Kind regards
David

------------------------------
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 19:23 BST mariewalsh2003 wrote:

>
> I wrote:
> "But I also think the letters summoning people should be viewed in context - ie compared with letters of similar purpose written by other kings before engaging with the enemy. A bit of threatening was normal in many types of royal commands."
>
> I hadn't got to Jan's reply at that point, but we're saying the same thing. Incidentally Gill also makes a negative remark about the tone of Richard's letters in her book on Buckingham's Rebellion, although said letters were completely standard. I doubt Richard even drafted them. He'd just have instructed his clerks: writ letters to So-and-son and So-and-so about such-and such, and they'd have got out the relevant crib shee and got on with it.
> Marie
>
>
>---In , <> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Personally I don't have the same take on the Bestwood retreat as J A-H. Hunting was recommended to knights as an excellent preparation for warfare, and I think that is what Richard was doing.
> But I also think the letters summoning people should be viewed in context - ie compared with letters of similar purpose written by other kings before engaging with the enemy. A bit of threatening was normal in many types of royal commands.
> Marie
>
>
>---In , <> wrote:
>
> Stephen, Just to show that I actually read some books favourable to Richard, I have a question about The Last Days... I have been recently reading Chris Skidmore's book on Bosworth. In it he transcribes the text of letters written by Richard during his stay at Bestwood. Now I have re-read my copy of The Last Days and can find no mention of the letters at all. The reason it is significant is that the authors draw different conclusions about Richard's time at Bestwood. J A-H paints a picture of a relaxed Richard enjoying a little hunting before having to deal with Henry's invasion. Skidmore says the letters - which threaten the recipients with the confiscation of their land and goods if they fail to turn out for Richard - are an indication of Richard's increasing desperation. My copy of J A-H's book is an old one so the letters may have been included in a later edition. I wondered if you were aware of the Bestwood letters. Kind Regards David
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book Sent: Sat, Oct 5, 2013 12:56:49 PM
> ÿ
> You are right that we are at cross-purposes on this. However, we must all be careful of the propensity of some cyber-sources to assume the birth year of a child from a dubious extrapolation of their parents' marriage year.
> Many of those I have seen show Edmund as marrying after, or very slightly before, Catherine's death and this implies that he still carried a torch for her. I have just gone to Richmond in the ODNB (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1855?docPos=3 http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1855?docPos=3) but this doesn't mention his wife or known offspring. I will consult the CP when next I have the chance but Richmond implies that JA-H may well be right here, as has been the case time after time.
>
> For now, whilst I have another book to complete, my interpretation will be detailed further in the December Bulletin.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Durose David
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 12:38 PM
> Subject: Re : Re: RE: J A-H's new book
>
>
> Stephen, We seem to have a pattern developing here. My underatanding is that the date of Edmundx27;s marriage is uncertain - I have seen some stating that it was as early as 1425. The date of birth of Eleanor is 1431 - so an earlier date is consistent with this. The date you have is the pardon for an earlier unlicensed marriage. Perhaps Marie could explain what that means. Kind regards David
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: RE: J A-H's new book Sent: Fri, Oct 4, 2013 2:07:12 PM
> ÿ
> "After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. "
>
> Edmund married only after Catherine's 1436 death. The contemporary rumours about them are attested to by the ODNB.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Durose David
> To:
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 11:56 AM
> Subject: Re : RE: J A-H's new book
>
>
> Hi Tamara, In response to the point about Catherine and the x27;rumoursx27; - actually referring to them as rumours actually gives the impression that there was something secret going on. It plays into the hands of those seeking out conspiracies. The rumours prompted action by Humphrey of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Gloucester in the 1420s, resulting in the act that introduced a penalty for any potential husband. I think that there was no doubt that at that stage, Catherine wished to marry Edmund Beaufort. After the 1426 act, the two couples went on to have separate families, Edmund had a large family and fought in France. The relationship between Catherine and Owen occurred later while she was living at court. So to make the inferrence that Beaufort was possibly Edmund Tx27;s father, you would have to tie down the rumours to the early 1430s - rather than simply x27;during her lifetimex27;. Incidentally, the above-mentioned Humphrey of Lancaster also had a
coat-of-arms even more like Edmund Beaufort - the arms of the kingdom, with a bordure of silver. Kind regards David
>
> From: khafara@... <khafara@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: J A-H's new book Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 3:46:11 AM
> To be fair to J A-H, rumors about whether Catherine of Valois was having an affair with Edmund Beaufort were apparently rampant during CoV's own lifetime and for some time afterwards. Richard Cavendish (make of him what you will) is one of many modern historians to presume that the affair was a fact: http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/birth-henry-tudor (A more respectable reference might be here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2007-08/1186697156 ) Speaking of Tudors, legitimacy, and timing, I was wondering about the timetable of Edmund Tudor's getting his 12-year-old bride Margaret Beaufort impregnated with the future Henry Tudor. I don't question that ET was HT's father; I'm just noting how quickly things went from marriage to pregnancy to husband's capture and death, and how little time ET might have actually had to beget his heir -- especially if MB's menarche didn't
occur until after she had married ET. If Edmund Tudor had followed the usual practice of the time and waited until his wife was fifteen or sixteen, there would have been no Henry Tudor. Here's the best I've been able to piece things together -- and if anyone knows differently, please jump in and correct me: Edmund was off to the wars about eight months after the 1 November 1455 marriage, was captured in August 1456 by Yorkist forces, and died of the plague 3 November 1456. Henry was born nearly three months after Edmund's death, on 28 January 1457, which to me likely means he would have had to have been conceived sometime between mid-April and mid-May of 1456. I don't think it could have been later than mid-May. Tamara
> ---In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote: ÿ Yet they weren't descended from a King of England, unless they were Beauforts.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Durose David
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re : RE: Re : J A-H's new book
>
> Hi Carol, I had not mentioned Jasper intending that he was "next in line" in any way at all. If you look at his coat of arms it is also virtually the same in structure as Edmunds T and B. I mention it to emphasise the fact that the arms of the brothers are indeed following the rules of Cadency. By the way I am sure the France / England quartering at this time were the arms of England rather than of Edward III specifically. Kind regards David
>
> From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: RE: Re : J A-H's new book Sent: Wed, Oct 2, 2013 4:18:11 PM
> It does. Thank you. Of course, Edmund and Jasper had no claim whatever to the throne of England, or to the arms of England ("badge" was my word because I coulldn't think of the right one). No one has ever mentioned Jasper Tudor as being next in line after Henry (assuming Henry's claim to be valid) if Henry remained childless. And, of course, as far as Richard was concerned, they were both Tydders. I like J A-H, but I think he's on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I haven't had my morning coffee yet and can't think of the right word. I'm not sure that it matters, in any case, as having a Beaufort rather than a Tudor grandfather (which Henry never claimed) would in no way strengthen his shaky claim.
>
> Carol
> ---In , <> wrote: Carol, I think you are very right to be dubious about J-AH's reasoning. Especially as far as the similarity of the - badges - is concerned. I take it by badges, he is referring to the coats-of-arms of Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor. Heraldry has some rules, and the similarity of the two is easily explained by the fact that they are expressing similar concepts. The central shield is quartering of fleurs-de-lys on blue (royal arms of France) and the 3 lions of England. This is the coat of arms of England at that time, and had been since Edward III and emphasised the kings of England's claim to France. In theory, only the head of the family has the right to the arms plain - that is without a marker to indicate a junior member of the family. The border around both arms is called a bordure and it is one of the markers of a younger son. Another common
marker is the label or lambel - a stripe across the top with a number of pendants, or points. This system is referred to as Cadency. A person could not simply draw up their own coat, it had to granted. The Beaufort arms were well established. in the case of Jasper and Edmund, the use of the royal arms must have been with the approval of their half brother. So in the case of the Beauforts, the arms designate a younger brother of the royal house of England. You can trace the line back through younger brothers until you reach Edward III. In the case of Jasper and Edmund, the arms designate similarly younger (half) brothers of the royal house. The devices within the bordure - fleurs-de-lys and martlets - may refer to Catherine's French royal status and the mythic arms of Edward the Confessor created by Richard II. Another set of arms that show remarkable similarity are those of York and Lancaster - both are the royal arms of England with Labels of
three points to indicate they are Cadet lines. I hope this helps. Kind regards David
>
> From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>; To: <>; Subject: J A-H's new book Sent: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 4:05:41 PM
> I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudor's father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)? Thanks, Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re : RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum

2013-10-10 20:34:55

Durose David

Carol,

The text of the letter sent by Henry Tudor from France. It is notably free from threats, but given his position it could be said he was in no position to threaten anyone. I am sure this part can not be copyright.

