Proclamation from Henry VII

Can't find a commission of array, but this proclamation dealing with the "traitors" still loyal to Richard (or still hostile to Henry since Richard was dead) as of July 20, 1586, should illustrate that there was nothing unusual, desperate, or notably severe in Richard's Bestwood letters:"Where
Thomas Broughton, knyght, John Hodylston, knyght, William a Thorneburghe,
William Ambrose, and other of ther coadherentes, for their grete rebellyons and
grevos oflfensez lately by theyme doone and commytted ayenst the most royalle
persone of oure soveraigne lord Henry the VIIth, by the grace of God, kyng of
Englond and of Fraunce, and lord of Irland, kepe theyme in hedylle and secret
places, and over that have dysobeyed dyvers and many his lettres and pryve seales,
to his gret displeasure and disobeisaunz, and to .us6, the gret trouble and
vexacioun of his true liegemen and subjectes; oure soveraigne lord, willyng the
good rule, tranquyllite, and restfulnesse of this hia realme and of his subjectes
of the same, straitly chargythe and commaundythe the seid Thomas, John,
William, and William, and their said coadherentez, that they and everyche of
them, except Geffrey Frank, Edward Frank, John Ward, Thomas Oter, and Richard
Middylton, otherwyse called Dyk Middylton, personelly appere before his
highenesse, whersoever he be, withyn xl. dayes next after this proclamacioun.
And yf the seid Thomas Broughton, John Hodylston, Willyam, and Willyam, and
theyre seid coad- herentes, or any of theyme, except before except, absent them
self, and of their obstinacye wille not appere and come to oure seid soveraigne
lord as his true and obeyssaunt subjectes, that they and every of theyme so
absentyng theymeself be had, taken, and reputed as his grete rebellez,
ennemyes, and traitours, and so forfeyt their lyvys, landez, and goodes, at the
pleasure of the same oure soveraigne lord."Sorry about the formatting (though the double-spacing may actually make it easier to read. The source is "Materials for a Reign of Henry VII," available as an ebook online. Anyone know if there's a similar source for Richard (with modern punctuation, ideally?) If not, there should be.Carol, who copied the text single-spaced and blames both Word and Yahoo for the glitch

Surely what's also important is that this was not just Richard's demand for help to deal with traitors; he was facing the threat of foreign invasion albeit led by 'puppet' Tudor. I think it ironic that HT's chapel in Westminster Abbey is also home to the Battle of Britain window. Richard in August 1485 was facing a similar threat. H. On Saturday, 12 October 2013, 3:53, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Can't find a commission of array, but this proclamation dealing with the "traitors" still loyal to Richard (or still hostile to Henry since Richard was dead) as of July 20, 1586, should illustrate that there was nothing unusual, desperate, or notably severe in Richard's Bestwood letters:"Where
Thomas Broughton, knyght, John Hodylston, knyght, William a Thorneburghe,
William Ambrose, and other of ther coadherentes, for their grete rebellyons and
grevos oflfensez lately by theyme doone and commytted ayenst the most royalle
persone of oure soveraigne lord Henry the VIIth, by the grace of God, kyng of
Englond and of Fraunce, and lord of Irland, kepe theyme in hedylle and secret
places, and over that have dysobeyed dyvers and many his lettres and pryve seales,
to his gret displeasure and disobeisaunz, and to .us6, the gret trouble and
vexacioun of his true liegemen and subjectes; oure soveraigne lord, willyng the
good rule, tranquyllite, and restfulnesse of this hia realme and of his subjectes
of the same, straitly chargythe and commaundythe the seid Thomas, John,
William, and William, and their said coadherentez, that they and everyche of
them, except Geffrey Frank, Edward Frank, John Ward, Thomas Oter, and Richard
Middylton, otherwyse called Dyk Middylton, personelly appere before his
highenesse, whersoever he be, withyn xl. dayes next after this proclamacioun.
And yf the seid Thomas Broughton, John Hodylston, Willyam, and Willyam, and
theyre seid coad- herentes, or any of theyme, except before except, absent them
self, and of their obstinacye wille not appere and come to oure seid soveraigne
lord as his true and obeyssaunt subjectes, that they and every of theyme so
absentyng theymeself be had, taken, and reputed as his grete rebellez,
ennemyes, and traitours, and so forfeyt their lyvys, landez, and goodes, at the
pleasure of the same oure soveraigne lord."Sorry about the formatting (though the double-spacing may actually make it easier to read. The source is "Materials for a Reign of Henry VII," available as an ebook online. Anyone know if there's a similar source for Richard (with modern punctuation, ideally?) If not, there should be.Carol, who copied the text single-spaced and blames both Word and Yahoo for the glitch

For whatever it's worth, I received it single-spaced. "kepe theyme in hedylle and secret
places"I'm okay with the rest, but what is "hedylle" please?Sheffe On Saturday, October 12, 2013 3:52 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Surely what's also important is that this was not just Richard's demand for help to deal with traitors; he was facing the threat of foreign invasion albeit led by 'puppet' Tudor. I think it ironic that HT's chapel in Westminster Abbey is also home to the Battle of Britain window. Richard in August 1485 was facing a similar threat. H. On
Saturday, 12 October 2013, 3:53, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Can't find a commission of array, but this proclamation dealing with the "traitors" still loyal to Richard (or still hostile to Henry since Richard was dead) as of July 20, 1586, should illustrate that there was nothing unusual, desperate, or notably severe in Richard's Bestwood letters:"Where
Thomas Broughton, knyght, John Hodylston, knyght, William a Thorneburghe,
William Ambrose, and other of ther coadherentes, for their grete rebellyons and
grevos oflfensez lately by theyme doone and commytted ayenst the most royalle
persone of oure soveraigne lord Henry the VIIth, by the grace of God, kyng of
Englond and of Fraunce, and lord of Irland, kepe theyme in hedylle and secret
places, and over that have dysobeyed dyvers and many his lettres and pryve seales,
to his gret displeasure and disobeisaunz, and to .us6, the gret trouble and
vexacioun of his true liegemen and subjectes; oure soveraigne lord, willyng the
good rule, tranquyllite, and restfulnesse of this hia realme and of his subjectes
of the same, straitly chargythe and commaundythe the seid Thomas, John,
William, and William, and their said coadherentez, that they and everyche of
them, except Geffrey Frank, Edward Frank, John Ward, Thomas Oter, and Richard
Middylton, otherwyse called Dyk Middylton, personelly appere before his
highenesse, whersoever he be, withyn xl. dayes next after this proclamacioun.
And yf the seid Thomas Broughton, John Hodylston, Willyam, and Willyam, and
theyre seid coad- herentes, or any of theyme, except before except, absent them
self, and of their obstinacye wille not appere and come to oure seid soveraigne
lord as his true and obeyssaunt subjectes, that they and every of theyme so
absentyng theymeself be had, taken, and reputed as his grete rebellez,
ennemyes, and traitours, and so forfeyt their lyvys, landez, and goodes, at the
pleasure of the same oure soveraigne lord."Sorry about the formatting (though the double-spacing may actually make it easier to read. The source is "Materials for a Reign of Henry VII," available as an ebook online. Anyone know if there's a similar source for Richard (with modern punctuation, ideally?) If not, there should be.Carol, who copied the text single-spaced and blames both Word and Yahoo for the glitch

That proclamation looks very like some of the dissertations I have had to proof read from my dyslexic students!
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
Sheffe <shethra77@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent:
Sun, Oct 13, 2013 5:46:38 AM

 
For whatever it's worth, I received it single-spaced.  "kepe theyme in hedylle and secret
places"I'm okay with the rest, but what is "hedylle" please?Sheffe On Saturday, October 12, 2013 3:52 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
 
Surely what's also important is that this was not just Richard's demand for help to deal with traitors; he was facing the threat of foreign invasion albeit led by 'puppet' Tudor. I think it ironic that HT's chapel in Westminster Abbey is also home to the Battle of Britain window. Richard in August 1485 was facing a similar threat. H. On
Saturday, 12 October 2013, 3:53, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
 
Can't find a commission of array, but this proclamation dealing with the "traitors" still loyal to Richard (or still hostile to Henry since Richard was dead) as of July 20, 1586, should illustrate that there was nothing unusual, desperate, or notably severe in Richard's Bestwood letters:"Where
Thomas Broughton, knyght, John Hodylston, knyght, William a Thorneburghe,
William Ambrose, and other of ther coadherentes, for their grete rebellyons and
grevos oflfensez lately by theyme doone and commytted ayenst the most royalle
persone of oure soveraigne lord Henry the VIIth, by the grace of God, kyng of
Englond and of Fraunce, and lord of Irland, kepe theyme in hedylle and secret
places, and over that have dysobeyed dyvers and many his lettres and pryve seales,
to his gret displeasure and disobeisaunz, and to .us6, the gret trouble and
vexacioun of his true liegemen and subjectes; oure soveraigne lord, willyng the
good rule, tranquyllite, and restfulnesse of this hia realme and of his subjectes
of the same, straitly chargythe and commaundythe the seid Thomas, John,
William, and William, and their said coadherentez, that they and everyche of
them, except Geffrey Frank, Edward Frank, John Ward, Thomas Oter, and Richard
Middylton, otherwyse called Dyk Middylton, personelly appere before his
highenesse, whersoever he be, withyn xl. dayes next after this proclamacioun.
And yf the seid Thomas Broughton, John Hodylston, Willyam, and Willyam, and
theyre seid coad- herentes, or any of theyme, except before except, absent them
self, and of their obstinacye wille not appere and come to oure seid soveraigne
lord as his true and obeyssaunt subjectes, that they and every of theyme so
absentyng theymeself be had, taken, and reputed as his grete rebellez,
ennemyes, and traitours, and so forfeyt their lyvys, landez, and goodes, at the
pleasure of the same oure soveraigne lord."Sorry about the formatting (though the double-spacing may actually make it easier to read. The source is "Materials for a Reign of Henry VII," available as an ebook online. Anyone know if there's a similar source for Richard (with modern punctuation, ideally?) If not, there should be.Carol, who copied the text single-spaced and blames both Word and Yahoo for the glitch

From the context, "hidden"?Carol, who is being lazy today and top-posting ---In , <> wrote:For whatever it's worth, I received it single-spaced. "kepe theyme in hedylle and secret
places"I'm okay with the rest, but what is "hedylle" please?Sheffe On Saturday, October 12, 2013 3:52 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Surely what's also important is that this was not just Richard's demand for help to deal with traitors; he was facing the threat of foreign invasion albeit led by 'puppet' Tudor. I think it ironic that HT's chapel in Westminster Abbey is also home to the Battle of Britain window. Richard in August 1485 was facing a similar threat. H. On
Saturday, 12 October 2013, 3:53, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Can't find a commission of array, but this proclamation dealing with the "traitors" still loyal to Richard (or still hostile to Henry since Richard was dead) as of July 20, 1586, should illustrate that there was nothing unusual, desperate, or notably severe in Richard's Bestwood letters:"Where
Thomas Broughton, knyght, John Hodylston, knyght, William a Thorneburghe,
William Ambrose, and other of ther coadherentes, for their grete rebellyons and
grevos oflfensez lately by theyme doone and commytted ayenst the most royalle
persone of oure soveraigne lord Henry the VIIth, by the grace of God, kyng of
Englond and of Fraunce, and lord of Irland, kepe theyme in hedylle and secret
places, and over that have dysobeyed dyvers and many his lettres and pryve seales,
to his gret displeasure and disobeisaunz, and to .us6, the gret trouble and
vexacioun of his true liegemen and subjectes; oure soveraigne lord, willyng the
good rule, tranquyllite, and restfulnesse of this hia realme and of his subjectes
of the same, straitly chargythe and commaundythe the seid Thomas, John,
William, and William, and their said coadherentez, that they and everyche of
them, except Geffrey Frank, Edward Frank, John Ward, Thomas Oter, and Richard
Middylton, otherwyse called Dyk Middylton, personelly appere before his
highenesse, whersoever he be, withyn xl. dayes next after this proclamacioun.
And yf the seid Thomas Broughton, John Hodylston, Willyam, and Willyam, and
theyre seid coad- herentes, or any of theyme, except before except, absent them
self, and of their obstinacye wille not appere and come to oure seid soveraigne
lord as his true and obeyssaunt subjectes, that they and every of theyme so
absentyng theymeself be had, taken, and reputed as his grete rebellez,
ennemyes, and traitours, and so forfeyt their lyvys, landez, and goodes, at the
pleasure of the same oure soveraigne lord."Sorry about the formatting (though the double-spacing may actually make it easier to read. The source is "Materials for a Reign of Henry VII," available as an ebook online. Anyone know if there's a similar source for Richard (with modern punctuation, ideally?) If not, there should be.Carol, who copied the text single-spaced and blames both Word and Yahoo for the glitch

Hello Hilary,
To me it seems quite reasonable to expect a difference in wording between a commission of array - in which the writer is expecting something from the recipient from a proclamation after the event of treason. Some of the people receiving commissions often failed to turn up and had to be warned.

