Re : RE: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Proclamation from Henry VII

Hi Carol,
I have not forgotten that I promised to make a list of the followers of Henry Tudor that I know about. It may take a little time.

As far as the exact numbers are concerned they vary with each book you read. Sometimes the French are only counted at 1500. But I think the idea of whether it was a foreign invasion can not simply be decided by a majority of the soldiers in the armies. Mercenaries were quite common in many armies. The test in this case can be empirical, since the invasion actually succeeded. Were the English dispossessed and their lands given to France? I remember Penn did call it a foreign invasion, and in some ways that is a clever sound bite. However, the result was not to hand the country to a foreign power.

I am also surprised that you count the Welsh as "foreign" in this regard. Since the Statute of Rhuddlan, the Welsh were effectively English, except that after the rebellion of Owain Glyndur they had fewer rights. I don't think the border between the countries was even properly defined. But since the king of England had dominion over them, I would at least allow them the right to rebel without being a foreign invasion. The Plantagenets had spent a great deal of effort in bringing Wales under their control. While Scotland had its own monarchy at that time, it can be regarded as foreign, but the Welsh must surely be non-English but not foreign.

Henry had no followers at all. In fact, he was not even allowed contact with his uncle Jasper. In the early 1470s Francis came to an accord with Edward by which all his English or Welsh servants were sent home and he was isolated with Breton guards - with Henry and Jasper to be kept apart. I think some of the income from the Earldom of Richmond was diverted to pay for the Breton guards. This situation existed until Edward's death. So Henry's activities are really only traceable through the accounts of the Breton court. It is little wonder that he became fluent in Breton French and Latin as a result of his isolation. So his description of himself as a poor exile is as true as it can be.

So until the Earl of Oxford he had no Lancastrian followers and only acquired the Edwardian loyalist / Woodville ones after the failure of the Buckingham rebellion in December 1483.

For the chronology of Henry's exile, the best work is still Griffiths and Thomas - The Making of the Tudor Dynasty.

For the period immediately around Richard's reign and the relations with Brittany, I have an article by C S L Davies called Richard III, Brittany and Henry Tudor 1483 to 1485. My copy is in French, but I think I have seen it in English. The situation was much more complex than simply fearing Richard and there were divisions both in Brittany and in France. I don't think Richard was in any position to threaten France alone.

Kind regards
David










From:

justcarol67@... ;


To:

;


Subject:

RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII


Sent:

Sun, Oct 13, 2013 11:48:16 PM





 









 David Durose wrote:

" 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.  "

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

Hi David

I nearly choked with your mention of the Welsh as being English! They'll never get over it! Probably give them an apoplectic fit! At present I am living not too far from Rhuddlan so know how the mindset is. Thanks for making my day; it did cheer me up.
Elaine

--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
> I have not forgotten that I promised to make a list of the followers of Henry Tudor that I know about. It may take a little time.
>
> As far as the exact numbers are concerned they vary with each book you read. Sometimes the French are only counted at 1500. But I think the idea of whether it was a foreign invasion can not simply be decided by a majority of the soldiers in the armies. Mercenaries were quite common in many armies. The test in this case can be empirical, since the invasion actually succeeded. Were the English dispossessed and their lands given to France? I remember Penn did call it a foreign invasion, and in some ways that is a clever sound bite. However, the result was not to hand the country to a foreign power.
>
> I am also surprised that you count the Welsh as "foreign" in this regard. Since the Statute of Rhuddlan, the Welsh were effectively English, except that after the rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr they had fewer rights. I don't think the border between the countries was even properly defined. But since the king of England had dominion over them, I would at least allow them the right to rebel without being a foreign invasion. The Plantagenets had spent a great deal of effort in bringing Wales under their control. While Scotland had its own monarchy at that time, it can be regarded as foreign, but the Welsh must surely be non-English but not foreign.
>
> Henry had no followers at all. In fact, he was not even allowed contact with his uncle Jasper. In the early 1470s Francis came to an accord with Edward by which all his English or Welsh servants were sent home and he was isolated with Breton guards - with Henry and Jasper to be kept apart. I think some of the income from the Earldom of Richmond was diverted to pay for the Breton guards. This situation existed until Edward's death. So Henry's activities are really only traceable through the accounts of the Breton court. It is little wonder that he became fluent in Breton French and Latin as a result of his isolation. So his description of himself as a poor exile is as true as it can be.
>
> So until the Earl of Oxford he had no Lancastrian followers and only acquired the Edwardian loyalist / Woodville ones after the failure of the Buckingham rebellion in December 1483.
>
> For the chronology of Henry's exile, the best work is still Griffiths and Thomas - The Making of the Tudor Dynasty.
>
> For the period immediately around Richard's reign and the relations with Brittany, I have an article by C S L Davies called Richard III, Brittany and Henry Tudor 1483 to 1485. My copy is in French, but I think I have seen it in English. The situation was much more complex than simply fearing Richard and there were divisions both in Brittany and in France. I don't think Richard was in any position to threaten France alone.
>
> Kind regards
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
>
> justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
>
>
> To:
>
> <>;
>
>
> Subject:
>
> RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
>
>
> Sent:
>
> Sun, Oct 13, 2013 11:48:16 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  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 must admit my astonishment too. I am not Welsh, as far as I know, but I do visit a lot, and would have thought that comment would be apoplexy inducing.
It did set me thinking though, how great was the support for Henry Tudor in Wales at that time? Was it almost universal, or was Wales as much divided as England?