Right trusty, worshipful, honourable and good friends, and our allies I greet you well. Being given to understand your good devoir and intent to advance me to the furtherance of my rightful claim due and lineal inheritance of the crown, and for the just depriving of that homicide and unnatural tyrant, which now unjustly bears dominion over you, I give you to understand that no christian heart can be more full of joy and gladness from the heart of me your poor exiled friend, who will upon the instance of your sure advertise what powers ye will make ready and what captains and leaders you get to conduct, be prepared to pass over the sea with such forces as my friends are preparing for me. And if you have such good speed and success as I wish, according to my desire, I shall ever be most forward to remember and wholly to requite this your most loving kindness in my just quarrel.
Given under our signet
HR

Kind regards
David
From: wednesday.mac@... <wednesday.mac@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 10, 2013 5:30:59 PM

Carol wrote:

Weds writes:

~Weds

Source: James Gairdner's ancient History of Henry VII. Portion cited (and the entire book) available for reading online here:

http://tudorhistory.org/secondary/henry7/c4.html

Just search for the paragraph beginning, "After paying his devotions there". I don't know his sources, Gairdner doesn't seem to cite any. Gah.

~Weds

In reading Gairdner's old biography on Henry VII, I came across this, when Henry was worried about the rebellion surrounding Lambert Simnel:

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-10 21:04:20

mariewalsh2003

Hi again Jessie,

Thanks for drawing my attention to the word "unnatural" - I hadn't really paid it much thought. Murders classified as "unnatural" were those of certain members of one's own immediate family or superiors. It was unnatural for children to murder their parents, for wives to kill their husbands, for mothers to kill their children, for anyone to kill the king (the father of one's nation), etc. A lot of overlap with the scope of treason, both high and petty. so there is a hint here, it seems to me, that Richard has murdered either a family member or a king, or both. Henry VI? Edward V?

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 10, 2013 4:22:14 PM

Jessie wrote:

" Forgive me if I am being naive but I am so new to this subject, but why was Henry Tudor calling Richard a "homicide and unnatural tyrant" in1484?"

Marie responds:

---In , <> wrote:

Forgive me if I am being naive but I am so new to this subject, but why was Henry Tudor calling Richard a "homicide and unnatural tyrant" in1484?"
I
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 10, 2013 2:16:42 AM

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-10 21:11:44

mariewalsh2003

That's absolutely correct, Carol. Henry (probably via Morton) got the Pope to agree that rebels against him should be excommunicated, and the instructions were sent to all the various dioceses. This was, incidentally, not long after Henry had forced his justices to abolish the right of sanctuary for traitors on the grounds that such rights were an unwarranted intrusion of papal power into the running of the English state!

Humphrey Stafford was only hanged drawn and quartered after his rebellion in 1486 because Henry immediately used this new judicial ruling to have him dragged from the sanctuary of Abingdon Abbey.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Carol wrote:

Weds writes:

~Weds

Source: James Gairdner's ancient History of Henry VII. Portion cited (and the entire book) available for reading online here:

http://tudorhistory.org/secondary/henry7/c4.html

Just search for the paragraph beginning, "After paying his devotions there". I don't know his sources, Gairdner doesn't seem to cite any. Gah.

~Weds

In reading Gairdner's old biography on Henry VII, I came across this, when Henry was worried about the rebellion surrounding Lambert Simnel:

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new book

2013-10-10 22:19:43

Jessie Skinner

That is most interesting, Marie.
At what point would Henry Tudor have decided that Richard had murdered anyone?
If he has decided that Richard has had the prince's killed what is he basing that on?
We're there rumours strong enough on the continent at that time, or was he thinking of Henry VI as is one of your suggestions?
I suppose on that vague basis he could even mean the Duke of Clarence?
Whichever, is this the start of his propaganda offensive or did he have evidence and what of?

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 10, 2013 8:04:19 PM

Hi again Jessie,

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 10, 2013 4:22:14 PM

Jessie wrote:

" Forgive me if I am being naive but I am so new to this subject, but why was Henry Tudor calling Richard a "homicide and unnatural tyrant" in1484?"

Marie responds:

---In , <> wrote:

Forgive me if I am being naive but I am so new to this subject, but why was Henry Tudor calling Richard a "homicide and unnatural tyrant" in1484?"
I
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 10, 2013 2:16:42 AM

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-10 22:58:57

mariewalsh2003

Jessie wrote;

"At what point would Henry Tudor have decided that Richard had murdered anyone?"

Marie replies:

If you mean the Princes, then the answer is probably from October 1483. The same rumour/statement that Buckingham harnessed in order to redirect the rebellion against Richard III then served Henry's purpose. Without the disappearance of the Princes and the belief that they were dead he could not have turned his agreement to marry Elizabeth of York into a bid for the throne.

As Henry did not recognise Richard's legitimacy as king, then the executions of Buckingham and all other rebels would have been murder.

Jessie asked:

" If he has decided that Richard has had the prince's killed what is he basing that on?
We're there rumours strong enough on the continent at that time, or was he thinking of Henry VI as is one of your suggestions?"

Marie responds:

Basing it on nothing more than their disappearance, perhaps boosted by the foreboding expressed in Mancini's account, completed in December 1483. My guess is that immediately after Bosworth Henry would have set men to scour the royal palaces for the boys, and not with the intention of restoring Edward V if he found them - he had already had himself crowned on the battlefield. He neither found them nor found proof of their murders, I'm pretty sure of that, because he never produced any explanation of their fate, and the closest he got to referring to it was to accuse Richard in his first parliament of "the shedding of infants' blood", a phrase so similar sounding to the "shedding of innocent blood" in Edward IV's attainder of Henry VI's lot that you wonder whether he expected anyone to notice. Contrary to the claims made by Vergil and More, who wrote early in Henry VIII's reign, Henry VII does not seem to have accused Tyrell of arranging their murders, nor is there any evidence that Tyrell confessed to doing so on the scaffold.

A Lancastrian source (Warkworth) had hinted as early as the late 1470s that Richard had had a hand in Henry VI's execution (it would of course have been too dangerous to hint at King Edward's own involvement), but Warkworth's claim that Richard was at the Tower on the night in question seems to me to be false. The whole idea that Henry died whilst Edward and Richard were still in the Tower, and before they left for Kent, seemed to me, when I read all the sources, to have come back to England from the continent, where it was, ironically, the result of an ambiguity in the French-language version of the account of his recovery of the throne that Edward sent over to Burgundy.

Marie

Jessie wrote:

I suppose on that vague basis he could even mean the Duke of Clarence?

Marie responds:

He could, but even when More and Vergil wrote people still remembered Richard having opposed Clarence's execution, and so the story that he was responsible for that was very late developing.

Jessie wrote:

Whichever, is this the start of his propaganda offensive or did he have evidence and what of?