As to the foreign invasion nature of Henry's expedition in 1485, I would agree to a limited extent. There is no doubt that the Bosworth expedition only happened because it suited the French at that moment. In fact, given a very short time the cause that prompted France to support Henry had disappeared - Pierre Landais had been overthrown and Breton / English alliance was no longer in prospect.

As Henry left France his army was approximately 500 English exiles 2000 French and a few Bretons, but by the time of Bosworth the foreign element was in a minority. Also, while the Germans were intent in taking over the country, after Bosworth the French simply went home. A few Bretons stayed on but the people who gained were the Edwardian loyalist of Henry's companions.

Kind regards
David



------------------------------
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 20:52 BST Hilary Jones wrote:

>Surely what's also important is that this was not just Richard's demand for help to deal with traitors; he was facing the threat of foreign invasion albeit led by 'puppet' Tudor. I think it ironic that HT's chapel in Westminster Abbey is also home to the Battle of Britain window. Richard in August 1485 was facing a similar threat. H.
>
>
>
>
>On Saturday, 12 October 2013, 3:53, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> 
>Can't find a commission of array, but this proclamation dealing with the "traitors" still loyal to Richard (or still hostile to Henry since Richard was dead) as of July 20, 1586, should illustrate that there was nothing unusual, desperate, or notably severe in Richard's Bestwood letters:
>
>"Where
>Thomas Broughton, knyght, John Hodylston, knyght, William a Thorneburghe,
>William Ambrose, and other of ther coadherentes, for their grete rebellyons and
>grevos oflfensez lately by theyme doone and commytted ayenst the most royalle
>persone of oure soveraigne lord Henry the VIIth, by the grace of God, kyng of
>Englond and of Fraunce, and lord of Irland, kepe theyme in hedylle and secret
>places, and over that have dysobeyed dyvers and many his lettres and pryve seales,
>to his gret displeasure and disobeisaunz, and to .us6, the gret trouble and
>vexacioun of his true liegemen and subjectes; oure soveraigne lord, willyng the
>good rule, tranquyllite, and restfulnesse of this hia realme and of his subjectes
>of the same, straitly chargythe and commaundythe the seid Thomas, John,
>William, and William, and their said coadherentez, that they and everyche of
>them, except Geffrey Frank, Edward Frank, John Ward, Thomas Oter, and Richard
>Middylton, otherwyse called Dyk Middylton, personelly appere before his
>highenesse, whersoever he be, withyn xl. dayes next after this proclamacioun.
>And yf the seid Thomas Broughton, John Hodylston, Willyam, and Willyam, and
>theyre seid coad- herentes, or any of theyme, except before except, absent them
>self, and of their obstinacye wille not appere and come to oure seid soveraigne
>lord as his true and obeyssaunt subjectes, that they and every of theyme so
>absentyng theymeself be had, taken, and reputed as his grete rebellez,
>ennemyes, and traitours, and so forfeyt their lyvys, landez, and goodes, at the
>pleasure of the same oure soveraigne lord."
>Sorry about the formatting (though the double-spacing may actually make it easier to read. The source is "Materials for a Reign of Henry VII," available as an ebook online. Anyone know if there's a similar source for Richard (with modern punctuation, ideally?) If not, there should be.
>Carol, who copied the text single-spaced and blames both Word and Yahoo for the glitch
>
>
>

David Durose wrote:" <snip> As to the foreign invasion nature of Henry's expedition in 1485, I would agree to a limited extent. There is no doubt that the Bosworth expedition only happened because it suited the French at that moment. In fact, given a very short time the cause that prompted France to support Henry had disappeared - Pierre Landais had been overthrown and Breton / English alliance was no longer in prospect.

As Henry left France his army was approximately 500 English exiles 2000 French and a few Bretons, but by the time of Bosworth the foreign element was in a minority. <snip>"Carol responds:Do you have figures, David? I was under the impression that Henry's troops at Bosworth were primarily French, with some Welshmen under Rhys ap Thomas and at most 2,000 Englishmen under the Earl of Oxford. Marie may know, or some of the men in the group who have researched the battle.I don't have Penn's biography of Henry VII. but if I'm not mistaken, he unequivocally calls it a foreign invasion. And, of course, Tudor was only half English, the other half being Welsh and French (I agree with you that his grandfather was not Edmund Beaufort), and he had been in exile for some thirteen years, as had most of the Lancastrians among his supporters (not counting the recently escaped Oxford) though, of course, the Edwardian Yorkists didn't start arriving until 1483 (at first hoping to restore Edward V). I know that Henry gained a few English supporters here and there (not counting the Stanley camp), but the total number of Englishmen in Tudor's army was, I believe, still small--and, of course, the support of the greater number was conditional upon his marriage to Elizabeth of York.If anyone has (reasonably) accurate numbers for both sides, I would appreciate your posting them, along with the source or sources (preferably someone closer to the event than Vergil). I'm primarily interested in the number of Tudor's English followers as compared with his foreign (French, Welsh, perhaps Scottish?) troops. If the latter outnumbered the former, I would not hesitate to call his invasion of England a "foreign invasion." That it was *an invasion from a foreign country with foreign support* with the intent to overthrow and kill the crowned and anointed king is undeniable.I am not at all certain that the cause the French had for supporting Henry had entirely disappeared with the overthrow of Landais. Since Picquigny, they seem to have feared Richard. It appears that the regent, Charles VIII's sister, Anne of Beaujolais, thought that he might resume Edward IV's war on France. Note how readily the French ate up the rumors about him. They seem to have thought or hoped that Henry, in the unlikely event that he succeeded, would be more manageable. And, meantime, he would keep Richard occupied, with his thoughts on protecting England rather than invading France.Carol

I endorse everything you say Carol and sorry I don't have numbers, I'm not a battle expert but others here are. France was in 1485 a country with a child King and a woman regent. It would have suited them to have a similar situation in England, with England's best soldier occupied elsewhere on the Scottish border or taken out by the Woodvilles. They undoubtedly had suspicions around Richard since his hawkish stance at Picquigny and they knew he was a proven soldier.They knew nothing about HT's abilities, either as a soldier or administrator and no-one has ever called him charismatic. He was useful at a particular point in time.Thomas Penn's book doesn't start till about 1502, but in his television programme he called it the
last succssful foreign invasion of England. Richard and Henry were two people caught up in the particular circumstances of the time, one was lucky, the other unlucky. Unfortunately that's how I see it. PS I love Anne of Beaujolais - you've made my day :) :) Was she deep, rich and a little mellow? I needed chearing up on a rainy Monday morning. Hilary On Monday, 14 October 2013, 0:48, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
David Durose wrote:" <snip> As to the foreign invasion nature of Henry's expedition in 1485, I would agree to a limited extent. There is no doubt that the Bosworth expedition only happened because it suited the French at that moment. In fact, given a very short time the cause that prompted France to support Henry had disappeared - Pierre Landais had been overthrown and Breton / English alliance was no longer in prospect.

As Henry left France his army was approximately 500 English exiles 2000 French and a few Bretons, but by the time of Bosworth the foreign element was in a minority. <snip>"Carol responds:Do you have figures, David? I was under the impression that Henry's troops at Bosworth were primarily French, with some Welshmen under Rhys ap Thomas and at most 2,000 Englishmen under the Earl of Oxford. Marie may know, or some of the men in the group who have researched the battle.I don't have Penn's biography of Henry VII. but if I'm not mistaken, he unequivocally calls it a foreign invasion. And, of course, Tudor was only half English, the other half being Welsh and French (I agree with you that his grandfather was not Edmund Beaufort), and he had been in exile for some thirteen years, as had most of the Lancastrians among his supporters (not counting the
recently escaped Oxford) though, of course, the Edwardian Yorkists didn't start arriving until 1483 (at first hoping to restore Edward V). I know that Henry gained a few English supporters here and there (not counting the Stanley camp), but the total number of Englishmen in Tudor's army was, I believe, still small--and, of course, the support of the greater number was conditional upon his marriage to Elizabeth of York.If anyone has (reasonably) accurate numbers for both sides, I would appreciate your posting them, along with the source or sources (preferably someone closer to the event than Vergil). I'm primarily interested in the number of Tudor's English followers as compared with his foreign (French, Welsh, perhaps Scottish?) troops. If the latter outnumbered the former, I would not hesitate to call his invasion of England a "foreign invasion." That it was *an invasion from a foreign country with foreign support*
with the intent to overthrow and kill the crowned and anointed king is undeniable.I am not at all certain that the cause the French had for supporting Henry had entirely disappeared with the overthrow of Landais. Since Picquigny, they seem to have feared Richard. It appears that the regent, Charles VIII's sister, Anne of Beaujolais, thought that he might resume Edward IV's war on France. Note how readily the French ate up the rumors about him. They seem to have thought or hoped that Henry, in the unlikely event that he succeeded, would be more manageable. And, meantime, he would keep Richard occupied, with his thoughts on protecting England rather than invading France.Carol

There are no figures, of course. The problem for Henry's English exiles is that they could not recruit their former tenants. I've never heard it suggested that Henry's own forces contained many English. Most of the Englishmen who fought for him were in Stanley's army. A repeated theme in early accounts is the much greater size of Richard's army. Marie ---In , <> wrote: David Durose wrote:" <snip> As to the foreign invasion nature of Henry's expedition in 1485, I would agree to a limited extent. There is no doubt that the Bosworth expedition only happened because it suited the French at that moment. In fact, given a very short time the cause that prompted France to support Henry had disappeared - Pierre Landais had been overthrown and Breton / English alliance was no longer in prospect.

As Henry left France his army was approximately 500 English exiles 2000 French and a few Bretons, but by the time of Bosworth the foreign element was in a minority. <snip>"Carol responds:Do you have figures, David? I was under the impression that Henry's troops at Bosworth were primarily French, with some Welshmen under Rhys ap Thomas and at most 2,000 Englishmen under the Earl of Oxford. Marie may know, or some of the men in the group who have researched the battle.I don't have Penn's biography of Henry VII. but if I'm not mistaken, he unequivocally calls it a foreign invasion. And, of course, Tudor was only half English, the other half being Welsh and French (I agree with you that his grandfather was not Edmund Beaufort), and he had been in exile for some thirteen years, as had most of the Lancastrians among his supporters (not counting the recently escaped Oxford) though, of course, the Edwardian Yorkists didn't start arriving until 1483 (at first hoping to restore Edward V). I know that Henry gained a few English supporters here and there (not counting the Stanley camp), but the total number of Englishmen in Tudor's army was, I believe, still small--and, of course, the support of the greater number was conditional upon his marriage to Elizabeth of York.If anyone has (reasonably) accurate numbers for both sides, I would appreciate your posting them, along with the source or sources (preferably someone closer to the event than Vergil). I'm primarily interested in the number of Tudor's English followers as compared with his foreign (French, Welsh, perhaps Scottish?) troops. If the latter outnumbered the former, I would not hesitate to call his invasion of England a "foreign invasion." That it was *an invasion from a foreign country with foreign support* with the intent to overthrow and kill the crowned and anointed king is undeniable.I am not at all certain that the cause the French had for supporting Henry had entirely disappeared with the overthrow of Landais. Since Picquigny, they seem to have feared Richard. It appears that the regent, Charles VIII's sister, Anne of Beaujolais, thought that he might resume Edward IV's war on France. Note how readily the French ate up the rumors about him. They seem to have thought or hoped that Henry, in the unlikely event that he succeeded, would be more manageable. And, meantime, he would keep Richard occupied, with his thoughts on protecting England rather than invading France.Carol

