Re : Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: [Richard III Socie

Jessie,
I can not comment on the use of the term unnatural - whether or not it had any specific meaning at the time.

However, one thing I am certain of is that at the time of the writing of the letter Henry, the 500 or so English exiles in France with him and the courts of France and Brittany genuinely believed that Richard was responsible for the disappearance of his nephews - whatever the truth of the matter may be.

You need to know that at the time the rumours began, Henry was in Brittany and had not been in England since 1471. It would be a very difficult place from which to start a rumour concerning events in London. All the sources have the rumours travelling in the other direction. Taking into acount the time it would have taken to get a rumour sent from Brittany in the late 15th century, it could have been very embarrassing if the boys had been seen happily playing as the message reached London.

You need also to bear in mind Henry's companions in exile. These 500 members of the southern gentry and nobility were not die-hard Lancastrians, but on the whole people who thought the wars of the roses had ended in 1471 and contained many of Edward IV's household. They would have been very faithful to Edward V - indeed it is often put forward on this forum that their uprising of 1483 was in favour of Edward V. But by at the latest November 1483 they believed Edward V and his brother to be dead and pledged alliegance to Henry, even though they had probably never met him.

Any doubt in the minds of Henry's exiles that the fate of the princes was a rumour or that Henry had had a part in their fate or in starting the rumours would have been very destructive to the group. So I believe that there is very little chance that the accusation in the letter is a pretence.

As some members of the forum have pointed out, Henry's actions after Bosworth indicate that he himself was unsure about what had happened to the boys - but at the time of writing the letter he believed what he was saying to be true.

Kind regards
David









From:

Jessie Skinner ;


To:

@yahoogroups com ; [email protected] ;


Subject:

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


Sent:

Thu, Oct 10, 2013 4:57:26 PM





 









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 ;


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: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@... ;


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





 









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 ; 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 ; 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@... ; 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 , 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@... ; 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@... ; 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

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Weds wrote:

"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? "

Tamara responds:

So "Morton's Fork" Morton not only did shakedowns for money, he also did politically-motivated excommunications and damnings?

Which is scarier to the average highly-religious landed gentry of the time -- excommunication/damning for all time from Henry's right-hand man Morton, or a sternly-worded letter from Richard?

And as Marie has already pointed out, Henry had no business attainting Margaret's dad in the first place.

Then again, Henry not backdated his reign so he could "legally" execute Richard's men on "treason" charges, he would be the one to turn the Star Chamber into a synonym for truly tyrannical (in the modern sense) judicial abuses.

Tamara

---In , <> wrote:

Jessie,
I can not comment on the use of the term unnatural - whether or not it had any specific meaning at the time.

However, one thing I am certain of is that at the time of the writing of the letter Henry, the 500 or so English exiles in France with him and the courts of France and Brittany genuinely believed that Richard was responsible for the disappearance of his nephews - whatever the truth of the matter may be.

You need to know that at the time the rumours began, Henry was in Brittany and had not been in England since 1471. It would be a very difficult place from which to start a rumour concerning events in London. All the sources have the rumours travelling in the other direction. Taking into acount the time it would have taken to get a rumour sent from Brittany in the late 15th century, it could have been very embarrassing if the boys had been seen happily playing as the message reached London.

You need also to bear in mind Henry's companions in exile. These 500 members of the southern gentry and nobility were not die-hard Lancastrians, but on the whole people who thought the wars of the roses had ended in 1471 and contained many of Edward IV's household. They would have been very faithful to Edward V - indeed it is often put forward on this forum that their uprising of 1483 was in favour of Edward V. But by at the latest November 1483 they believed Edward V and his brother to be dead and pledged alliegance to Henry, even though they had probably never met him.

Any doubt in the minds of Henry's exiles that the fate of the princes was a rumour or that Henry had had a part in their fate or in starting the rumours would have been very destructive to the group. So I believe that there is very little chance that the accusation in the letter is a pretence.

As some members of the forum have pointed out, Henry's actions after Bosworth indicate that he himself was unsure about what had happened to the boys - but at the time of writing the letter he believed what he was saying to be true.