Marie responds:

Propaganda. Wishful thinking. Henry was by no means alone in using propaganda against his enemies, but he went rather further than most. Henry had a problem. His excuse for killing Richard was that Richard had usurped the throne from Edward V, but Henry couldn't demonstrate that Edward V and his brother were actually dead. Uneasy lies the head....

---In , <> wrote:

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 10, 2013 8:04:19 PM

Hi again Jessie,

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 10, 2013 4:22:14 PM

Jessie wrote:

" Forgive me if I am being naive but I am so new to this subject, but why was Henry Tudor calling Richard a "homicide and unnatural tyrant" in1484?"

Marie responds:

---In , <> wrote:

Forgive me if I am being naive but I am so new to this subject, but why was Henry Tudor calling Richard a "homicide and unnatural tyrant" in1484?"
I
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 10, 2013 2:16:42 AM

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-11 00:37:58

justcarol67

Jessie wrote:

"Forgive me if I am being naive but I am so new to this subject, but why was Henry Tudor calling Richard a "homicide and unnatural tyrant" in1484?"
I

Carol responds:

The rumor that Richard had killed his nephews had already been spread as early as September or October 1483, if not by Henry himself then by Morton or Buckingham, and Henry, whether he believed the rumor or not, was taking advantage of it. I doubt that he meant Hastings or Buckingham given how common political executions were at the time. Of course, it's ironic how applicable those words would be to Henry himself a few years later. What were the executions of Warbeck and especially Warwick if not homicide?

Carol

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-11 09:11:47

pansydobersby

"I can't find anything on "manashed," though, except as an error for "managed," which I doubt was the meaning in this instance.

Carol"

Interesting word. I think you mean the 1472 letter by John Paston which says:

'There is proferyd me marchaunts ffor Sporle woode. God sende me goode sale whan I be gynne; that poor woode is soor manashed and thrett.'

At first sight, that makes it sound like the wood has been poorly managed, but then again, there's also the 'thrett', which is certainly 'threatened'. A letter from Margaret Paston (with even more headache-inducing spelling than usual) uses the word 'thrett' as in 'threatened' several times. An example of the context:

'Custans, Mak and Kentyng wold a dysavowyd here swtys rytz fayn the last hundred, as I herd sayn of rytz thryfty men; but the Lord Moleynys men thrett hem that bothe they xuld ben betyn and lesen here hws and lond and all here goodys but if (unless) they wold avow it.'

So 'thrett' certainly seems to be 'threatened'. But a wood being 'sore menaced and threatened'? Hmm. Sounds strange, but why not.

Another example of 'manashed' is from Guillaume Caoursin's 'The Siege of Rhodes', translated by John Kay in the 1480s:

'Therfore he exhorted theym, to haue pyte of theyme self: and not to be the cause, that the cytee of Rhodes sholde be taken by the assaute of the Turkes and by strong hand, for thenne the Turkes sholde putte too myschieffe and to vyolence, bothe men and women beyng in the cytee of Rhodes: and forthermore he sayd that yf they of Rhodes wold desyre and take of the Turkes peas they sholde haue hyt, wyth possessyon of Rhodes, and wyth alle theire goodes; or elles they shulde be putted utterly to destructyon wyth all maner cruelte; and so he manashed to be, in shorte tyme to come; and therfore he bede theim answere: Wheder they wolde peas or werre.'

Here, 'manashed' is definitely menaced/threatened/etc.

Pansy

---In , <> wrote:

David wrote:

Marie responds:

Well she would say that, wouldn't she? What other grounds could she plead? It really doesn't tell us anything about her husband's actual disposition at the time.

Interesting that Skidmore retains the original spelling for the verb, presumably because 'manashed' sounds grim, but I think it is only an old form of admonish.

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-11 14:02:49

maroonnavywhite

I suspect Marie is right, and it's a spelling variant of "monish", which is an archaic version of "admonish". (I also suspect that Marie is right about Margaret's wrongly-attainted father's being somewhat more willing than is being implied to back Richard, being that he lent Richard money in the spring of 1485.)

Tamara (who still wonders which would be considered harsher by the average highly-religious medieval gentry -- an exhortation from Richard to give him support, or John Morton damning your eternal soul for all time?)

---In , <> wrote:

"I can't find anything on "manashed," though, except as an error for "managed," which I doubt was the meaning in this instance.

Carol"

Interesting word. I think you mean the 1472 letter by John Paston which says:

'There is proferyd me marchaunts ffor Sporle woode. God sende me goode sale whan I be gynne; that poor woode is soor manashed and thrett.'

So 'thrett' certainly seems to be 'threatened'. But a wood being 'sore menaced and threatened'? Hmm. Sounds strange, but why not.

Another example of 'manashed' is from Guillaume Caoursin's 'The Siege of Rhodes', translated by John Kay in the 1480s:

Here, 'manashed' is definitely menaced/threatened/etc.

Pansy

---In , <> wrote:

David wrote:

Marie responds:

Well she would say that, wouldn't she? What other grounds could she plead? It really doesn't tell us anything about her husband's actual disposition at the time.

Interesting that Skidmore retains the original spelling for the verb, presumably because 'manashed' sounds grim, but I think it is only an old form of admonish.

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-11 14:35:30

pansydobersby

---In , <> wrote:

"I can't find anything on "manashed," though, except as an error for "managed," which I doubt was the meaning in this instance.

Carol"

Interesting word. I think you mean the 1472 letter by John Paston which says:

'There is proferyd me marchaunts ffor Sporle woode. God sende me goode sale whan I be gynne; that poor woode is soor manashed and thrett.'

So 'thrett' certainly seems to be 'threatened'. But a wood being 'sore menaced and threatened'? Hmm. Sounds strange, but why not.

Another example of 'manashed' is from Guillaume Caoursin's 'The Siege of Rhodes', translated by John Kay in the 1480s:

Here, 'manashed' is definitely menaced/threatened/etc.

Pansy

---In , <> wrote:

David wrote:

Marie responds:

Well she would say that, wouldn't she? What other grounds could she plead? It really doesn't tell us anything about her husband's actual disposition at the time.

Interesting that Skidmore retains the original spelling for the verb, presumably because 'manashed' sounds grim, but I think it is only an old form of admonish.

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-11 14:48:40

pansydobersby

Sorry, I clicked 'Send' too soon...
Tamara said:"I suspect Marie is right, and it's a spelling variant of "monish", which is an archaic version of "admonish"."

Well, I honestly think Marie's other suggestion of 'menace' is more likely, considering that manace/manacer is Old French for threat/threaten. In the other quotes ('that poor woode is soor manashed and thrett' as well as 'and so he manashed to be, in shorte tyme to come') 'admonish' wouldn't really make sense. The latter quote especially is contemporary to the 1480s, and it's in the literary context of someone threatening death and destruction in war.
But, language being fluid, there's certainly no reason why manash/monish couldn't have been used interchangeably for 'to warn'.
Pansy

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-11 16:46:34

justcarol67

Jessie wrote:

"Thank you, Marie. I was wondering who he was suspected of murdering st that time, and also if the "unnatural" term was regarding his scolliosis.

If Henry Tudor was not yet king he would not have known that the princes were no longer in the tower. Also "unnatural" would more appropriately be applied to a homosexual at that time, but could also have been applied to a disability.