Durose David wrote:
//snip//
"But let's examine the sense of strting a false
rumour. While starting a rumour about someone's character or behaviour may be
successful in spite of lack of truth - on the basis that 'there is no smoke',
intentionally false rumours about a fact that could be demonstrated to be false
make no sense."
Doug here:
How was someone several days' journey from London
able to ascertain the truth, or lack of it, in rumors about the princes? The
timeline, as I understand it, has the rumor being spread *after* those
participating in the rebellion had declared themselves and begun military
preparations.
IOW, the rebellion was *already* organized, various
people had signed on, literally, and preparations were underway to raise and,
more importantly, gather together, armed forces to put the rebellion into
effect.
It was only after all those steps had been taken
that the rumors about the boys' fate appeared.
"So in the summer of 1483, the rumours will have
benefitted Richard. They will have prevented any further disturbances around the
Tower and will have taken the steam out of the uprisings in favour of Edward V
in other areas."
Doug here:
There were two people who benefitted from those
rumors, Richard *and* Morton. The former because, as you aptly put it, it would
take the steam out of the uprisings in favor of Edward (V) and the latter for
exactly the same reason. In fact, one of the "facts" supporting the claim that
Richard killed his nephews is that, after the rumors of their death had been
spread, he never made any attempt to show that they were still
alive.
The trouble is, there's that reference (from a/the
London Chronicle I think?) that clearly states the boys were only noted *not*
being there "after Easter", with no year given As that can't be a reference to the spring of 1483 when Edward was in
Wales and Richard was with his mother, it tells me that during the late
summer/early autumn of 1483, plenty of people in London knew very well the boys
were alive. Which is why Richard never announced it, he didn't have to. For
those living outside the capital however, and expecially during a period of
rebellion, it would be that much harder to either prove or, more
importantly, disprove those rumors.
*Had* the rumors appeared during the summer of
1483, then there might be some basis for attributing them to Richard, but the
rumors didn't appear during the summer when attempt(s) were made to, apparently,
free the boys; they appeared in September/October of 1483.
Just in time to put a spoke in Buckingham's
efforts to lead a rebellion. While Richard benefitted immediately from that
"spoke", Henry Tudor benefitted in the long run because as long as the Yorkists
remained (mostly) united, the best forseeable outcome for Henry would his being
allowed to return to England, receive a pardon and spend the rest of his life
showing he *wasn't* interested in being king.
However, the failure of Buckingham's rebellion
split the Yorkists into two groups - those who supported Richard and those
supporting his nephew Edward. Most of those supporting Edward remained in
England and, given time, quite likely would have accepted what had happened.
That time dared not be allowed, because only as long as those groups
remained at cross purposes did Henry have any chance of returning to England and
try and gain the throne. My thesis is that the "rumors" were merely a method of
first, creating the split, and second, of ensuring the split
remained *after* Buckingham's failure. And that the rumors were
initiated and spread by Morton with the immediate aim of ensuring Buckingham's
defeat and a secondary aim (hope?) of further sowing dissension among the
Yorkists - especially those who *didn't* live in/near London and could check for
themselves about the validity of the rumors.
While Commynes' writings give us an idea of
what was being reported, they don't necessarily tell us what was being
done in response to those reports. In any case, if Richard was busy holding onto
his throne, he'd be much less likely to be able to provide any support to
Brittany or Burgundy, let alone invade France.
Doug

Thanks, Doug - what you wrote in response to David makes a lot of sense.
A J On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
 

Durose David wrote:
 
//snip//
"But let's examine the sense of strting a false
rumour. While starting a rumour about someone's character or behaviour may be
successful in spite of lack of truth - on the basis that 'there is no smoke',
intentionally false rumours about a fact that could be demonstrated to be false
make no sense."
 
Doug here:
How was someone several days' journey from London
able to ascertain the truth, or lack of it, in rumors about the princes? The
timeline, as I understand it, has the rumor being spread *after* those
participating in the rebellion had declared themselves and begun military
preparations.
IOW, the rebellion was *already* organized, various
people had signed on, literally, and preparations were underway to raise and,
more importantly, gather together, armed forces to put the rebellion into
effect.
It was only after all those steps had been taken
that the rumors about the boys' fate appeared.
 
"So in the summer of 1483, the rumours will have
benefitted Richard. They will have prevented any further disturbances around the
Tower and will have taken the steam out of the uprisings in favour of Edward V
in other areas."
 
Doug here:
There were two people who benefitted from those
rumors, Richard *and* Morton. The former because, as you aptly put it, it would
take the steam out of the uprisings in favor of Edward (V) and the latter for
exactly the same reason. In fact, one of the "facts" supporting the claim that
Richard killed his nephews is that, after the rumors of their death had been
spread, he never made any attempt to show that they were still
alive.
The trouble is, there's that reference (from a/the
London Chronicle I think?) that clearly states the boys were only noted *not*
being there "after Easter", with no year given As that can't be a reference to the spring of 1483 when Edward was in
Wales and Richard was with his mother, it tells me that during the late
summer/early autumn of 1483, plenty of people in London knew very well the boys
were alive. Which is why Richard never announced it, he didn't have to. For
those living outside the capital however, and expecially during a period of
rebellion, it would be that much harder to either prove or, more
importantly, disprove those rumors.
*Had* the rumors appeared during the summer of
1483, then there might be some basis for attributing them to Richard, but the
rumors didn't appear during the summer when attempt(s) were made to, apparently,
free the boys; they appeared in September/October of 1483.
Just in time to put a spoke in Buckingham's
efforts to lead a rebellion. While Richard benefitted immediately from that
"spoke", Henry Tudor benefitted in the long run because as long as the Yorkists
remained (mostly) united, the best forseeable outcome for Henry would his being
allowed to return to England, receive a pardon and spend the rest of his life
showing he *wasn't* interested in being king.
However, the failure of Buckingham's rebellion
split the Yorkists into two groups - those who supported Richard and those
supporting his nephew Edward. Most of those supporting Edward remained in
England and, given time, quite likely would have accepted what had happened.
That time dared not be allowed, because only as long as those groups
remained at cross purposes did Henry have any chance of returning to England and
try and gain the throne. My thesis is that the "rumors" were merely a method of
first, creating the split, and second, of ensuring the split
remained *after* Buckingham's failure. And that the rumors were
initiated and spread by Morton with the immediate aim of ensuring Buckingham's
defeat and a secondary aim (hope?) of further sowing dissension among the
Yorkists - especially those who *didn't* live in/near London and could check for
themselves about the validity of the rumors.
While Commynes' writings give us an idea of
what was being reported, they don't necessarily tell us what was being
done in response to those reports. In any case, if Richard was busy holding onto
his throne, he'd be much less likely to be able to provide any support to
Brittany or Burgundy, let alone invade France.
Doug

It's a good thesis Doug but I have some reservations: 1. Despite PG and her MB in TWQ did MB or Morton at this stage really see HT coming back as King or was it just a case of getting him back in one piece so let's have a go if we're sure he gets enough (foreign) support? 2. The easiest way to quash rumour is to display the bodies of the dead princes - a dreadful accident like Henry VI - some will mutter but will move on with Richard in charge. Why didn't Richard do this if they were dead? It's the strongest argument that they were either alive or quite frankly he also didn't know what had happened to
them. 3. Was Titulus Regius really at Richard's instigation or was it quite simply the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal not wanting a boy king and one ruled by the Woodvilles? Look what had happened some sixty years' earlier and indeed what Richard II had grown into. As I said about half an hour ago, I just don't think MB and Morton were clever enough to engineer all this, sly though they were. Cheers H. On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 16:19, Douglas Eugene Stamate
<destama@...> wrote:
Durose David wrote:
//snip//
"But let's examine the sense of strting a false
rumour. While starting a rumour about someone's character or behaviour may be
successful in spite of lack of truth - on the basis that 'there is no smoke',
intentionally false rumours about a fact that could be demonstrated to be false
make no sense."
Doug here:
How was someone several days' journey from London
able to ascertain the truth, or lack of it, in rumors about the princes? The
timeline, as I understand it, has the rumor being spread *after* those
participating in the rebellion had declared themselves and begun military
preparations.
IOW, the rebellion was *already* organized, various
people had signed on, literally, and preparations were underway to raise and,
more importantly, gather together, armed forces to put the rebellion into
effect.
It was only after all those steps had been taken
that the rumors about the boys' fate appeared.
"So in the summer of 1483, the rumours will have
benefitted Richard. They will have prevented any further disturbances around the
Tower and will have taken the steam out of the uprisings in favour of Edward V
in other areas."
Doug here:
There were two people who benefitted from those
rumors, Richard *and* Morton. The former because, as you aptly put it, it would
take the steam out of the uprisings in favor of Edward (V) and the latter for
exactly the same reason. In fact, one of the "facts" supporting the claim that
Richard killed his nephews is that, after the rumors of their death had been
spread, he never made any attempt to show that they were still
alive.
The trouble is, there's that reference (from a/the
London Chronicle I think?) that clearly states the boys were only noted *not*
being there "after Easter", with no year given As that can't be a reference to the spring of 1483 when Edward was in
Wales and Richard was with his mother, it tells me that during the late
summer/early autumn of 1483, plenty of people in London knew very well the boys
were alive. Which is why Richard never announced it, he didn't have to. For
those living outside the capital however, and expecially during a period of
rebellion, it would be that much harder to either prove or, more
importantly, disprove those rumors.
*Had* the rumors appeared during the summer of
1483, then there might be some basis for attributing them to Richard, but the
rumors didn't appear during the summer when attempt(s) were made to, apparently,
free the boys; they appeared in September/October of 1483.
Just in time to put a spoke in Buckingham's
efforts to lead a rebellion. While Richard benefitted immediately from that
"spoke", Henry Tudor benefitted in the long run because as long as the Yorkists
remained (mostly) united, the best forseeable outcome for Henry would his being
allowed to return to England, receive a pardon and spend the rest of his life
showing he *wasn't* interested in being king.
However, the failure of Buckingham's rebellion
split the Yorkists into two groups - those who supported Richard and those
supporting his nephew Edward. Most of those supporting Edward remained in
England and, given time, quite likely would have accepted what had happened.
That time dared not be allowed, because only as long as those groups
remained at cross purposes did Henry have any chance of returning to England and
try and gain the throne. My thesis is that the "rumors" were merely a method of
first, creating the split, and second, of ensuring the split
remained *after* Buckingham's failure. And that the rumors were
initiated and spread by Morton with the immediate aim of ensuring Buckingham's
defeat and a secondary aim (hope?) of further sowing dissension among the
Yorkists - especially those who *didn't* live in/near London and could check for
themselves about the validity of the rumors.
While Commynes' writings give us an idea of
what was being reported, they don't necessarily tell us what was being
done in response to those reports. In any case, if Richard was busy holding onto
his throne, he'd be much less likely to be able to provide any support to
Brittany or Burgundy, let alone invade France.
Doug