Kind regards
David









From:

Jessie Skinner ;


To:

@yahoogroups com ; [email protected] ;


Subject:

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


Sent:

Thu, Oct 10, 2013 4:57:26 PM















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 ;


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: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@... ;


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















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 ; 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 ; 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@... ; 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 , 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@... ; 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@... ; 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

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

David D. wrote:

" <snip> However, one thing I am certain of is that at the time of the writing of the letter Henry, the 500 or so English exiles in France with him and the courts of France and Brittany genuinely believed that Richard was responsible for the disappearance of his nephews - whatever the truth of the matter may be.

You need to know that at the time the rumours began, Henry was in Brittany and had not been in England since 1471. It would be a very difficult place from which to start a rumour concerning events in London. All the sources have the rumours travelling in the other direction. Taking into acount the time it would have taken to get a rumour sent from Brittany in the late 15th century, it could have been very embarrassing if the boys had been seen happily playing as the message reached London. <snip>

Carol responds:

Granted, Henry and his companions, some of them Woodville supporters who certainly would have supported the restoration of Edward V before hearing tthose rumors, were in no position to start the rumors, and, certainly, Edward Woodville, et al., would have had no *reason* to do so. But certain people remaining in England, among them Morton, Buckingham, and Margaret Beaufort, had both the opportunity and the motive--which, as the Croyland Chronicler makes clear, was to divert the rebellion from an effort to restore the "Princes" to an effort to make Tudor king if he married Elizabeth of York.

But until the rumor was spread, Edward Woodville et al. must have viewed Tudor as an ally, to be rewarded with the restoration of his title as Earl of Richmond and marriage to Elizabeth (restored to her title as princess). They certainly would not have supported the pseudo-Lancastrian Tudor had they viewed him as a rival claimant to Edward V. In other words, to support Tudor, they had to believe that the "Princes" were dead. Until the rumor reached them, they would have supported the restoration of Edward V. Their only common goal was the deposition and death of the "usurper," Richard III.

It's important to view events as they happened, from the perspective of participants at the time, who did not know the future, not to view them in hindsight as Vergil does.

Carol

Thank you, David, that all makes sense to me.It is often said that Henry VII never said anything about the missing princes, and although he cannot have been working on any other basis but rumour here, this seems to me to disprove that theory,

On Friday, 11 October 2013, 11:37, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Jessie,
I can not comment on the use of the term unnatural - whether or not it had any specific meaning at the time.

However, one thing I am certain of is that at the time of the writing of the letter Henry, the 500 or so English exiles in France with him and the courts of France and Brittany genuinely believed that Richard was responsible for the disappearance of his nephews - whatever the truth of the matter may be.

You need to know that at the time the rumours began, Henry was in Brittany and had not been in England since 1471. It would be a very difficult place from which to start a rumour concerning events in London. All the sources have the rumours travelling in the other direction. Taking into acount the time it would have taken to get a rumour sent from Brittany in the late 15th century, it could have been very embarrassing if the boys had been seen happily playing as the message reached London.

You need also to bear in mind Henryx27;s companions in exile. These 500 members of the southern gentry and nobility were not die-hard Lancastrians, but on the whole people who thought the wars of the roses had ended in 1471 and contained many of Edward IVx27;s household. They would have been very faithful to Edward V - indeed it is often put forward on this forum that their uprising of 1483 was in favour of Edward V. But by at the latest November 1483 they believed Edward V and his brother to be dead and pledged alliegance to Henry, even though they had probably never met him.

Any doubt in the minds of Henryx27;s exiles that the fate of the princes was a rumour or that Henry had had a part in their fate or in starting the rumours would have been very destructive to the group. So I believe that there is very little chance that the accusation in the letter is a pretence.

As some members of the forum have pointed out, Henryx27;s actions after Bosworth indicate that he himself was unsure about what had happened to the boys - but at the time of writing the letter he believed what he was saying to be true.

Kind regards
David









From:

Jessie Skinner ;


To:

@yahoogroups com ; [email protected] ;


Subject:

Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-Hx27;s new book


Sent:

Thu, Oct 10, 2013 4:57:26 PM















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 ;


To:

;


Subject:

RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-Hx27;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:Henry was fond of calling Richard a tyrant but never backed this up with evidence. Itx27;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 wasnx27;t) but he accused Richard of attaining the throne by means of a heinous lie (ie that Edward IVx27;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 Richardx27;s enemies he was a usurper and therefore a tyrant, merely x27;the duke of Gloucesterx27; 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 Richardx27;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@... ;


To:

;


Subject:

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-Hx27;s new book


Sent:

Thu, Oct 10, 2013 2:16:42 AM















Tamara wrote:

"Carol has mentioned
seeing it stated in books besides Skidmorex27;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 Henryx27;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 canx27;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 x27;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 Ix27;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 husbandx27;s attainder to be reversed said he had been "so manashed" by Richardx27;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-Hx27;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 hadnx27;t got to Janx27;s reply at that point, but wex27;re saying the same thing. Incidentally Gill also makes a negative remark about the tone of Richardx27;s letters in her book on Buckinghamx27;s Rebellion, although said letters were completely standard. I doubt Richard even drafted them. Hex27;d just have instructed his clerks: writ letters to So-and-son and So-and-so about such-and such, and theyx27;d have got out the relevant crib shee and got on with it.

> Marie

>

>

>---In , wrote:

>

> Hi,

> Personally I donx27;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 Skidmorex27;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 Richardx27;s time at Bestwood. J A-H paints a picture of a relaxed Richard enjoying a little hunting before having to deal with Henryx27;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 Richardx27;s increasing desperation. My copy of J A-Hx27;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 ; To: ; Subject: Re: Re: RE: J A-Hx27;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 parentsx27; marriage year.

> Many of those I have seen show Edmund as marrying after, or very slightly before, Catherinex27;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 doesnx27;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-Hx27;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 ; To: ; Subject: Re: RE: J A-Hx27;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 Catherinex27;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-Hx27;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@... ; To: ; Subject: RE: J A-Hx27;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 CoVx27;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 Tudorx27;s getting his 12-year-old bride Margaret Beaufort impregnated with the future Henry Tudor. I donx27;t
question that ET was HTx27;s father; Ix27;m just noting how quickly things went from marriage to pregnancy to husbandx27;s capture and death, and how little time ET might have actually had to beget his heir -- especially if MBx27;s menarche didnx27;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. Herex27;s the best Ix27;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 Edmundx27;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 donx27;t think it could have been later than mid-May. Tamara

> ---In , wrote: ÿ Yet they werenx27;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-Hx27;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@... ; To: ; Subject: RE: Re : J A-Hx27;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 coulldnx27;t think of the right one). No one has ever mentioned Jasper Tudor as being next in line after Henry (assuming Henryx27;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 hex27;s on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I havenx27;t had my morning coffee yet and canx27;t think of the right word. Ix27;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-AHx27;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
Englandx27;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 Catherinex27;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@... ; To: ; Subject: J A-Hx27;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 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

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

I think that Marie has clarified the meaning of the word "unnatural" to my satisfaction, as regarding the murder of a family member etc. I wasn't ever suggesting that it meant homosexual in Richard's case, but rather being a reference to his disability.I have done some researches into gay history, not because I am gay, I am a very "straight," long married, grandmother, but because the way people who are "different" are oppressed by society interests me.Therefore, I do know that "unnatural" could be used in the past as a term to describe a homosexual, but not as early as the Wars of the Roses when sexual mores were very different.That is why I wondered if perhaps Richard's "difference" i.e, his scoliosis was enough to invite the appellation.Anyway, it seems that there is a perfectly rational explanation, and we are brought once again, full circle, to the Princes in the Tower! Apologies for the differences in font, I have been thoroughly Yahoo....d today. First locked out, and then with font issues!

On Friday, 11 October 2013, 18:45, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
Thank you, David, that all makes sense to me.It is often said that Henry VII never said anything about the missing princes, and although he cannot have been working on any other basis but rumour here, this seems to me to disprove that theory,

On Friday, 11 October 2013, 11:37, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Jessie,
I can not comment on the use of the term unnatural - whether or not it had any specific meaning at the time.

However, one thing I am certain of is that at the time of the writing of the letter Henry, the 500 or so English exiles in France with him and the courts of France and Brittany genuinely believed that Richard was responsible for the disappearance of his nephews - whatever the truth of the matter may be.

You need to know that at the time the rumours began, Henry was in Brittany and had not been in England since 1471. It would be a very difficult place from which to start a rumour concerning events in London. All the sources have the rumours travelling in the other direction. Taking into acount the time it would have taken to get a rumour sent from Brittany in the late 15th century, it could have been very embarrassing if the boys had been seen happily playing as the message reached London.