Carol responds:

Based on contemporary descriptions of Richard, which show him as small and slight but in no way deformed or disabled, I doubt that Henry or anyone else outside Richard's private circle was aware of Richard's scoliosis. (Rous may have learned of it from Richard's mother-in-law, the dowager Countess of Warwick, and even he only knew of the raised shoulder.) And no, not even his worst enemies, one ever questioned Richard's heterosexuality. "Unnatural" almost certainly applies to the way he supposedly "seized" the throne, deposing the "natural" king, Edward V. (Richard as "unnatural" monster, born with teeth and hair flowing to his shoulders after two years in his mother's womb, began with Rous in about 1487--Marie will correct me if I have the date wrong),

Carol

Re: Re : RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society F

2013-10-11 17:03:52

justcarol67

David D. wrote:

The text of the letter sent by Henry Tudor from France. It is notably free from threats, but given his position it could be said he was in no position to threaten anyone. I am sure this part can not be copyright.

Right trusty, worshipful, honourable and good friends, and our allies I greet you well. Being given to understand your good devoir and intent to advance me to the furtherance of my rightful claim due and lineal inheritance of the crown, and for the just depriving of that homicide and unnatural tyrant, which now unjustly bears dominion over you, I give you to understand that no christian heart can be more full of joy and gladness from the heart of me your poor exiled friend, who will upon the instance of your sure advertise what powers ye will make ready and what captains and leaders you get to conduct, be prepared to pass over the sea with such forces as my friends are preparing for me. And if you have such good speed and success as I wish, according to my desire, I shall ever be most forward to remember and wholly to requite this your most loving kindness in my just quarrel.
Given under our signet
HR

Carol responds:

Yes. I've already quoted from this letter and pointed out the relevant bits--the pathetic presentation of himself as a poor exile, the promises of rewards (which are notably vague--his rewards, as I recall, were remarkably scanty and geared to prevent his nobles from gaining much power(, and the anti-Richard propaganda, which Marie and I have shown to be baseless. I've already pointed out that Henry, claiming to be king and even using a royal signet, nevertheless declined to use a standard commission of array, perhaps realizing that he was in no position to make threats and that if he did so, he would lose rather than gain support. Note HR, "Henricus Rex," in 1484!

We're still looking for a standard commission of array from some other king. Can someone check a biography of Edward IV to see if it contains one? I don't own any.

Regarding copyright laws, no document from the fifteenth century is under copyright though some translations, such as Cox and Pronay's continuations of the Crowland Chronicle, undoubtedly are. Nevertheless, for our purposes, we should be safe to quote historians, translators, novelists, and, especially, primary sources if we cite the source (author and title). I should have mentioned that I found the letter in Annette Carson's "Maligned King." (Works on Kindle, such as J A-H's "Last Days of Richard III," are formatted for copying and come with an automatic source citation.)

Carol

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-11 17:09:29

justcarol67

Marie wrote:

"Hi again Jessie, Thanks for drawing my attention to the word "unnatural" - I hadn't really paid it much thought. Murders classified as "unnatural" were those of certain members of one's own immediate family or superiors. It was unnatural for children to murder their parents, for wives to kill their husbands, for mothers to kill their children, for anyone to kill the king (the father of one's nation), etc. A lot of overlap with the scope of treason, both high and petty. so there is a hint here, it seems to me, that Richard has murdered either a family member or a king, or both. Henry VI? Edward V?"

Carol responds:

I agree that Tudor was glancing obliquely at the supposed murder of the "Princes" given that the rumor had been spread late in the previous year (though, not knowing the truth, he couldn't be more specific). Still, "unnatural" refers to "tyrant," not homicide, so I think your earlier explanation that the obtained the throne "unnaturally" is more applicable here.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 10, 2013 4:22:14 PM

Jessie wrote:

" Forgive me if I am being naive but I am so new to this subject, but why was Henry Tudor calling Richard a "homicide and unnatural tyrant" in1484?"

Marie responds:

---In , <> wrote:

Forgive me if I am being naive but I am so new to this subject, but why was Henry Tudor calling Richard a "homicide and unnatural tyrant" in1484?"
I
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-H's new book
Sent: Thu, Oct 10, 2013 2:16:42 AM

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-11 17:22:27

pansydobersby

In old texts (not necessarily 15th-century texts, but still) 'unnatural' often means simply 'wicked'.
Or it might be referring specifically to his familial relations, and his supposed disloyalty to his brother and nephews - being an unfeeling, 'unnatural' uncle. One often comes across references to unnatural mothers, unnatural fathers, unnatural brothers... those lacking - in one way or another - in maternal/paternal/fraternal feeling.
Of course, it might also refer to 'unnatural murder', as Marie said; and it probably does. But it doesn't *necessarily* have to mean that, especially as the meaning is left quite vague: not 'unnatural homicide' but 'homicide AND unnatural tyrant'... hmm. Makes me wonder if it was vague on purpose? Politics at its finest. Not quite stating something as a fact, simply strongly hinting at it with suggestive wording...
Pansy

Re: Re : RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society F

2013-10-11 17:23:42

A J Hibbard

I have references to commissions of array under Edward IV, but the only one I've looked at is in Latin (the one from 1480). Anyway, on the chance that someone else has these references (Foedera is online somewhere, but I can't remember if I found it "free" or had to use a subscription service through the university).

13 Nov 1461, CPR, Edward IV, 1461-1471; p 66

And from the Syllabus to Rymer's Foedera, there are these --

1 Jun 1463; "old" Foedera, xi, 500

16 Mar 1470; "old" Foedera, xi, 755.

20 Jun 1480; "old" Foedera, xii, 117-8

A J

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:03 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Re: Re : RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society F

2013-10-11 18:26:32

justcarol67

AJ wrote:

I have references to commissions of array under Edward IV, but the only one I've looked at is in Latin (the one from 1480). Anyway, on the chance that someone else has these references (Foedera is online somewhere, but I can't remember if I found it "free" or had to use a subscription service through the university).

13 Nov 1461, CPR, Edward IV, 1461-1471; p 66

And from the Syllabus to Rymer's Foedera, there are these --

1 Jun 1463; "old" Foedera, xi, 500

16 Mar 1470; "old" Foedera, xi, 755.

20 Jun 1480; "old" Foedera, xii, 117-8

A J

Carol responds:

Thanks, AJ. (Confound Yahoo! Lost my post and am trying a second time.)
I searched for "peril" at Foedera online (Google Books) and found several formulaic language very similar to Richard's (or that of his scribes) , all of them associated with Stuart monarchs (I think Charles I):

http://tinyurl.com/lmg5k9r
Better still, I found a whole document (a letter to the clergy relating to Sir Thomas More's opposition to the Boleyn marriage) by Henry VIII in the same formulaic language. Forgive my quoting the whole thing:

"We,seeing, esteeming, and reputing you to be of such singular and vehement zeal and affection towards the glory of Almighty God, and of so faithful, loving, and obedient heart towards us, as you will accomplish, with all power, diligence, and labour, whatsoever shall be to the preferment and setting forth of God's word, have thought good, not only to signify unto you by these our letters, the particulars of the charge given by us to the bishops, but also to *require and straitly charge you, upon pain of your allegiance, and as ye shall avoid our high indignation and displeasure, [that] at your uttermost peril,* laying aside all vain affections, respects, and other carnal considerations, and setting only before your eyes the mirrour of the truth, the glory of God, the dignity of your Sovereign Lord and King, and the great concord and unity, and inestimable profit and utility, that shall by the due execution of the premises ensue to yourselves and to all other faithful and loving subjects, ye make or cause to be made diligent search and wait, whether the said bishops do truly and sincerely, without all manner of cloke, colour, or dissimulation, execute and accomplish our will and commandment, as is aforesaid. And in case ye shall hear that the said bishops, or any other ecclesiastical person, do omit and leave undone any part or parcel of the premises, or else in the execution and setting forth of the same, do coldly and feignedly use any manner of sinister addition, wrong interpretation, or painted colour, then we straitly charge and command you that you do make, undelayedly, and with all speed and diligence, declaration and advertisement to us and to our council of the said default.