Hilary wrote:
"Despite PG and her MB in TWQ did MB or Morton *at
this stage* really see HT coming back as King or was it just a case of getting
him back in one piece so let's have a go if we're sure he gets enough (foreign)
support?"
Doug here:
I emphasized your "at this point" because it's
my belief that the rumors were spread to cause the greatest possible dissension
among Yorkists. If the Yorkists were divided, then HT's value, more especially
that of any remaining Lancastrians who might follow him, to either Yorkist group
then becomes more valuable. That "value" could then be used to either dicker
with Richard for a pardon and a return to England for HT or, as it turned
out, with the Woodvilles for a marriage between HT and EoY.
I view the situation thusly: If Buckingham's
rebellion was successful, then the next question would be: qui bono? Buckingham
or Edward (V)? If Buckingham grabbed the throne (based on the application of TR
to himself?) then Richard's supporters would be added to the Woodvilles as
likely opponents of Harry Stafford's reign. If Buckingham *did* re-enthrone
Edward, then there'd *still* be two groups of dissatisfied Yorkists -
Richard's supporters immediately and, sooner or later, either Stafford's because
the Woodvilles grabbed everything or the Woodvilles because Stafford had managed
to cut them out. All in all, a very fertile field
for Morton to dabble in, whether his aim was just returning HT to England or
placing HT on the throne.
If, on the other hand, the rebellion failed,
there'd still be all those supporters as potential allies in any attempt to take
the throne from Richard. Also note: Bosworth was *after* the death of Richard's
son, which meant the line-of-succession was, again, no longer "direct"; ie, from
father to offspring, but rather from uncle to nephew. At least until Richard
re-married, anyway.
BTW, my *personal* opinion on any marriage plans
between the happy couple were set in motion *solely* on the understanding that
any military efforts of HT were to be directed towards returning Edward (V) to
the throne. It was only when the situation changed, that the aim changed as
well.
As far as I know, there weren't any, um,
discussions(?) between Richard and any representative for HT. Whether there
were any *further* discussions about the proposed
marriage between EW (or her representative) and HT or MB *after* the
failure of Buckingham's Rebellion, I don't know. But such actions on
EW's part do seem unlikely; especially during the period just before and after
she left sanctuary.
As an aside, I understand there were *two*
proclamations from HT, one in late 1483/early 1484 and a second in late
1484/early 1485; is that true?
Hlary again:
"2. The easiest way to quash rumour is to display
the bodies of the ded princes - a deadful accident like Henry VI - some will
mutter but will move on with Richard in charge. Why didn't Richard do this if
they were dead? It's the strongest argument that they were either alive or quite
frankly he also didn't know what had happened to them."
Doug again:
This is another point that I think supports the
idea that the rumors *weren't* originated by Richard. As you say, if he *had*
sent them out, then he'd almost have to do something to show that they were
*just rumors*. I say "almost", because if there'd already been two attempts to
free the boys, with one of those attempts possibly being a "hit" in disguise,
Richard might have decided to protect his nephews by letting the rumors flow,
knowing full well he *could* produce the boys any time it might really be
necessary. Once again, however, there's that "after Easter" reference which
seems to show that Londoners, at least, *knew* the boys were alive well after
October 1483.
So the question then becomes: If Richard didn't
start the rumors, who did? And, most importantly, why? Which leads me back to
Morton. Whether Morton in 1483 was aiming at a Lancastrian "restoration" there
and then, I don't know, but I do think he was doing his utmost to increase the
value of HT's support to any Yorkist faction. If men had to die for that, so be
it.
Hilary wrote:
"3. Was Titulus Regius really at Richard's
instigation or was it quite simply the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal not wanting
a boy king and one ruled by the Woodvilles? Look what had happened some sixty
years' earlier and indeed what Richard had grown into."
Doug here:
If by "instigation" you mean Richard wanted a legal
pronouncement on his right to the throne, then yes. How many of those Lords
Spiritual and Temporal supported Titulus Regius *because* of any fears about a
boy king dominated by the Woodvilles is a question that I really don't see any
answer to.
We do know Stillingon presented evidence about EIV
and EB to the Council that was later embodied in TR. There may very well have
been some Lords, and members of the Commons for that matter, who thought it
was all just a bit too convenient for Richard; one only has to look at what
the Tudor writers did with that! There likely were also others who looked on
Richard's ascending the throne as a way to escape what looked to be a very
unpleasant period of rule by a grasping bunch of nouveaux riches. I must admit,
however, that I find it difficult to believe that the overwhelming majority of
those who voted for TR did so for reasons other than that they believed the
evidence presented to them.
Hilary wrote:
"As I said about a half an hour ago, I just don't
think MB and Morton were clever enough to engineer all this, sly though they
were."
Doug's reply:
I certainly don't think either MB or Morton
"engineered" all that happened between June of 1483 and August of 1485. However,
I *do* think they, especially Morton, *took advantage* of what was going on and,
where possible, kept the pot boiling, as it were.
What Richard needed, as indeed any new occupant of
a throne in the 15th century needed, was time. Morton, by keeping things stirred
up, eventually denied that time to Richard.
Doug
(who'd really like it if *one* of those "Lords
Temporal" had had a blue box...)

A J Hibbard wrote:
"Thanks, Doug - what you wrote in response to David
makes a lot of sense."
Doug here:
Thank you for the compliment.
I did forget to add that if the rumors *were*
started by Morton the question of whether or not Buckingham agreed with that
manouver also comes up'; ie, were the rumors started by Morton acting alone and
doing his d&mnedest to stir up trouble, or were they launched with
Buckingham's full agreement as a method of "rousing" the countryside against
Richard?
If the latter, then that tells *me* that Harry
Stafford *was* as stupid as has been claimed and also that the rebellion, from
Stafford's point of view anyway, was *never* about restoring Edward - it was
about Stafford grabbing the throne.
And Morton saw it and took advantage of
it.
Doug

Pamela wrote:
"But surely the fly in the ointment is that were
the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risj that Richard would
suddenly produce them like a rabbit out of the hat - unless they knew the boys
were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew
Buckingham had."
Doug here:
As I see it, the rumors were started at a point in
the rebellion where proving or disproving them simply wouldn't be possible. The
only way for Richard to "prove" his nephews were alive, and have the proof
accepted, would be to send them around the country - heavily guarded for their,
and his, protection. If he merely paraded them around London it would still take
several days for that information to be spread and probably even longer for it
to be believed.
And, if you'll pardon the cliche, time was of
the essence...
Doug

Good point, Doug. From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote
Pamela wrote:
"But surely the fly in the ointment is that were
the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risj that Richard would
suddenly produce them like a rabbit out of the hat - unless they knew the boys
were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew
Buckingham had."
Doug here:
As I see it, the rumors were started at a point in
the rebellion where proving or disproving them simply wouldn't be possible. The
only way for Richard to "prove" his nephews were alive, and have the proof
accepted, would be to send them around the country - heavily guarded for their,
and his, protection. If he merely paraded them around London it would still take
several days for that information to be spread and probably even longer for it
to be believed.
And, if you'll pardon the cliche, time was of
the essence...
Doug

Hi Doug,Thanks for your very detailed response. In examining the logicality of creating a false rumour I am trying to do what John Ashdown-Hill tries to do in The Last Days. That is, to put ourselves back into the position of the person we are studying without assuming knowledge of subsequent events.I am sorry if anything I say here has been superseded by other responses, I am just working my way through them.So, applying these rules, which should always really be applied to avoid the error of following a predetermined narrative, I am struggling to see what expected benefit Morton could expect from starting a false rumour. I am sure he was a clever chap, and I can see him quickly appreciating the new circumstances that would exist after the deaths of the princes. He can not have known at that point that Henry would survive, win and make him
Archbishop of Canterbury. He can not even have known that Richard would fall in with his part of the deception and refrain from denying the rumours or producing the princes. I also think Morton was himself some distance from London. Wasn't he being held at Brecon with Buckingham?Although Morton was an old Lancastrian, he seemed to be one of those who had seen the war as lost in 1471 and been a faithful servant to Edward IV.The fact that Henry benefitted in the long term is irrelevant if you accept the fact that in the summer of 1483 he had little prospect of gaining power. I have not seen anything in any article I have read that indicated he wanted the throne. MB seems to have been doing what she can to bring HT home safely under both Edward IV and Richard, presumably as Richmond.I don't think I said anywhere that I thought Richard may have started the rumours, but he is the only one I can see
that had an immediate benefit from them. All the others only benefited in the distant future and as I said their plan could have been easily undone by Richard.On the reference to an undated Easter, we can not assume that it must be 1484 simply because we have later sightings. It merely indicates the Chronicle is probably wrong that it was the latest. I don't think the rumours themselves caused a split in the Yorkist ranks that was necessarily permanent, because Richard could have scotched them at any time.I hope this makes sense.Kind regardsDavid

From:
Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To:
<>;
Cc:
Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject:
Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent:
Wed, Oct 16, 2013 4:19:17 PM

 

Durose David wrote:
 
//snip//
"But let's examine the sense of strting a false
rumour. While starting a rumour about someone's character or behaviour may be
successful in spite of lack of truth - on the basis that 'there is no smoke',
intentionally false rumours about a fact that could be demonstrated to be false
make no sense."
 
Doug here:
How was someone several days' journey from London
able to ascertain the truth, or lack of it, in rumors about the princes? The
timeline, as I understand it, has the rumor being spread *after* those
participating in the rebellion had declared themselves and begun military
preparations.
IOW, the rebellion was *already* organized, various
people had signed on, literally, and preparations were underway to raise and,
more importantly, gather together, armed forces to put the rebellion into
effect.
It was only after all those steps had been taken
that the rumors about the boys' fate appeared.
 
"So in the summer of 1483, the rumours will have
benefitted Richard. They will have prevented any further disturbances around the
Tower and will have taken the steam out of the uprisings in favour of Edward V
in other areas."
 
Doug here:
There were two people who benefitted from those
rumors, Richard *and* Morton. The former because, as you aptly put it, it would
take the steam out of the uprisings in favor of Edward (V) and the latter for
exactly the same reason. In fact, one of the "facts" supporting the claim that
Richard killed his nephews is that, after the rumors of their death had been
spread, he never made any attempt to show that they were still
alive.
The trouble is, there's that reference (from a/the
London Chronicle I think?) that clearly states the boys were only noted *not*
being there "after Easter", with no year given As that can't be a reference to the spring of 1483 when Edward was in
Wales and Richard was with his mother, it tells me that during the late
summer/early autumn of 1483, plenty of people in London knew very well the boys
were alive. Which is why Richard never announced it, he didn't have to. For
those living outside the capital however, and expecially during a period of
rebellion, it would be that much harder to either prove or, more
importantly, disprove those rumors.
*Had* the rumors appeared during the summer of
1483, then there might be some basis for attributing them to Richard, but the
rumors didn't appear during the summer when attempt(s) were made to, apparently,
free the boys; they appeared in September/October of 1483.
Just in time to put a spoke in Buckingham's
efforts to lead a rebellion. While Richard benefitted immediately from that
"spoke", Henry Tudor benefitted in the long run because as long as the Yorkists
remained (mostly) united, the best forseeable outcome for Henry would his being
allowed to return to England, receive a pardon and spend the rest of his life
showing he *wasn't* interested in being king.
However, the failure of Buckingham's rebellion
split the Yorkists into two groups - those who supported Richard and those
supporting his nephew Edward. Most of those supporting Edward remained in
England and, given time, quite likely would have accepted what had happened.
That time dared not be allowed, because only as long as those groups
remained at cross purposes did Henry have any chance of returning to England and
try and gain the throne. My thesis is that the "rumors" were merely a method of
first, creating the split, and second, of ensuring the split
remained *after* Buckingham's failure. And that the rumors were
initiated and spread by Morton with the immediate aim of ensuring Buckingham's
defeat and a secondary aim (hope?) of further sowing dissension among the
Yorkists - especially those who *didn't* live in/near London and could check for
themselves about the validity of the rumors.
While Commynes' writings give us an idea of
what was being reported, they don't necessarily tell us what was being
done in response to those reports. In any case, if Richard was busy holding onto
his throne, he'd be much less likely to be able to provide any support to
Brittany or Burgundy, let alone invade France.
Doug