You need also to bear in mind Henryx27;s companions in exile. These 500 members of the southern gentry and nobility were not die-hard Lancastrians, but on the whole people who thought the wars of the roses had ended in 1471 and contained many of Edward IVx27;s household. They would have been very faithful to Edward V - indeed it is often put forward on this forum that their uprising of 1483 was in favour of Edward V. But by at the latest November 1483 they believed Edward V and his brother to be dead and pledged alliegance to Henry, even though they had probably never met him.

Any doubt in the minds of Henryx27;s exiles that the fate of the princes was a rumour or that Henry had had a part in their fate or in starting the rumours would have been very destructive to the group. So I believe that there is very little chance that the accusation in the letter is a pretence.

As some members of the forum have pointed out, Henryx27;s actions after Bosworth indicate that he himself was unsure about what had happened to the boys - but at the time of writing the letter he believed what he was saying to be true.

Kind regards
David









From:

Jessie Skinner ;


To:

@yahoogroups com ; [email protected] ;


Subject:

Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-Hx27;s new book


Sent:

Thu, Oct 10, 2013 4:57:26 PM















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 ;


To:

;


Subject:

RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-Hx27;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:Henry was fond of calling Richard a tyrant but never backed this up with evidence. Itx27;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 wasnx27;t) but he accused Richard of attaining the throne by means of a heinous lie (ie that Edward IVx27;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 Richardx27;s enemies he was a usurper and therefore a tyrant, merely x27;the duke of Gloucesterx27; 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 Richardx27;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@... ;


To:

;


Subject:

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re : Re: Re: RE: J A-Hx27;s new book


Sent:

Thu, Oct 10, 2013 2:16:42 AM















Tamara wrote:

"Carol has mentioned
seeing it stated in books besides Skidmorex27;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 Henryx27;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 canx27;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 x27;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 Ix27;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 husbandx27;s attainder to be reversed said he had been "so manashed" by Richardx27;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-Hx27;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 hadnx27;t got to Janx27;s reply at that point, but wex27;re saying the same thing. Incidentally Gill also makes a negative remark about the tone of Richardx27;s letters in her book on Buckinghamx27;s Rebellion, although said letters were completely standard. I doubt Richard even drafted them. Hex27;d just have instructed his clerks: writ letters to So-and-son and So-and-so about such-and such, and theyx27;d have got out the relevant crib shee and got on with it.

> Marie

>

>

>---In , wrote:

>

> Hi,

> Personally I donx27;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 Skidmorex27;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 Richardx27;s time at Bestwood. J A-H paints a picture of a relaxed Richard enjoying a little hunting before having to deal with Henryx27;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 Richardx27;s increasing desperation. My copy of J A-Hx27;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 ; To: ; Subject: Re: Re: RE: J A-Hx27;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 parentsx27; marriage year.

> Many of those I have seen show Edmund as marrying after, or very slightly before, Catherinex27;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 doesnx27;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-Hx27;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 ; To: ; Subject: Re: RE: J A-Hx27;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 Catherinex27;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-Hx27;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@... ; To: ; Subject: RE: J A-Hx27;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 CoVx27;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 Tudorx27;s getting his 12-year-old bride Margaret Beaufort impregnated with the future Henry Tudor. I donx27;t
question that ET was HTx27;s father; Ix27;m just noting how quickly things went from marriage to pregnancy to husbandx27;s capture and death, and how little time ET might have actually had to beget his heir -- especially if MBx27;s menarche didnx27;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. Herex27;s the best Ix27;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 Edmundx27;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 donx27;t think it could have been later than mid-May. Tamara

> ---In , wrote: ÿ Yet they werenx27;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-Hx27;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@... ; To: ; Subject: RE: Re : J A-Hx27;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 coulldnx27;t think of the right one). No one has ever mentioned Jasper Tudor as being next in line after Henry (assuming Henryx27;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 hex27;s on shaky ground here. The other evidence that Stephen presented as coming from his book seems weak as well. Coincidental? I havenx27;t had my morning coffee yet and canx27;t think of the right word. Ix27;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-AHx27;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
Englandx27;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 Catherinex27;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@... ; To: ; Subject: J A-Hx27;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 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

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Carol addressed this here: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups//conversations/messages/41249 I was trying to cut and paste some of it but I'm typing this on my Android-OS phone. Tamara (who hates hates hates what Yahoo has done to what used to be a perfectly good comments system-