'And forasmuch as we upon the singular trust which we have in you, and for the special love which we suppose you bear towards us, and the weal and tranquillity of this our realm, have specially elected and chosen you among so many for this purpose, and have reputed you such men as unto whose wisdom and fidelity we might commit a matter of such great weight and importance: if ye should, contrary to our expectation and trust which we have in you, and against your duty and allegiance towards us, neglect, or omit to do with all your diligence, whatsoever shall be in your power for the due performance of our pleasure to you declared, or halt or stumble at any part or speciality of the same; *Be ye assured that we, like a prince of justice, will so extremely punish you for the same, that all the world beside shall take by you example, and beware contrary to their allegiance to disobey the lawful commandment of their Sovereign Lord and Prince.*

'Given under our signet, at our Palace, of Westminster, the 9th day of June, 1534'"

In other words, Henry VIII went beyond the formulaic language in Richard's letters, which appears to be standard for all kings of the time and later (at least through the Stuarts) to make sure that he got his way.

Now all we need is a similar example for Henry VIII--supposing that backdating his reign to declare men who fought for their anointed king traitors is insufficient.

Carol

Re: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: J A-H's new boo

2013-10-11 21:06:10

mariewalsh2003

Ah, but Marie's changed her mind. I didn't originally think of 'menaced' as a possibility, but I think it's right.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

"I can't find anything on "manashed," though, except as an error for "managed," which I doubt was the meaning in this instance.

Carol"

Interesting word. I think you mean the 1472 letter by John Paston which says:

'There is proferyd me marchaunts ffor Sporle woode. God sende me goode sale whan I be gynne; that poor woode is soor manashed and thrett.'

So 'thrett' certainly seems to be 'threatened'. But a wood being 'sore menaced and threatened'? Hmm. Sounds strange, but why not.

Another example of 'manashed' is from Guillaume Caoursin's 'The Siege of Rhodes', translated by John Kay in the 1480s:

Here, 'manashed' is definitely menaced/threatened/etc.

Pansy

---In , <> wrote:

David wrote:

Marie responds:

Well she would say that, wouldn't she? What other grounds could she plead? It really doesn't tell us anything about her husband's actual disposition at the time.

Interesting that Skidmore retains the original spelling for the verb, presumably because 'manashed' sounds grim, but I think it is only an old form of admonish.

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-12 21:20:46

Hilary Jones

Carol, Like the rest of you this new format is driving me mad (where are you Neil or someone?). It got worse a couple of days' ago when it decided to tell me who all the messages were from. However, having now read more of Jones/Langley what they are unanimous about (and the graphologist and psycholgists concur) is that Richard was a clever man who thought through the consequences of his actions. That alone surely points to the fact that he would never have planned to clandestinely kill the princes. He would have worked out that if the people had no proof of the princes' deaths then pretenders would come back to haunt him, just as they did Henry. Had he wished to kill them then the solution would surely have been an 'accident' where their bodies could be displayed, he could mourn them, and they could be laid to rest along with any idea that they would be ressurected. So it can be one of two things: a. Buckingham (or someone else, and I don't rule out French agents) did it whilst he was away and unawares. But if they did wouldn't someone say where they were buried? If it was Buckingham wouldn't you have thought Richard would have wanted to ask just that so that he could blame him and exhume the bodies? b. They were shipped to safety - but what happened then who knows? Hilary

On Thursday, 10 October 2013, 1:26, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Hilary asked:
What I did forget to ask is where were MB's and Louis XI's spies? I don't believe they weren't amongst the dozens and, if they were, that would lend more weight to the theory that H7 really didn't know what happened to the princes."

Carol responds:

Good question. Would Mancini qualify as a spy of Louis XI's, if only indirectly, considering that he was working for Angelo Cato? (Semi-rhetorical question addressed to anyone who wants to answer.)

Apologies for the font. It will probably post as forty point at this rate!

Carol

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-16 18:29:05

ricard1an

Also Hilary the Princes were not prisoners. The Tower was where Kings lived before they were crowned. I don't doubt that because of all the things that were happening they were well guarded. I agree with you somebody somewhere would have known about any murder and talked about it after Richard's death.

---In , <> wrote:

David, I think you've mis-read my message. I didn't say anything about automatic access to people held under 'house arrest'. All medieval castles fufilled several functions, including accomodation for prisoners and hosting visitors. Warwick Castle, not far from me is a prime example of that and I know quite a few French chateau too. I was indeed implying that the Tower was a 'town' and there are forever rumours in towns. I doubt whether the princes were kept in a dark dungeon with food brought in by gaolers. Were there gaolers employed to cook, clean and stoke fires?In fact, as you probably know, the Tower only gained it's 'bad' reputation under the Tudors, when Henry VIII started slicing off women and 'saint's' heads.What I did forget to ask is where were MB's and Louis XI's spies? I don't believe they weren't amongst the dozens and, if they were, that would lend more weight to the theory that H7 really didn't know what happened to the princes.

On Wednesday, 9 October 2013, 10:59, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Hilary,
I would take issue with part of what you said -
"Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs,"

I think that the logic here should be you-name-it AND Wormwood Scrubs. The original statement makes it appear that the Tower is everything but a prison. In reality the Tower was like a small town and had all you mention and also had very secure areas where people could be safe from people outside the Tower and from the people inside.

Most medieval castles will have been like that. For example, the Tour dx27;Elven in the Chateau de Largoët was a tall structure where Henry Tudor was kept in Brittany on the 6th or 7th floor - its secure area.

For any readers outside the UK, Wormwood Scrubs is a famous London prison.

The assumption that the Tower is a single entity can lead to a great many logical errors - for example, that anyone who had access to the tower would necessarily have access to someone imprisoned there, and could do away with them or that someone being in the Towerx27;s prison area must be seen by other people.

Kind regards
David

------------------------------
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 16:53 BST Hilary Jones wrote:

>Ix27;m not turning either. As you say the HT thing doesnx27;t fit.
>
>What I canx27;t understand is that, given the Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs, there must have been dozens of people going to and fro from there each day, let alone those employed on x27;householdx27; duties. They must have known if/when meals, clothes, bedmaking etc was not required for the two kids. But where is the gossip who sold it to the HT paparazzi afterwards? After all, he/she might have expected a grateful tenner. But ..... if staff did know that the kids were gone (and I donx27;t mean dead) and were sworn to silence, then itx27;s a different story isnx27;t it? After all, who wants the thumbscrews put on by an anxious Morton or Reggie?
>In some ways it reminds me of when Charles II escaped after Worcester with a huge price on his head. He passed through I think they say 2000 folks and not one betrayed him. In fact we wouldnx27;t have know if he hadnx27;t told us himself. Where is the real London gossip - and I donx27;t mean chroniclersx27; x27;rumourx27;. I mean Jack/Tom/Bob talking over a mazer in the Boarx27;s Head in 1604 about what Great Aunt Mildred saw when she was a cook at the Tower in 1483. Itx27;s such a big story (now and then) that youx27;d have thought there would be some proper oral history, in fact loads of it.
>
>Perhaps itx27;s another non-barking dog? H.
>
>
>
>
>On Tuesday, 8 October 2013, 15:41, EILEEN BATES wrote:
>
>
>Thanks Hilary, Yes Ix27;ve read Jonesx27; Bosworth book...and he makes it, the supposed murder of the nephews, seem something that would have been regarded as a necessary evil and that Richard being a man of his time etc., etc., Of course we do have to take the possibility of Richard taking this step into consideration and weigh the likelihood of it up. I have many times and still conclude that it simply does not tie in with stuff we do know about Richard and indeed HT seemed pretty much in the dark as to their fate. But Jones has made some good points and I can see where he is coming from...however...nice try but Ix27;m still not for turning...Eileen
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> Sorry Eileen Ix27;d gone to cook the tea!
>> No he doesnx27;t change. He believes that the events surrounding the attempted rescue from the Tower forced Richardx27;s handÂ but that he was probably egged on by Buckingham.
>> What I am beginning to notice since the discovery though is that more writers, evenÂ if they believeÂ Richard did dispose of the princes, attempt to explain his actions as in keeping with what a monarch would have done in the circumstances ie that they are no worse than Bolingbrokex27;s treatment of Richard II or Edward IVx27;s treatment of Henry VI. This is in itself quite a shift. At a quick glance, Jones attributes part of Richardx27;s actions in accepting the throne to his religious beliefs and his suspicions around the Woodvillesx27; x27;witchcraftx27; but I have x27;dippedx27; here. It wants reading as a whole. H.Â Â Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EILEEN BATES
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 17:23
>> Subject: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
>>
>> Â
>>
>> I do like Michael Jones...even though he believes Richard guilty of the nephew thingy. But are you saying Hilary, that in this new book Jones is changing tack here with the psychoanalysis bit? Eileen
>> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> >
>> > So far - and it is so far - the Michael Jones bits are quite good, though he does seem to believe (not unreasonably) that the scoliosis could have been taking its toll on Richardx27;s health by the time of BosworthÃÂ - internally rather than externally Ix27;d hasten to add. He also includes the psychoanalysis which says that Richard was more likely to have hidden his nephews rather than killed them. Itx27;sÃÂ a strange book because if you dip into it after the diary bits itx27;s hard to know whox27;s saying what. Though Jones was ever a good writer and the styles tend to clash a bit.ÃÂ So I like Michaelx27;s writings (ever did) but I think the most damaging bit is the admission of the deal done with Leicester. That may come back to bite - hard.
>> > ÃÂ
>> > Donx27;t know our Nigel though. And am no relation to either :)ÃÂ
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 15:01
>> > Subject: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
>> >
>> > ÃÂ
>> > Ix27;ve also received The Kings Grave.
>> >
>> > Firstly I cannot begin to read it yet as Ix27;m midway through Murder in the Tower which I am enjoying but would love to meet the author as I have a couple of questions...
>> >
>> > BUT.....
>> >
>> > I read Nigel Jones review in the Sunday Express...
>> >
>> > Yes the very same Nigel Jones whose book the Tower...An Epic History of the Tower is the only book I have ever returned to Amazon. Jones states in that book that Richard definitely murdered his nephews because the bones in the urn are deFinitely their bones. He has reached this conclusion because one of the jaw bones, as we know, is very diseased and that Edward V had a disease of the jaw. In actual fact all that is on record is that Dr Argentine who was among the last of Edwardx27;s attendants to attend him only said that he was depressed...x27;like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing himx27;...no mention of a painful jaw. If Jones can be wrong about something as basic as this can anything he has to say be trusted?
>> >
>> > Returning to his review x27;Twisted truth of the not so lovely bonesx27; he writes the quest for Richardx27;s remains were based on an intuitive hunch of Ms Langleyx27;s . The x27;lopsidedx27; part of the book is her x27;misguided plea that Englandx27;s last Plantagenet King was merely misunderstood and not the murderous monster of Shakespeare and most SERIOUS historians have made him out to be". "Bizarrely Michael Jones, one such historian, co-wrote to book and he does his reputation no favours by appearing under the same covers as PL with her cranky hero worship of the child-killing King".
>> >
>> > He described the book as unbalanced, half sober history the other half sentimental, special pleading codswolllop and that the Richard lll society has made a x27;strange cultx27; of the King. Jones he says insisted on including in an Appendix that the evidence points clearly to Richard being responsible for the murder of the princes and x27;tactfully he omits to mention the Kingx27;s other sins as he wades through blood to his usurped thronex27;.
>> >
>> > Last but not least "his spine twisted by the bone disease scoliosis, Richard in life was essential as the bard portrayed him on stage".
>> >
>> > I do say I find it a strange decision that Michael Jones was the co-author as although he clearly admires Richard...Bosworth, Psychology of a Battle....it is clear that he considers Richard was guilty of the murder of his nephews. Ix27;m not sure if this is the kind of ending to The Kings Grave that some would have wished.
>> >
>> > Eileen
>> >
>> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Am just about to start The Kingx27;s Grave, which was delivered Saturday. But going from memory only as I donx27;t have the time to look for it at this moment, the statement put out by Wendy and David Johnson catalogued in detail the points and referred to this. Philippa was the client, which gave her the responsibility/power to enter into the arrangement with LCC and the UoL. I think it was part of LCCx27;s conditions for allowing the dig that any remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral. In order for the dig to take place at all Philippa was left with a fait accompli. In addition, the UoL have reneged on their part of the agreement as they do not consider it binding.
>> > > Elaine
>> > >
>> > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Donx27;t worry Eileen. Ix27;m just about to start another controversy.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > Ix27;m reading the Jones and Langley book x27;The Kingx27;s Gravex27; which came on Thursday.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > In it Philippa (page 16) says that Leicester CityÃ’â¬aÃÂ Council said they would give her permission to dig in its carpark on the understanding that x27;if found, King Richard IIIÃ’â¬aÃÂ would be re-buried in the nearest consecrated ground, Leicester Cathedralx27;.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > Now I find this more than worrying. I admire Philippa greatly for her perseverenceÃ’â¬aÃÂ but should she honestly have been signing up to something likeÃ’â¬aÃÂ this without wider consultation and legal advice? And should LCC and Leicester Cathedral (sheÃ’â¬aÃÂ had talks with the Dean, commissioned a tomb etc) not also have sought proper legal advice given the very unusual circumstances, without jumping straight on the bandwagon? This was the re-burial of a King, however remote it seemed at the time. And the Society knew of this deal also because they helped to fund it all. Was one woman, however admirable she might be, (and tacitly by implication the Society) really going to have the power to decide all this, even his coffin and the design for his tomb? I donx27;t doubt her enthusiasm and congratulate her on the discovery, but I find it disturbing that so many condoned and did not question this
> deal.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Very disturbing.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Of course it
>> suited some like LCC not to
>> > question it.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ H.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ________________________________
>> > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > To:
>> > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 11:27
>> > > > Subject: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > >
>> > > > If that is the case I apologise...but coming immediately after the message I posted about Hicks I took it to be aimed at that particular post....
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ JA-H was at the Leicester Conference.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > Come to think of it..what was Hicks doing at the conference, attendance of which clearly give one the entitlement to be as abrasive and judgemental as one likes towards other forum members postings...as he clearly hates Richard. He labels Richard as nothing less than a peadophile in his Anne Neville book and has not a single good word to say about him in his False Fleeting Perjured Clarence book either. I find it rather puzzling...Eileen
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Oh for heavens sake! ...itx27;s hardly a x27;sweeping statementx27; and Ix27;m angry that you should describe it as such and I would appreciate it Marion if you did not resort to exaggeration to score a point just because you did not like something I have posted thank you very much. I gained this impression wrongly or rightly after reading Hicksx27; Anne Neville book. I also made my remark in a lighthearted way.....honestly you can hardly say anything sometimes on here without someone seeking to chastise you as if you were five years old or something. No wonder so few people post on here lately.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If youx27;ve met Hicks and liked him well good for you. I have not met him so I can only go by what he has written....which in the Anne Neville book was some very unpleasant stuff indeed. He has also written erroneously about the pre-contract so I think you should expect a small amount of negativity towards him on here without the need to go jumping on your high horse. Eileen Bates
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --- In , marion cheatham wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Having meet him at the conference, I would say he is a lovely polite and helpful person.Ã’Æx27;Ã x27;Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ After reading some of his books which are excellent I found him a very grounded individual, I do wish sweeping statements were not made about people.Ã’Æx27;Ã x27;Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > > > I for one cannot wait for his next book.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > > > > To:
>> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 21:54
>> > > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Ã’Æx27;Ã x27;Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Oh I thought it was Prof Hicks who was the one who x27;has problems with womenx27; .
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Eileen
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67@
>> > > > > > > > To:
>> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
>> > > > > > > > Subject: J A-Hx27;s new book
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudorx27;s father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > > > Carol
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
clear="none">>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-17 10:36:32

Hilary Jones

Another good example of house arrest is surely Margaret of Anjou, who was passed into the custody of Alice Chaucer, Dowager Duchess of Suffolk. She stayed there for years until ransomed by Louis. H.