David wrote:"I don't think I said anywhere that I thought Richard may have started the rumours, but he is the only one I can see that had an immediate benefit from them. All the others only benefited in the distant future and as I said their plan could have been easily undone by Richard." Marie responds:The ambitions of Richard's rivals in the autum of 1483 were for the here and now. This is what Crowland says:-"When at last the people round about the city of London and in Kent, Essex, Sussex, Hampshire, Dorset, Somerset, Wiltshire and Berkshire and also in some other southern counties of the kingdom just referred to, began considering vengeance, public proclamation having been made that Buckingham, then living at Brecknock in Wales, being repentant of what had been done would be captain-in-chief in this affair, a rumour arose that King Edward's sons, by some unknown manner of violent destruction, had met their fate...."Crowland does claim that the rebellion then refocused in favour of Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor, but he was writing after Bosworth.Marie ---In , <> wrote:Hi Doug,Thanks for your very detailed response. In examining the logicality of creating a false rumour I am trying to do what John Ashdown-Hill tries to do in The Last Days. That is, to put ourselves back into the position of the person we are studying without assuming knowledge of subsequent events.I am sorry if anything I say here has been superseded by other responses, I am just working my way through them.So, applying these rules, which should always really be applied to avoid the error of following a predetermined narrative, I am struggling to see what expected benefit Morton could expect from starting a false rumour. I am sure he was a clever chap, and I can see him quickly appreciating the new circumstances that would exist after the deaths of the princes. He can not have known at that point that Henry would survive, win and make him
Archbishop of Canterbury. He can not even have known that Richard would fall in with his part of the deception and refrain from denying the rumours or producing the princes. I also think Morton was himself some distance from London. Wasn't he being held at Brecon with Buckingham?Although Morton was an old Lancastrian, he seemed to be one of those who had seen the war as lost in 1471 and been a faithful servant to Edward IV.The fact that Henry benefitted in the long term is irrelevant if you accept the fact that in the summer of 1483 he had little prospect of gaining power. I have not seen anything in any article I have read that indicated he wanted the throne. MB seems to have been doing what she can to bring HT home safely under both Edward IV and Richard, presumably as Richmond.I don't think I said anywhere that I thought Richard may have started the rumours, but he is the only one I can see
that had an immediate benefit from them. All the others only benefited in the distant future and as I said their plan could have been easily undone by Richard.On the reference to an undated Easter, we can not assume that it must be 1484 simply because we have later sightings. It merely indicates the Chronicle is probably wrong that it was the latest. I don't think the rumours themselves caused a split in the Yorkist ranks that was necessarily permanent, because Richard could have scotched them at any time.I hope this makes sense.Kind regardsDavid

From:
Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To:
<>;
Cc:
Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject:
Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent:
Wed, Oct 16, 2013 4:19:17 PM


Durose David wrote:
//snip//
"But let's examine the sense of strting a false
rumour. While starting a rumour about someone's character or behaviour may be
successful in spite of lack of truth - on the basis that 'there is no smoke',
intentionally false rumours about a fact that could be demonstrated to be false
make no sense."
Doug here:
How was someone several days' journey from London
able to ascertain the truth, or lack of it, in rumors about the princes? The
timeline, as I understand it, has the rumor being spread *after* those
participating in the rebellion had declared themselves and begun military
preparations.
IOW, the rebellion was *already* organized, various
people had signed on, literally, and preparations were underway to raise and,
more importantly, gather together, armed forces to put the rebellion into
effect.
It was only after all those steps had been taken
that the rumors about the boys' fate appeared.
"So in the summer of 1483, the rumours will have
benefitted Richard. They will have prevented any further disturbances around the
Tower and will have taken the steam out of the uprisings in favour of Edward V
in other areas."
Doug here:
There were two people who benefitted from those
rumors, Richard *and* Morton. The former because, as you aptly put it, it would
take the steam out of the uprisings in favor of Edward (V) and the latter for
exactly the same reason. In fact, one of the "facts" supporting the claim that
Richard killed his nephews is that, after the rumors of their death had been
spread, he never made any attempt to show that they were still
alive.
The trouble is, there's that reference (from a/the
London Chronicle I think?) that clearly states the boys were only noted *not*
being there "after Easter", with no year given As that can't be a reference to the spring of 1483 when Edward was in
Wales and Richard was with his mother, it tells me that during the late
summer/early autumn of 1483, plenty of people in London knew very well the boys
were alive. Which is why Richard never announced it, he didn't have to. For
those living outside the capital however, and expecially during a period of
rebellion, it would be that much harder to either prove or, more
importantly, disprove those rumors.
*Had* the rumors appeared during the summer of
1483, then there might be some basis for attributing them to Richard, but the
rumors didn't appear during the summer when attempt(s) were made to, apparently,
free the boys; they appeared in September/October of 1483.
Just in time to put a spoke in Buckingham's
efforts to lead a rebellion. While Richard benefitted immediately from that
"spoke", Henry Tudor benefitted in the long run because as long as the Yorkists
remained (mostly) united, the best forseeable outcome for Henry would his being
allowed to return to England, receive a pardon and spend the rest of his life
showing he *wasn't* interested in being king.
However, the failure of Buckingham's rebellion
split the Yorkists into two groups - those who supported Richard and those
supporting his nephew Edward. Most of those supporting Edward remained in
England and, given time, quite likely would have accepted what had happened.
That time dared not be allowed, because only as long as those groups
remained at cross purposes did Henry have any chance of returning to England and
try and gain the throne. My thesis is that the "rumors" were merely a method of
first, creating the split, and second, of ensuring the split
remained *after* Buckingham's failure. And that the rumors were
initiated and spread by Morton with the immediate aim of ensuring Buckingham's
defeat and a secondary aim (hope?) of further sowing dissension among the
Yorkists - especially those who *didn't* live in/near London and could check for
themselves about the validity of the rumors.
While Commynes' writings give us an idea of
what was being reported, they don't necessarily tell us what was being
done in response to those reports. In any case, if Richard was busy holding onto
his throne, he'd be much less likely to be able to provide any support to
Brittany or Burgundy, let alone invade France.
Doug

This whole discussion has been vastly interesting, but Doug's comment about Buckingham's stupidity reminded me of that saying& "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." And when malice and stupidity combine, the results can be quite interesting to an outside observer.

For this reason, I think it might be useful sometimes to look away from plots that seem to have succeeded, and try to look for possible failed plots in the background. I'll bet there would have been plenty of those, in many different quarters.

I would even claim that most people who concoct plots and schemes tend to fail at them, because real evil geniuses are rarer than hen's teeth. Most people are not as clever as they think. On top of that, most people are inadequately prepared for the role of chance in the events of history. Just look at our current politicians: are most of them really all that intelligent? Do they really plan a long way ahead, and play a long and complicated game of chess with many opponents at the same time? Or are they mostly opportunists guided by chance and a keen sense of self-interest, with a few genuinely principled individuals scattered here and there? (The latter most often pushed aside when they're no longer useful to the ruthless.)

Even the successful 'conspiracies' in history tend to be a bit creaky when you look at them closely. People rarely bother to hide their tracks well enough, especially when they feel like they've won. And sometimes failed plots accidentally turn into successful ones, thanks to a fine mixture of chance and ruthless opportunism.

I think we (or at least I) often tend to think of historical figures of the distant past as sort of characters in a novel that do things for a reason, and tend to believe that historical events unfold in a logical sequence. It's easy to forget that the unpredictability of events and the sheer incompetence of many people involved in them are universal.

Pansy

A great post. Very few people are that clever, and most of the narcissists who plot political takeovers are not nearly as clever as they think they are: that's what being a narcissist is all about. Even Hitler, whose rise and rise took years, wasn't clever - in fact he was a ridiculous twerp. Most conflict is reactive even when it doesn't seem to be - ie fuelled by fear. As we all discussed recently, the events of May-June 1483 are probably best understood as over-reactions and counter-reactions by people who had never liked or trusted each other, had who had suddenly found the foundations of their lives cut from under them and were also in the throes of mourning.Who knows what autumn 1483 was all about, how much was planned, how much reactive, and who was after the throne for whom?What I do think is that Philippa Gregory's vision of Margaret Beaufort calmly manoeuvring towards her son's kingship from the 1460s is completely wide of the mark. Quite when the possibility dawned on her, though, is not quite so easy to fathom.And all this in a world where would-be plotters had not only to rely on their own inadequate powers of reason, but had also to tailor their plans to the fit the advice of the local astrologer and/or whatever political prophesies about lambs, moles, delivering Owens and assorted letters of the alphabet were in vogue at the time.Marie ---In , <> wrote:This whole discussion has been vastly interesting, but Doug's comment about Buckingham's stupidity reminded me of that saying& "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." And when malice and stupidity combine, the results can be quite interesting to an outside observer.

For this reason, I think it might be useful sometimes to look away from plots that seem to have succeeded, and try to look for possible failed plots in the background. I'll bet there would have been plenty of those, in many different quarters.

I would even claim that most people who concoct plots and schemes tend to fail at them, because real evil geniuses are rarer than hen's teeth. Most people are not as clever as they think. On top of that, most people are inadequately prepared for the role of chance in the events of history. Just look at our current politicians: are most of them really all that intelligent? Do they really plan a long way ahead, and play a long and complicated game of chess with many opponents at the same time? Or are they mostly opportunists guided by chance and a keen sense of self-interest, with a few genuinely principled individuals scattered here and there? (The latter most often pushed aside when they're no longer useful to the ruthless.)

Even the successful 'conspiracies' in history tend to be a bit creaky when you look at them closely. People rarely bother to hide their tracks well enough, especially when they feel like they've won. And sometimes failed plots accidentally turn into successful ones, thanks to a fine mixture of chance and ruthless opportunism.

I think we (or at least I) often tend to think of historical figures of the distant past as sort of characters in a novel that do things for a reason, and tend to believe that historical events unfold in a logical sequence. It's easy to forget that the unpredictability of events and the sheer incompetence of many people involved in them are universal.

Pansy

I really agree with this, not really being a conspiracy theorist . I suspect strongly that whatever happened to the Princes was probably the fault of some failed plot, or their absence was discovered during an attempt to "snatch" them and this was what started the rumours.
There seems to be a lot going on of which nobody spoke and of which we are unaware.
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
pansydobersby <[email protected]>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
RE: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent:
Thu, Oct 17, 2013 10:03:16 PM

 
This whole discussion has been vastly interesting, but Doug's comment about Buckingham's stupidity reminded me of that saying& "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." And when malice and stupidity combine, the results can be quite interesting to an outside observer.

For this reason, I think it might be useful sometimes to look away from plots that seem to have succeeded, and try to look for possible failed plots in the background. I'll bet there would have been plenty of those, in many different quarters.

I would even claim that most people who concoct plots and schemes tend to fail at them, because real evil geniuses are rarer than hen's teeth. Most people are not as clever as they think. On top of that, most people are inadequately prepared for the role of chance in the events of history. Just look at our current politicians: are most of them really all that intelligent? Do they really plan a long way ahead, and play a long and complicated game of chess with many opponents at the same time? Or are they mostly opportunists guided by chance and a keen sense of self-interest, with a few genuinely principled individuals scattered here and there? (The latter most often pushed aside when they're no longer useful to the ruthless.)

Even the successful 'conspiracies' in history tend to be a bit creaky when you look at them closely. People rarely bother to hide their tracks well enough, especially when they feel like they've won. And sometimes failed plots accidentally turn into successful ones, thanks to a fine mixture of chance and ruthless opportunism.

I think we (or at least I) often tend to think of historical figures of the distant past as sort of characters in a novel that do things for a reason, and tend to believe that historical events unfold in a logical sequence. It's easy to forget that the unpredictability of events and the sheer incompetence of many people involved in them are universal.

Pansy

Pansy,I could not agree more.There is a tendency to look for an evil mastermind behind events, who at the appropriate moment will wisper in someone's ear - possibly arrange for people to be eliminated etc. when in fact, most of the time they are in reality just struggling to cope with events.It could be that Henry Tudor's greatest asset was that he had taken no part in any of the events of the Wars of the Roses, had not had anyone murdered and had nobody who believed he owed them for past favours.I would recommend the article by C S L Davies I mentioned earlier for anyone interested in the international situation - I think it can be downloaded.Kind regardsDavid

From:
pansydobersby <[email protected]>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
RE: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent:
Thu, Oct 17, 2013 10:03:16 PM

 
This whole discussion has been vastly interesting, but Doug's comment about Buckingham's stupidity reminded me of that saying& "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." And when malice and stupidity combine, the results can be quite interesting to an outside observer.

For this reason, I think it might be useful sometimes to look away from plots that seem to have succeeded, and try to look for possible failed plots in the background. I'll bet there would have been plenty of those, in many different quarters.

I would even claim that most people who concoct plots and schemes tend to fail at them, because real evil geniuses are rarer than hen's teeth. Most people are not as clever as they think. On top of that, most people are inadequately prepared for the role of chance in the events of history. Just look at our current politicians: are most of them really all that intelligent? Do they really plan a long way ahead, and play a long and complicated game of chess with many opponents at the same time? Or are they mostly opportunists guided by chance and a keen sense of self-interest, with a few genuinely principled individuals scattered here and there? (The latter most often pushed aside when they're no longer useful to the ruthless.)

Even the successful 'conspiracies' in history tend to be a bit creaky when you look at them closely. People rarely bother to hide their tracks well enough, especially when they feel like they've won. And sometimes failed plots accidentally turn into successful ones, thanks to a fine mixture of chance and ruthless opportunism.

I think we (or at least I) often tend to think of historical figures of the distant past as sort of characters in a novel that do things for a reason, and tend to believe that historical events unfold in a logical sequence. It's easy to forget that the unpredictability of events and the sheer incompetence of many people involved in them are universal.

Pansy

In the light of the above discussion, the new book from Josephine Wilkinson looks interesting. It's short, pithy and more a series of essays that a straight narrative.I only got hold of it yesterday so have only glanced at it very briefly, but she seems to favour the theory that Richard of Shewsbury, if not Edward V, survived and possibly ended up in Flanders. She posted an excerpt from the introduction on her blog.http://josepha-josephine-wilkinson.blogspot.co.uk/2013_09_01_archive.htmlJonathan From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> To: Sent: Friday, 18 October 2013, 11:37 Subject: Re : RE: Proclamation from Henry VII
Pansy,I could not agree more.There is a tendency to look for an evil mastermind behind events, who at the appropriate moment will wisper in someonex27;s ear - possibly arrange for people to be eliminated etc. when in fact, most of the time they are in reality just struggling to cope with events.It could be that Henry Tudorx27;s greatest asset was that he had taken no part in any of the events of the Wars of the Roses, had not had anyone murdered and had nobody who believed he owed them for past favours.I would recommend the article by C S L Davies I mentioned earlier for anyone interested in the international situation - I think it can be downloaded.Kind regardsDavid

From:
pansydobersby <[email protected]>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
RE: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent:
Thu, Oct 17, 2013 10:03:16 PM

This whole discussion has been vastly interesting, but Doug's comment about Buckingham's stupidity reminded me of that saying& "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." And when malice and stupidity combine, the results can be quite interesting to an outside observer.

For this reason, I think it might be useful sometimes to look away from plots that seem to have succeeded, and try to look for possible failed plots in the background. I'll bet there would have been plenty of those, in many different quarters.

I would even claim that most people who concoct plots and schemes tend to fail at them, because real evil geniuses are rarer than hen's teeth. Most people are not as clever as they think. On top of that, most people are inadequately prepared for the role of chance in the events of history. Just look at our current politicians: are most of them really all that intelligent? Do they really plan a long way ahead, and play a long and complicated game of chess with many opponents at the same time? Or are they mostly opportunists guided by chance and a keen sense of self-interest, with a few genuinely principled individuals scattered here and there? (The latter most often pushed aside when they're no longer useful to the ruthless.)

Even the successful 'conspiracies' in history tend to be a bit creaky when you look at them closely. People rarely bother to hide their tracks well enough, especially when they feel like they've won. And sometimes failed plots accidentally turn into successful ones, thanks to a fine mixture of chance and ruthless opportunism.

I think we (or at least I) often tend to think of historical figures of the distant past as sort of characters in a novel that do things for a reason, and tend to believe that historical events unfold in a logical sequence. It's easy to forget that the unpredictability of events and the sheer incompetence of many people involved in them are universal.

Pansy

David wrote:
//snip//
"So, applying these rules (not assuming knowledge
of subsequent events) which should always really be applied to avoid the rror of
followig a predetermined narrative, I am struggling to see what expected benefit
Morton could expect from starting a false rumour. I am sure he was a clever
chap, ans I can see him quickly appreciating the new circumstances that would
exist after the death of the princes. He can not have know at that point that
Henry would survive, win and make him Archbishop of Canterbury. He can not even
have known that Richard would fall in with his part of the deception and refrain
from denying the rumours or producing the princes."
Doug here:
My view is that Morton was fishing in the troubled
waters of a disputed *Yorkist* succession. I'm not claiming he had any great
vision of his future position under a restored Lancastrian monarchy, but rather
that he realized that divisions amongst the Yorkists provided the
*only* possible avenue to *any* Lancastrian restoration.
As for Richard denying the rumors, how was that to
be accomplished? By proclamation? Well, that's *exactly* what Richard, even if
he *had* killed his nephews would do, wouldn't he? And I as pointed out before,
the *only* way for Richard to disprove any rumors about the boys' deaths would
be to, literally, parade them around the country and hope that people who'd
never even seen Edward and Richard would accept that, yes these are
they!
Really?
My point is that the rumors were set loose at a
point in the rebellion where they caused the most dissension amongst the
*Yorkists.* By helping to set "Edwardians" against "Ricardians" with his support
of Buckingham's rebellion and then ensuring, or doing his best to ensure, that
rebellion failed by spreading a rumor the boys were dead, Morton all but
guaranteed that those who'd already come out in support of Edward wouldn't be
joined by any more Edwardian supporters. Thus producing a large group of
dissatisfied "Edwardians" who, what with attainders and such, would have even
less reason to "give Richard a chance."
Then there's those who might die in the the aborted
rebellion and the animosity those deaths would likely engender in their sons,
wives and other relatives. But that didn't matter so long as Morton's goal,
dissension among the Yorkists, was achieved.
David wrote:
"I also think Morton was himself some distance from
London. Wasn't he being held at Brecon with Buckingham?"
Doug here:
My understanding is that Morton, being a bishop and
all, was placed under "house arrest" with Buckingham being his jailer. I don't
see how Morton's not being in London has anything to do with when and where the
rumors were propagated, as my understanding is that the rumors appeared
*after* the rebellion had been put into motion and first appeared in the West
and Midlands. Which, BTW, is exactly where Morton was.
David again:
"Although Morton was an old Lancastrian, he seemed
to one of those who had seen the war as lost in 1471 and been a faithful servant
to Edward IV."
Doug here:
To quote Dr. Song: "Things change." 1483, and its
political situation, was *not* the same as 1471. Then a young king had defeated
his enemies and reclaimed his throne. The last acknowledged legitimate
Lancastrian heir had died in battle. If Morton wished to do *anything* other
than rusticate at Ely, he *had* to accept Edward and faithfully serve
him.
In 1483, the situation was so involved we're still
arguning about it 500 years later! There are the Yorkists who supported Edward's
son *because* he was Edward's son. Then there are the Woodvilles, who may be
viewed as a subset of that group. Then there are the original Ricardians,
supporters of Richard as Protector, who also are "Edwardians", but most
definitely *not* in the Woodville camp. Then toss in Stillington's
evidence and Stafford ego and - hey, presto! - dissension among the
Yorkists and a possibility for a Lancastrian restoration appears. In case it hasn't become obvious, my main thesis is that the
*only* reason Henry Tudor ever got anywhere was because the Yorkists were
fighting among themselves. The Yorkist unity that existed under Edward IV, and
caused to Morton to be his "faithful servant," no longer existed. *That* is the
situation Morton faced in 1483 and, I believe, took advantage of.
David wrote:
"The fact that Henry benefitted in the long term is
irrelevant if you accept the fact that in the summer of 1483 he had little
prospect of gaining power. I have not seen anything in any article I have read
that indicated he wanted the throne. MB seems to have been doing what she can to
bring HT home safely under both Edward IV and Richard, prseumably as
Richmond."
Doug here:
Unless one views Morton's actions as those of a
sociopath, causing trouble just to cause trouble, then one has to look at the
whole situation in 1483 and ask oneself: What *did* Morton want to
achieve?
I don't completely rule out his aiming to be the
power behind the throne with Stafford as "Henry VII", but then there are still
the rumors. *What* could have been the aim of them if not to clear the way for a
future grab at the throne in favor of HT? From what I've read about Buckingham,
I don't find it hard to believe that he thought the rumors would be a great
recruiting tool without realizing they could very well *decrease* the number of
those recruits.
But, again, the question arises *who* would want to
do something so dangerous to the cause the rebellion was supposedly in favor
of?
I'm still left with Morton, doing his best to keep
the Yorkists fractured and vulnerable, in hopes of, somehow, being able to take
advantage of the situation he'd helped to create. Henry St. John under Queen
Anne comes to mind as the same type of manipulator.
David wrote:
"I don't think I said anywhere that I thought
Richard may have started the rumours, but he is the only one I can see that had
an immediate benefit from them. All the others only benefitted in the distant
future and as I said their plan could have been easily undone by
Richard."
Doug here:
The rumors would only benefit Richard *if* people
believed them, and then would later require Richard to prove them false.
Something he never did.
If, on the other hand, the rumors were originally
intended to be spread *after* the rebels had all mustered and were to
provide a further justification to overthrow Richard, then that puts a very
different, and interesting, light on why the rumors appeared *when* they
did.
*If* the rebels were all mustered and *then* it was
announced that the boys were dead, then who was to replace them? I have little
doubt Stafford knew exactly who that someone was - himself. But the rumors began
to be spread *before* the rebels had all mustered, why? If not to benefit HT,
was the possible premature spreading of the rumors merely an error?
David wrote:
"On the reference to an undated Easter, we can not
assume that it must be 1484 simply because we have later sightings. It merely
indicates the Chronicle is probably wrong that it was the latest."
Doug here:
The Chronical said it was "after Easter" but
omitted any date. I reasoned that it was *likely* the "Easter" referred to was
1484 because at Easter of 1483 Edward was in Wales and his brother
with their mother. Edward IV didn't die until after Easter of 1483. As Easter
occurs *every* year and the death of a reigning king doesn't, if the reference
is to 1483, why wasn't Edward IV's death used to show when the boys were last
sighed?
If the date *wasn't* 1483, then we're left with
either 1484 or 1485. I tend to think it was 1484 because that's also when EW
left sanctuary, but I'll go with 1485 if that can be shown to be the
year.
But in either case, the date is *after* the
spreading of the rumors, which is the point of my argument.
David wrote:
"I don't think the rumours themselves caused a
split in the Yorkist ranks that was necessarily permanent, because Richard could
have scotched them at any time."
Doug here:
I don't think I ever argued that the "rumors"
caused a split; if I did, I apologize because that's *not* what I was trying to
say.
My view is that the splits/divisions amongst the
Yorkists began with the death of Edward IV, when the Woodville faction attempted
a coup against Richard's Protectorate. At theat point there were, at least, two
groups of Yorkists, Woodvilles and Ricardians. Those divisions were exacerbated
by Titulus Regius which declared Edward V ineligible to take the throne because
of his illegitimacy and that Richard was the rightful King. Now we have
Ricardians, Woodvilles, and non-Woodville supporters of Edward V. See? *Those*
are the "splits" I was referring to.
Doug
(who also hopes this makes sense)