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 18:29, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:
Also Hilary the Princes were not prisoners. The Tower was where Kings lived before they were crowned. I don't doubt that because of all the things that were happening they were well guarded. I agree with you somebody somewhere would have known about any murder and talked about it after Richard's death.

---In , <> wrote:

David, I think you've mis-read my message. I didn't say anything about automatic access to people held under 'house arrest'. All medieval castles fufilled several functions, including accomodation for prisoners and hosting visitors. Warwick Castle, not far from me is a prime example of that and I know quite a few French chateau too. I was indeed implying that the Tower was a 'town' and there are forever rumours in towns. I doubt whether the princes were kept in a dark dungeon with food brought in by gaolers. Were there gaolers employed to cook, clean and stoke fires?In fact, as you probably know, the Tower only gained it's 'bad' reputation under the Tudors, when Henry VIII started slicing off women and 'saint's' heads.What I did forget to ask is where were MB's and Louis XI's spies? I don't believe they weren't amongst the dozens and, if they were, that would lend more weight to the theory that H7 really didn't know what happened to the princes.

On Wednesday, 9 October 2013, 10:59, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Hilary,
I would take issue with part of what you said -
"Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs,"

I think that the logic here should be you-name-it AND Wormwood Scrubs. The original statement makes it appear that the Tower is everything but a prison. In reality the Tower was like a small town and had all you mention and also had very secure areas where people could be safe from people outside the Tower and from the people inside.

Most medieval castles will have been like that. For example, the Tour dx27;Elven in the Chateau de Largoët was a tall structure where Henry Tudor was kept in Brittany on the 6th or 7th floor - its secure area.

For any readers outside the UK, Wormwood Scrubs is a famous London prison.

The assumption that the Tower is a single entity can lead to a great many logical errors - for example, that anyone who had access to the tower would necessarily have access to someone imprisoned there, and could do away with them or that someone being in the Towerx27;s prison area must be seen by other people.

Kind regards
David

------------------------------
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 16:53 BST Hilary Jones wrote:

>Ix27;m not turning either. As you say the HT thing doesnx27;t fit.
>
>What I canx27;t understand is that, given the Tower was a palace, store, menagerie, you name it i.e. not Wormwood Scrubs, there must have been dozens of people going to and fro from there each day, let alone those employed on x27;householdx27; duties. They must have known if/when meals, clothes, bedmaking etc was not required for the two kids. But where is the gossip who sold it to the HT paparazzi afterwards? After all, he/she might have expected a grateful tenner. But ..... if staff did know that the kids were gone (and I donx27;t mean dead) and were sworn to silence, then itx27;s a different story isnx27;t it? After all, who wants the thumbscrews put on by an anxious Morton or Reggie?
>In some ways it reminds me of when Charles II escaped after Worcester with a huge price on his head. He passed through I think they say 2000 folks and not one betrayed him. In fact we wouldnx27;t have know if he hadnx27;t told us himself. Where is the real London gossip - and I donx27;t mean chroniclersx27; x27;rumourx27;. I mean Jack/Tom/Bob talking over a mazer in the Boarx27;s Head in 1604 about what Great Aunt Mildred saw when she was a cook at the Tower in 1483. Itx27;s such a big story (now and then) that youx27;d have thought there would be some proper oral history, in fact loads of it.
>
>Perhaps itx27;s another non-barking dog? H.
>
>
>
>
>On Tuesday, 8 October 2013, 15:41, EILEEN BATES wrote:
>
>
>Thanks Hilary, Yes Ix27;ve read Jonesx27; Bosworth book...and he makes it, the supposed murder of the nephews, seem something that would have been regarded as a necessary evil and that Richard being a man of his time etc., etc., Of course we do have to take the possibility of Richard taking this step into consideration and weigh the likelihood of it up. I have many times and still conclude that it simply does not tie in with stuff we do know about Richard and indeed HT seemed pretty much in the dark as to their fate. But Jones has made some good points and I can see where he is coming from...however...nice try but Ix27;m still not for turning...Eileen
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> Sorry Eileen Ix27;d gone to cook the tea!
>> No he doesnx27;t change. He believes that the events surrounding the attempted rescue from the Tower forced Richardx27;s handÂ but that he was probably egged on by Buckingham.
>> What I am beginning to notice since the discovery though is that more writers, evenÂ if they believeÂ Richard did dispose of the princes, attempt to explain his actions as in keeping with what a monarch would have done in the circumstances ie that they are no worse than Bolingbrokex27;s treatment of Richard II or Edward IVx27;s treatment of Henry VI. This is in itself quite a shift. At a quick glance, Jones attributes part of Richardx27;s actions in accepting the throne to his religious beliefs and his suspicions around the Woodvillesx27; x27;witchcraftx27; but I have x27;dippedx27; here. It wants reading as a whole. H.Â Â Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EILEEN BATES
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 17:23
>> Subject: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
>>
>> Â
>>
>> I do like Michael Jones...even though he believes Richard guilty of the nephew thingy. But are you saying Hilary, that in this new book Jones is changing tack here with the psychoanalysis bit? Eileen
>> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> >
>> > So far - and it is so far - the Michael Jones bits are quite good, though he does seem to believe (not unreasonably) that the scoliosis could have been taking its toll on Richardx27;s health by the time of BosworthÃÂ - internally rather than externally Ix27;d hasten to add. He also includes the psychoanalysis which says that Richard was more likely to have hidden his nephews rather than killed them. Itx27;sÃÂ a strange book because if you dip into it after the diary bits itx27;s hard to know whox27;s saying what. Though Jones was ever a good writer and the styles tend to clash a bit.ÃÂ So I like Michaelx27;s writings (ever did) but I think the most damaging bit is the admission of the deal done with Leicester. That may come back to bite - hard.
>> > ÃÂ
>> > Donx27;t know our Nigel though. And am no relation to either :)ÃÂ
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 15:01
>> > Subject: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
>> >
>> > ÃÂ
>> > Ix27;ve also received The Kings Grave.
>> >
>> > Firstly I cannot begin to read it yet as Ix27;m midway through Murder in the Tower which I am enjoying but would love to meet the author as I have a couple of questions...
>> >
>> > BUT.....
>> >
>> > I read Nigel Jones review in the Sunday Express...
>> >
>> > Yes the very same Nigel Jones whose book the Tower...An Epic History of the Tower is the only book I have ever returned to Amazon. Jones states in that book that Richard definitely murdered his nephews because the bones in the urn are deFinitely their bones. He has reached this conclusion because one of the jaw bones, as we know, is very diseased and that Edward V had a disease of the jaw. In actual fact all that is on record is that Dr Argentine who was among the last of Edwardx27;s attendants to attend him only said that he was depressed...x27;like a victim prepared for sacrifice sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance because he believed that death was facing himx27;...no mention of a painful jaw. If Jones can be wrong about something as basic as this can anything he has to say be trusted?
>> >
>> > Returning to his review x27;Twisted truth of the not so lovely bonesx27; he writes the quest for Richardx27;s remains were based on an intuitive hunch of Ms Langleyx27;s . The x27;lopsidedx27; part of the book is her x27;misguided plea that Englandx27;s last Plantagenet King was merely misunderstood and not the murderous monster of Shakespeare and most SERIOUS historians have made him out to be". "Bizarrely Michael Jones, one such historian, co-wrote to book and he does his reputation no favours by appearing under the same covers as PL with her cranky hero worship of the child-killing King".
>> >
>> > He described the book as unbalanced, half sober history the other half sentimental, special pleading codswolllop and that the Richard lll society has made a x27;strange cultx27; of the King. Jones he says insisted on including in an Appendix that the evidence points clearly to Richard being responsible for the murder of the princes and x27;tactfully he omits to mention the Kingx27;s other sins as he wades through blood to his usurped thronex27;.
>> >
>> > Last but not least "his spine twisted by the bone disease scoliosis, Richard in life was essential as the bard portrayed him on stage".
>> >
>> > I do say I find it a strange decision that Michael Jones was the co-author as although he clearly admires Richard...Bosworth, Psychology of a Battle....it is clear that he considers Richard was guilty of the murder of his nephews. Ix27;m not sure if this is the kind of ending to The Kings Grave that some would have wished.
>> >
>> > Eileen
>> >
>> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Am just about to start The Kingx27;s Grave, which was delivered Saturday. But going from memory only as I donx27;t have the time to look for it at this moment, the statement put out by Wendy and David Johnson catalogued in detail the points and referred to this. Philippa was the client, which gave her the responsibility/power to enter into the arrangement with LCC and the UoL. I think it was part of LCCx27;s conditions for allowing the dig that any remains would be interred in Leicester Cathedral. In order for the dig to take place at all Philippa was left with a fait accompli. In addition, the UoL have reneged on their part of the agreement as they do not consider it binding.
>> > > Elaine
>> > >
>> > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Donx27;t worry Eileen. Ix27;m just about to start another controversy.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > Ix27;m reading the Jones and Langley book x27;The Kingx27;s Gravex27; which came on Thursday.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > In it Philippa (page 16) says that Leicester CityÃ’â¬aÃÂ Council said they would give her permission to dig in its carpark on the understanding that x27;if found, King Richard IIIÃ’â¬aÃÂ would be re-buried in the nearest consecrated ground, Leicester Cathedralx27;.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > Now I find this more than worrying. I admire Philippa greatly for her perseverenceÃ’â¬aÃÂ but should she honestly have been signing up to something likeÃ’â¬aÃÂ this without wider consultation and legal advice? And should LCC and Leicester Cathedral (sheÃ’â¬aÃÂ had talks with the Dean, commissioned a tomb etc) not also have sought proper legal advice given the very unusual circumstances, without jumping straight on the bandwagon? This was the re-burial of a King, however remote it seemed at the time. And the Society knew of this deal also because they helped to fund it all. Was one woman, however admirable she might be, (and tacitly by implication the Society) really going to have the power to decide all this, even his coffin and the design for his tomb? I donx27;t doubt her enthusiasm and congratulate her on the discovery, but I find it disturbing that so many condoned and did not question this
> deal.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Very disturbing.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Of course it
>> suited some like LCC not to
>> > question it.
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ H.Ã’â¬aÃÂ Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ________________________________
>> > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > To:
>> > > > Sent: Monday, 7 October 2013, 11:27
>> > > > Subject: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > >
>> > > > If that is the case I apologise...but coming immediately after the message I posted about Hicks I took it to be aimed at that particular post....
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think Marion was referring to JA-H, not Michael Hicks. Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ JA-H was at the Leicester Conference.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > Come to think of it..what was Hicks doing at the conference, attendance of which clearly give one the entitlement to be as abrasive and judgemental as one likes towards other forum members postings...as he clearly hates Richard. He labels Richard as nothing less than a peadophile in his Anne Neville book and has not a single good word to say about him in his False Fleeting Perjured Clarence book either. I find it rather puzzling...Eileen
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Oh for heavens sake! ...itx27;s hardly a x27;sweeping statementx27; and Ix27;m angry that you should describe it as such and I would appreciate it Marion if you did not resort to exaggeration to score a point just because you did not like something I have posted thank you very much. I gained this impression wrongly or rightly after reading Hicksx27; Anne Neville book. I also made my remark in a lighthearted way.....honestly you can hardly say anything sometimes on here without someone seeking to chastise you as if you were five years old or something. No wonder so few people post on here lately.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If youx27;ve met Hicks and liked him well good for you. I have not met him so I can only go by what he has written....which in the Anne Neville book was some very unpleasant stuff indeed. He has also written erroneously about the pre-contract so I think you should expect a small amount of negativity towards him on here without the need to go jumping on your high horse. Eileen Bates
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --- In , marion cheatham wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Having meet him at the conference, I would say he is a lovely polite and helpful person.Ã’Æx27;Ã x27;Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ After reading some of his books which are excellent I found him a very grounded individual, I do wish sweeping statements were not made about people.Ã’Æx27;Ã x27;Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > > > I for one cannot wait for his next book.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > > > From: EILEEN BATES
>> > > > > > > To:
>> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2013, 21:54
>> > > > > > > Subject: Re: J A-Hx27;s new book
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Ã’Æx27;Ã x27;Ã’Â¢Ã¢â¬aÂ¬Ã&Â¡Ã’Æx27;Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Oh and the only hostile review suggests that JA-H "has problems with women".
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Oh I thought it was Prof Hicks who was the one who x27;has problems with womenx27; .
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Eileen
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67@
>> > > > > > > > To:
>> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 5:05 PM
>> > > > > > > > Subject: J A-Hx27;s new book
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I gather from what I read on the other (American) forum that J A-H bases his premise that Edmund Tudorx27;s father may have been Edmund Beaufort rather than Owen Tudor on the similarity of their badges, which (no disrespect to J A-H intended) seems to me rather a frail premise. Has anyone here read the book? If so, could you clarify his argument and tell me whether you consider it convincing (with reasons why or why not)?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > > > Carol
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
clear="none">>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-17 13:44:53

pansydobersby

Hilary:

"Another good example of house arrest is surely Margaret of Anjou, who was passed into the custody of Alice Chaucer, Dowager Duchess of Suffolk. She stayed there for years until ransomed by Louis. H."

I've often wondered what exactly Margaret was up to during those last years of her life. I know the traditional view is that she was a broken woman with nothing left to live for, but I don't swallow that description so easily. No doubt her own life was utterly broken, but vengeance is a powerful motivator when there's nothing else left.

Pansy

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-17 14:33:30

Hilary Jones

Now there's a thought! Do we know what she thought of HT and his following? There seems to be so much of this still left unexplored. H.

On Thursday, 17 October 2013, 13:44, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary:"Another good example of house arrest is surely Margaret of Anjou, who was passed into the custody of Alice Chaucer, Dowager Duchess of Suffolk. She stayed there for years until ransomed by Louis. H."
I've often wondered what exactly Margaret was up to during those last years of her life. I know the traditional view is that she was a broken woman with nothing left to live for, but I don't swallow that description so easily. No doubt her own life was utterly broken, but vengeance is a powerful motivator when there's nothing else left.
Pansy

Re: J A-H's new book

2013-10-17 17:57:23

pansydobersby

Hilary writes:

"Now there's a thought! Do we know what she thought of HT and his following? There seems to be so much of this still left unexplored. H."

I don't think we know... But I do find it intriguing that at the end of her life, Margaret seems to have been close enough to none other than Commynes' mother-in-law to give her those famous dogs of hers (to be taken care of? to keep? who knows):

http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/margaret-of-anjous-last-days-her-dogs-and-her-burial/

Pansy

Richard III on Amazon

As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.