David D. wrote:"<snip> In examining the logicality of
creating a false rumour I am trying to do what John Ashdown-Hill tries
to do in The Last Days. That is, to put ourselves back into the position
of the person we are studying without assuming knowledge of subsequent
events. <snip>"So,
applying these rules, which should always really be applied to avoid
the error of following a predetermined narrative, I am struggling to see
what expected benefit Morton could expect from starting a false rumour.
I am sure he was a clever chap, and I can see him quickly appreciating
the new circumstances that would exist after the deaths of the princes.
He can not have known at that point that Henry would survive, win and
make him
Archbishop of Canterbury. He can not even have known that Richard would
fall in with his part of the deception and refrain from denying the
rumours or producing the princes. "I also think Morton was himself some distance from London. Wasn't he being held at Brecon with Buckingham? Although
Morton was an old Lancastrian, he seemed to be one of those who had
seen the war as lost in 1471 and been a faithful servant to Edward IV.The
fact that Henry benefitted in the long term is irrelevant if you accept
the fact that in the summer of 1483 he had little prospect of gaining
power. I have not seen anything in any article I have read that
indicated he wanted the throne. MB seems to have been doing what she can
to bring HT home safely under both Edward IV and Richard, presumably as
Richmond."I don't think I said anywhere that I thought Richard
may have started the rumours, but he is the only one I can see
that had an immediate benefit from them. All the others only benefited
in the distant future and as I said their plan could have been easily
undone by Richard."On the reference to an undated Easter, we can
not assume that it must be 1484 simply because we have later sightings.
It merely indicates the Chronicle is probably wrong that it was the
latest."I don't think the rumours themselves caused a split in
the Yorkist ranks that was necessarily permanent, because Richard could
have scotched them at any time.I hope this makes sense.Kind regardsDavidHi, David. I absolutely agree that we should try not to be influenced by hindsight, but I'm afraid I disagree that Richard benefited in any way from the rumors. People then would have believed what many people now believe--if his nephews were dead, they must have been killed on his orders. Richard, who openly stated that he didn't want the money of the town he visited on his progress, he wanted their love, certainly would not have earned that love by becoming or appearing to become, a murderer. Moreover, he put out proclamations against the spreaders of unspecified false rumors. The rumors may have begun when the boys disappeared from view, either because they were placed in a more secure and less visible part of the Tower, as both Crowland and Mancini state (though they differ on the time frame) or because Richard had already arranged their escape (and, of course, didn't want anyone outside his immediate circle to know it) or because they really were dead, perhaps murdered by Buckingham.At any rate, we know how rumors work. Person 1: "I haven't seen Princes Edward and Richard lately. Have you?" Person 2: "No. Maybe King Richard has hidden them away." Person 1: "Or maybe he's done away with them." Person 1: "Oh, you're probably right. After all, his brother executed Good King Henry, and Henry IV executed Richard II. Yes, they're dead all right."Person 1 or 2 to Person 3: "Have you heard? King Richard's nephews are dead. . . ."Morton's or Margaret's spies could have heard the rumor and deliberately spread it among their allies through their agents (Reginald Bray, Christopher Urswick, et al.). Vergil's comment that Margaret Beaufort considered their (supposed) deaths to be for the good of England may be truer than we realize. Certainly, the rumor was useful to the enemies of Richard III as ammunition against him, and would have thrown a new coloring on the planned or hoped-for marriage between Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor, especially since the Yorkists would be looking for a new candidate tor replace both the "tyrant" Richard and the "dead" Edward V. They would have had two possible candidates, Buckingham and Tudor--neither particularly good choices, but the only other possibility was little Warwick, and I don't think anyone at this point was actively supporting him.As for Morton's "faithfully" serving Edward IV, II don't doubt that they found each other useful, which is not the same as Edward trusting Morton and Morton feeling any loyalty to a man he would regard as a usurper. It was in Morton's best interest to serve the Yorkist regime when the Lancastrians seemed utterly defeated, just as it was in Thomas Howard's interest to serve Henry Tudor whatever his real feelings. Every source I know of (except possibly Croyland) speaks of Morton as an inveterate schemer steeped in intrigue. When the ground shifted--Edward IV was dead and a child was about to be crowned, and shifted again when Richard deposed his nephew--the opportunity for intrigue must have been irresistible. I seriously doubt that he was innocent of the treason against Richard (as Protector) that he was charged with, and Margaret Beaufort was also involved in those schemes. Who knows what hopes arose in their minds at that point (other than bringing Henry back to England and undermining or overthrowing Richard)? I have my own ideas, but I won't state them here as I'm trying to stay with what we know or can reasonably assume to be true.The Easter 1484 date is based on the fact that Easter 1483 was March 30, some nine days before Edward IV's death. Richard was in the North, Edward IV was perhaps just becoming ill, his son Edward was in Wales, and his son Richard was with his mother in, I believe, Westminster. None of the events we're concerned with had occurred.It's possible, by the way, that the boys disappeared earlier, say September or October when the rumors started, but their disappearance was chalked up to weather--it was too cold to play and shoot outside. But when spring and fine weather (for London in the Little Ice Age!) came around again and no one saw the boys, rumors (separate from those deliberately spread by whoever would benefit--surely, Richard's enemies) may have begun to spread in London itself (which, nevertheless, did not rebel against Richard, with the exception of a few plotters and schemers affiliated with Margaret Beaufort and a few disaffected Yorkists like Colyngbourne).Carol

Marie, I agree with everything you say, but this made me wonder about something:"What I do think is that Philippa Gregory's vision of Margaret Beaufort calmly manoeuvring towards her son's kingship from the 1460s is completely wide of the mark. Quite when the possibility dawned on her, though, is not quite so easy to fathom."I agree that it's highly unlikely MB had had such a long-term plan to put her son on the throne, but I do wonder about the disaffected Lancastrians. What was *their* plan, after Henry VI and Edward of Lancaster both died? No doubt they remained loyal to Margaret of Anjou (and there's no doubt in my mind that there was plenty of secret correspondence going on), but of course they no longer had a king or king-to-be to rally round.But 10+ years is an awfully long time to sit around doing nothing. As they obviously weren't satisfied with the Yorks on the throne, I find it hard to believe they didn't have any Plan B in all this time.What - and who - was their real Plan B between 1471 and 1485? If it was HT all along, then I'm sure MB would have known about it, too. But HT's claim was so weak that it makes me wonder if the real Plan B wasn't someone else. Even Buckingham.Pansy

Doug wrote
" <snip> As for Richard denying the rumors, how was that to
be accomplished? By proclamation? Well, that's *exactly* what Richard, even if
he *had* killed his nephews would do, wouldn't he? And I as pointed out before,
the *only* way for Richard to disprove any rumors about the boys' deaths would
be to, literally, parade them around the country and hope that people who'd
never even seen Edward and Richard would accept that, yes these are
they!
Really?
My point is that the rumors were set loose at a
point in the rebellion where they caused the most dissension amongst the
*Yorkists.* By helping to set "Edwardians" against "Ricardians" with his support
of Buckingham's rebellion and then ensuring, or doing his best to ensure, that
rebellion failed by spreading a rumor the boys were dead, Morton all but
guaranteed that those who'd already come out in support of Edward wouldn't be
joined by any more Edwardian supporters. Thus producing a large group of
dissatisfied "Edwardians" who, what with attainders and such, would have even
less reason to "give Richard a chance."
Then there's those who might die in the the aborted
rebellion and the animosity those deaths would likely engender in their sons,
wives and other relatives. But that didn't matter so long as Morton's goal,
dissension among the Yorkists, was achieved. Carol responds:I don't know whether this will help, but the attainder issued by Parliament against the traitors who rebelled in October 1483, specifically accuses the Duke of Buckingham, the Bishop of Ely (Morton), along with "William Kynvet late of Bokenham Castell in the Shire of
Norfolk Knyght, John Russhe late of London Merchaunt, and Thomas Nandik late of
Cambrige, Nigromansier," of issuing "sundrie and diverse false and traiterous p[ro]clamacions
ayenst oure said Soveraigne Lorde {Richard III]," which would perhaps count as or include the particular rumor we have in mind. The same traitors have also "abused" (coerced or deceived) large numbers of people "to consent
and be partners of the same Offences and haynous Treasons." Later, some forty men (I didn't count the number) are listed as having "falsely and traiterously levied Werre, and made sundry
and diverse false and traiterous pclamacions to the people ayenst oure
said Soveraigne Lorde, to execute and accomplish thair said false traiterous
purpos and entent, conspiracon, compassyng and ymaginacon beforesaid," all at the instigation of the Duke of Buckingham (whose motivation they attribute to insatiable greed and ingratitude)From the wording of this proclamation, it appears to me that Parliament is saying what we have been saying--that Buckingham and his adherents, including Morton, stirred up the rebels to attempt Richard's deposition and death through false proclamations (possibly resembling the letter quoted earlier that called Richard a "tyrant" and "homicide"). Richard need not have been aware of the specific rumor that his nephews were dead, but he (and Parliament) apparently knew that he was being charged with usurpation and murder (the first of which Parliament countered by passing Titulus Regius).I would say more about this interesting (if wordy and exceedingly repetitious) document, but I don't want to stray from the point.Richard himself reacts to unspecified rumors in a letter of December 6, 1484, to the mayor of Windsor, which Gairdner and Kendall partially quote. According to Gairdner, the letter states "that
a number of false reports, invented by 'our ancient enemies
of France,' were circulated by seditious persons, to provoke
discord and division between the king and his lords. To check this, the mayor was commanded, if any such reports
or writings got abroad, to examine as to 'the first showers
and utterers thereof,' whom, when found, he was to commit
to prison and sharply to punish, as an example to others." The source, according to Kendall, is Harleian MS 787, folio 2. His paraphrase adds no new information, but it would be interesting to see the actual letter, which seems to attribute the origin of the rumors to the French and the spread of them (by this point) to Tudor supporters. (Richard had issued a proclamation against "Tydder" and his followers the previous June.)So we have two possibilities: Morton, Buckingham, et al. originated the rumors to "abuse and deceive" Richard's subjects into rebelling against him (or, more likely, change the focus of their rebellion from Edward IV to Buckingham or Tudor) or the French originated the rumors, which the Tudor faction used to its benefit. I think it's most likely that Buckingham and Morton (who was soon set free--he was with Buckingham at Brecknock but was conspiring with him, along with Nandyke, Knyvet, and Russhe, at least as early as October 6, according to the attainder) originated the rumors and caused them to be spread (perhaps originally through the three men mentioned here). The French certainly used the rumors to their advantage (Guillame de Rochefort made his accusation in January 1484), but that's not the same as originating them, however it may have seemed to Richard.Anyway, and I'm just sorting out my own thoughts here rather than arguing with David D. or any specific person, if the rumors of their deaths benefited him *and* they were really dead, he would obviously have displayed the bodies since that would be the only way for the deaths and rumors of the deaths to benefit him (if he were so delusional as to believe that the deaths of illegitimized children were necessary even though he was already king). On the other hand, since he didn't show the bodies, we must assume that 1) he hadn't yet heard that specific rumor, 2) they were dead by someone else's hand and neither the deaths nor the rumors of the deaths benefited him or 3) they weren't dead. Since he also didn't display the living boys (as Tudor later did with little Warwick), it was either because 1) he hadn't yet heard that specific rumor, 2) they were dead and he didn't want anyone to know (i.e., Buckingham or someone else had killed them), 3) they were alive but he didn't know where they were (unlikely at that time, especially since Croyland places them in the Tower at the time of Prince Edward's investiture), or 3) he knew where they were (in hidden parts of the Tower, at Gipping, or in Burgundy) but chose to bear the brunt of the rumors rather than letting their enemies and his know that they were alive. (Imagine what the Tudor faction would have done to them if they found them alive after the rumor had been spread. The Woodville faction, on the other hand, would obviously have used them against Richard. So his policy would have to be "Keep them secret; keep them safe" regardless of consequences to himself.Apropos of nothing, I finally figured out how to edit the subject line--simply click "Show More." No we can get rid of any accumulating "re re res"!Carol

Fantastic research there, Carol.There was such a lot going on at that time, so much plotting in so many centres.I was quite taken by a letter quoted by Annette Carson in the "Maligned King," from Richard to John Russell which was sent from Minster Lovell on 29th July and which the gist is" for his chancellor to arrange for the full force of law to be applied to 'certaine personne's' who of late had taken upon them the fact of an enterprise and are presently attached
and in ward, (in prison).She suggests that this is in response to a failed plot to free the princes.Sorry I don't have the source material for this, but I am so new to this.It seems a lot of people knew a lot of things about these plots and counterplots, but no one was saying anything. Very fertile territory for rumours to start. On Saturday, 19 October 2013, 22:06, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Doug wrote
" <snip> As for Richard denying the rumors, how was that to
be accomplished? By proclamation? Well, that's *exactly* what Richard, even if
he *had* killed his nephews would do, wouldn't he? And I as pointed out before,
the *only* way for Richard to disprove any rumors about the boys' deaths would
be to, literally, parade them around the country and hope that people who'd
never even seen Edward and Richard would accept that, yes these are
they!
Really?
My point is that the rumors were set loose at a
point in the rebellion where they caused the most dissension amongst the
*Yorkists.* By helping to set "Edwardians" against "Ricardians" with his support
of Buckingham's rebellion and then ensuring, or doing his best to ensure, that
rebellion failed by spreading a rumor the boys were dead, Morton all but
guaranteed that those who'd already come out in support of Edward wouldn't be
joined by any more Edwardian supporters. Thus producing a large group of
dissatisfied "Edwardians" who, what with attainders and such, would have even
less reason to "give Richard a chance."
Then there's those who might die in the the aborted
rebellion and the animosity those deaths would likely engender in their sons,
wives and other relatives. But that didn't matter so long as Morton's goal,
dissension among the Yorkists, was achieved. Carol responds:I don't know whether this will help, but the attainder issued by Parliament against the traitors who rebelled in October 1483, specifically accuses the Duke of Buckingham, the Bishop of Ely (Morton), along with "William Kynvet late of Bokenham Castell in the Shire of
Norfolk Knyght, John Russhe late of London Merchaunt, and Thomas Nandik late of
Cambrige, Nigromansier," of issuing "sundrie and diverse false and traiterous p[ro]clamacions
ayenst oure said Soveraigne Lorde {Richard III]," which would perhaps count as or include the particular rumor we have in mind. The same traitors have also "abused" (coerced or deceived) large numbers of people "to consent
and be partners of the same Offences and haynous Treasons." Later, some forty men (I didn't count the number) are listed as having "falsely and traiterously levied Werre, and made sundry
and diverse false and traiterous pclamacions to the people ayenst oure
said Soveraigne Lorde, to execute and accomplish thair said false traiterous
purpos and entent, conspiracon, compassyng and ymaginacon beforesaid," all at the instigation of the Duke of Buckingham (whose motivation they attribute to insatiable greed and ingratitude)From the wording of this proclamation, it appears to me that Parliament is saying what we have been saying--that Buckingham and his adherents, including Morton, stirred up the rebels to attempt Richard's deposition and death through false proclamations (possibly resembling the letter quoted earlier that called Richard a "tyrant" and "homicide"). Richard need not have been aware of the specific rumor that his nephews were dead, but he (and Parliament) apparently knew that he was being charged with usurpation and murder (the first of which Parliament countered by passing Titulus Regius).I would say more about this interesting (if wordy and exceedingly repetitious) document, but I don't want to stray from
the point.Richard himself reacts to unspecified rumors in a letter of December 6, 1484, to the mayor of Windsor, which Gairdner and Kendall partially quote. According to Gairdner, the letter states "that
a number of false reports, invented by 'our ancient enemies
of France,' were circulated by seditious persons, to provoke
discord and division between the king and his lords. To check this, the mayor was commanded, if any such reports
or writings got abroad, to examine as to 'the first showers
and utterers thereof,' whom, when found, he was to commit
to prison and sharply to punish, as an example to others." The source, according to Kendall, is Harleian MS 787, folio 2. His paraphrase adds no new information, but it would be interesting to see the actual letter, which seems to attribute the origin of the rumors to the French and the spread of them (by this point) to Tudor supporters. (Richard had issued a proclamation against "Tydder" and his followers the previous June.)So we have two possibilities: Morton, Buckingham, et al. originated the rumors to "abuse and deceive" Richard's subjects into rebelling against him (or, more likely, change the focus of their rebellion from Edward IV to Buckingham or Tudor) or the French originated the rumors, which the Tudor faction used to its benefit. I think it's most likely that Buckingham and Morton (who was soon set free--he was with Buckingham at Brecknock but was conspiring with him, along with Nandyke, Knyvet, and Russhe,
at least as early as October 6, according to the attainder) originated the rumors and caused them to be spread (perhaps originally through the three men mentioned here). The French certainly used the rumors to their advantage (Guillame de Rochefort made his accusation in January 1484), but that's not the same as originating them, however it may have seemed to Richard.Anyway, and I'm just sorting out my own thoughts here rather than arguing with David D. or any specific person, if the rumors of their deaths benefited him *and* they were really dead, he would obviously have displayed the bodies since that would be the only way for the deaths and rumors of the deaths to benefit him (if he were so delusional as to believe that the deaths of illegitimized children were necessary even though he was already king). On the other hand, since he didn't show the bodies, we must assume that 1) he hadn't yet heard that specific
rumor, 2) they were dead by someone else's hand and neither the deaths nor the rumors of the deaths benefited him or 3) they weren't dead. Since he also didn't display the living boys (as Tudor later did with little Warwick), it was either because 1) he hadn't yet heard that specific rumor, 2) they were dead and he didn't want anyone to know (i.e., Buckingham or someone else had killed them), 3) they were alive but he didn't know where they were (unlikely at that time, especially since Croyland places them in the Tower at the time of Prince Edward's investiture), or 3) he knew where they were (in hidden parts of the Tower, at Gipping, or in Burgundy) but chose to bear the brunt of the rumors rather than letting their enemies and his know that they were alive. (Imagine what the Tudor faction would have done to them if they found them alive after the rumor had been spread. The Woodville faction, on the other hand, would obviously have used them against
Richard. So his policy would have to be "Keep them secret; keep them safe" regardless of consequences to himself.Apropos of nothing, I finally figured out how to edit the subject line--simply click "Show More." No we can get rid of any accumulating "re re res"!Carol

Carol earlier:"So we have two possibilities: Morton, Buckingham, et al. originated the
rumors to "abuse and deceive" Richard's subjects into rebelling against
him (or, more likely, change the focus of their rebellion from Edward IV
to Buckingham or Tudor) or the French originated the rumors, which the
Tudor faction used to its benefit."Carol again:I meant Edward V, not Edward V, of course. (And what's up with Yahoo and its font glitches?)Carol

Jessie wrote:Fantastic research there, Carol.There was such a lot going on at that time, so much plotting in so many centres.I was quite taken by a letter quoted by Annette Carson in the "Maligned King," from Richard to John Russell which was sent from Minster Lovell on 29th July and which the gist is" for his chancellor to arrange for the full force of law to be applied to 'certaine personne's' who of late had taken upon them the fact of an enterprise and are presently attached
and in ward, (in prison).She suggests that this is in response to a failed plot to free the princes.Sorry I don't have the source material for this, but I am so new to this.It seems a lot of people knew a lot of things about these plots and counterplots, but no one was saying anything. Very fertile territory for rumours to start. Carol responds:Thank you. The letter is quite famous and available from many sources.The "enterprise" has been interpreted as everything from an attempt to "rescue" the "princesses" (EoY and her sisters) and send them overseas--as if they needed rescuing from anything worse than boredom in sanctuary) to Buckingham's murder of the "princes" (the interpretation of a famous novelist--I won't name the author for fear of spoilers). Annette's interpretation is the most convincing I've read.

Yes, I thought so.
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From:
justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Richard's reaction to rumors Was: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent:
Sun, Oct 20, 2013 12:04:35 AM

 
 Jessie wrote:Fantastic research there, Carol.There was such a lot going on at that time, so much plotting in so many centres.I was quite taken by a letter quoted by Annette Carson in the "Maligned King," from Richard to John Russell which was sent from Minster Lovell on 29th July and which the gist is" for his chancellor to arrange for the full force of law to be applied to 'certaine
personne's' who of late had taken upon them the fact of an enterprise and are presently attached
and in ward, (in prison).She suggests that this is in response to a failed plot to free the princes.Sorry I don't have the source material for this, but I am so new to this.It seems a lot of people knew a lot of things about these plots and counterplots, but no one was saying anything. Very fertile territory for rumours to start. Carol responds:Thank you. The letter is quite famous and available from many sources.The "enterprise" has been interpreted as everything from an attempt to "rescue" the "princesses" (EoY and her sisters) and send them overseas--as if they needed rescuing from anything worse than boredom in sanctuary) to Buckingham's murder of the "princes" (the interpretation of a famous novelist--I won't name the author  for fear of spoilers). Annette's interpretation is the most convincing I've read.

Pansy,I completely agree. Very well put. Farrah Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 17, 2013, at 4:03 PM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
 
This whole discussion has been vastly interesting, but Doug's comment about Buckingham's stupidity reminded me of that saying& "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." And when malice and stupidity combine, the results can be quite interesting to an outside observer.

For this reason, I think it might be useful sometimes to look away from plots that seem to have succeeded, and try to look for possible failed plots in the background. I'll bet there would have been plenty of those, in many different quarters.

I would even claim that most people who concoct plots and schemes tend to fail at them, because real evil geniuses are rarer than hen's teeth. Most people are not as clever as they think. On top of that, most people are inadequately prepared for the role of chance in the events of history. Just look at our current politicians: are most of them really all that intelligent? Do they really plan a long way ahead, and play a long and complicated game of chess with many opponents at the same time? Or are they mostly opportunists guided by chance and a keen sense of self-interest, with a few genuinely principled individuals scattered here and there? (The latter most often pushed aside when they're no longer useful to the ruthless.)

Even the successful 'conspiracies' in history tend to be a bit creaky when you look at them closely. People rarely bother to hide their tracks well enough, especially when they feel like they've won. And sometimes failed plots accidentally turn into successful ones, thanks to a fine mixture of chance and ruthless opportunism.

I think we (or at least I) often tend to think of historical figures of the distant past as sort of characters in a novel that do things for a reason, and tend to believe that historical events unfold in a logical sequence. It's easy to forget that the unpredictability of events and the sheer incompetence of many people involved in them are universal.

Pansy

The best legitimate English Lancastrian heir after 1471 was the Duke of Exeter, grandson of Elizabeth of Lancaster. After his mysterious drowning off Dover in 1475 there was his sister Anne, the mother of Ralph Neville, 3rd earl of Westmorland, I think, but I can look it up properly later. There would probably have been other moe junior descendants of Eliz of Lanc in the female line, but I can't think offhand.Then of course there were the foreign Lancastrian claimants, descended from Elizabeth's sister Philippa (the elder daughter, I think?).Marie ---In , <> wrote:Marie, I agree with everything you say, but this made me wonder about something:"What I do think is that Philippa Gregory's vision of Margaret Beaufort calmly manoeuvring towards her son's kingship from the 1460s is completely wide of the mark. Quite when the possibility dawned on her, though, is not quite so easy to fathom."I agree that it's highly unlikely MB had had such a long-term plan to put her son on the throne, but I do wonder about the disaffected Lancastrians. What was *their* plan, after Henry VI and Edward of Lancaster both died? No doubt they remained loyal to Margaret of Anjou (and there's no doubt in my mind that there was plenty of secret correspondence going on), but of course they no longer had a king or king-to-be to rally round.But 10+ years is an awfully long time to sit around doing nothing. As they obviously weren't satisfied with the Yorks on the throne, I find it hard to believe they didn't have any Plan B in all this time.What - and who - was their real Plan B between 1471 and 1485? If it was HT all along, then I'm sure MB would have known about it, too. But HT's claim was so weak that it makes me wonder if the real Plan B wasn't someone else. Even Buckingham.Pansy

It was Elizabeth's sister, Philippa of Lancaster both daughters of John of Gaunt and his first wife, Blanche of Lancaster, the great 14th century heiress. Philippa was married to the heir of Portugal. Their descendants, including Henry the Navigator, also concluded the longest (still extant) treaty between nations (just a bit of trivia - just another of the long-reaching, through the centuries, example of how the marriages of royal dynasties influenced or had an impact on history.
Judith (a propos Marie)
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>To: Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2013 3:49:27 PMSubject: RE: RE: RE: RE: Proclamation from Henry VII
The best legitimate English Lancastrian heir after 1471 was the Duke of Exeter, grandson of Elizabeth of Lancaster. After his mysterious drowning off Dover in 1475 there was his sister Anne, the mother of Ralph Neville, 3rd earl of Westmorland, I think, but I can look it up properly later. There would probably have been other moe junior descendants of Eliz of Lanc in the female line, but I can't think offhand.
Then of course there were the foreign Lancastrian claimants, descended from Elizabeth's sister Philippa (the elder daughter, I think?).
Marie
---In , <> wrote:
Marie, I agree with everything you say, but this made me wonder about something:
"What I do think is that Philippa Gregory's vision of Margaret Beaufort calmly manoeuvring towards her son's kingship from the 1460s is completely wide of the mark. Quite when the possibility dawned on her, though, is not quite so easy to fathom."

I agree that it's highly unlikely MB had had such a long-term plan to put her son on the throne, but I do wonder about the disaffected Lancastrians. What was *their* plan, after Henry VI and Edward of Lancaster both died? No doubt they remained loyal to Margaret of Anjou (and there's no doubt in my mind that there was plenty of secret correspondence going on), but of course they no longer had a king or king-to-be to rally round.

But 10+ years is an awfully long time to sit around doing nothing. As they obviously weren't satisfied with the Yorks on the throne, I find it hard to believe they didn't have any Plan B in all this time.

What - and who - was their real Plan B between 1471 and 1485? If it was HT all along, then I'm sure MB would have known about it, too. But HT's claim was so weak that it makes me wonder if the real Plan B wasn't someone else. Even Buckingham.

Pansy