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 2:34:58 PM

 

Hi David

I nearly choked with your mention of the Welsh as being English! They'll never get over it! Probably give them an apoplectic fit! At present I am living not too far from Rhuddlan so know how the mindset is. Thanks for making my day; it did cheer me up.
Elaine

--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
> I have not forgotten that I promised to make a list of the followers of Henry Tudor that I know about. It may take a little time.
>
> As far as the exact numbers are concerned they vary with each book you read. Sometimes the French are only counted at 1500. But I think the idea of whether it was a foreign invasion can not simply be decided by a majority of the soldiers in the armies. Mercenaries were quite common in many armies. The test in this case can be empirical, since the invasion actually succeeded. Were the English dispossessed and their lands given to France? I remember Penn did call it a foreign invasion, and in some ways that is a clever sound bite. However, the result was not to hand the country to a foreign power.
>
> I am also surprised that you count the Welsh as "foreign" in this regard. Since the Statute of Rhuddlan, the Welsh were effectively English, except that after the rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr they had fewer rights. I don't think the border between the countries was even properly defined. But since the king of England had dominion over them, I would at least allow them the right to rebel without being a foreign invasion. The Plantagenets had spent a great deal of effort in bringing Wales under their control. While Scotland had its own monarchy at that time, it can be regarded as foreign, but the Welsh must surely be non-English but not foreign.
>
> Henry had no followers at all. In fact, he was not even allowed contact with his uncle Jasper. In the early 1470s Francis came to an accord with Edward by which all his English or Welsh servants were sent home and he was isolated with Breton guards - with Henry and Jasper to be kept apart. I think some of the income from the Earldom of Richmond was diverted to pay for the Breton guards. This situation existed until Edward's death. So Henry's activities are really only traceable through the accounts of the Breton court. It is little wonder that he became fluent in Breton French and Latin as a result of his isolation. So his description of himself as a poor exile is as true as it can be.
>
> So until the Earl of Oxford he had no Lancastrian followers and only acquired the Edwardian loyalist / Woodville ones after the failure of the Buckingham rebellion in December 1483.
>
> For the chronology of Henry's exile, the best work is still Griffiths and Thomas - The Making of the Tudor Dynasty.
>
> For the period immediately around Richard's reign and the relations with Brittany, I have an article by C S L Davies called Richard III, Brittany and Henry Tudor 1483 to 1485. My copy is in French, but I think I have seen it in English. The situation was much more complex than simply fearing Richard and there were divisions both in Brittany and in France. I don't think Richard was in any position to threaten France alone.
>
> Kind regards
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
>
> justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
>
>
> To:
>
> <>;
>
>
> Subject:
>
> RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
>
>
> Sent:
>
> Sun, Oct 13, 2013 11:48:16 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  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
>

Thank you very much for this reply. Although we disagree on whether Henry's invasion of England qualifies as "foreign" or not, you have effectively made my point that Tudor himself had no followers except Uncle Jasper (separated from him) and the diehard Lancastrian Oxford, himself imprisoned until James Blount released him (his motives for so doing have, to my knowledge, never been made clear). Tudor's (conditional) supporters, we agree, were mostly Woodville supporters or Edwardian Yorkists who (after Buckingham's Rebellion) wanted him to marry Elizabeth of York and rule in her name (not what Henry wanted at all, as he later made clear).

In other words, there was no popular uprising in England against Richard or in support of Henry, an improbable pseudo-Lancastrian pretender who took advantage of his status as a "poor exile" to appeal to the sympathies of possible supporters (mostly those who had originally wanted to reinstate Edward V). And, of course, he took advantage of the rumors about Richard, whether he believed them or not, to make himself appear to be opposing a tyrant.

Apologies for top-posting but I'm in a hurry as I need to be clear across town in an hour.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol,
I have not forgotten that I promised to make a list of the followers of Henry Tudor that I know about. It may take a little time.

As far as the exact numbers are concerned they vary with each book you read. Sometimes the French are only counted at 1500. But I think the idea of whether it was a foreign invasion can not simply be decided by a majority of the soldiers in the armies. Mercenaries were quite common in many armies. The test in this case can be empirical, since the invasion actually succeeded. Were the English dispossessed and their lands given to France? I remember Penn did call it a foreign invasion, and in some ways that is a clever sound bite. However, the result was not to hand the country to a foreign power.

I am also surprised that you count the Welsh as "foreign" in this regard. Since the Statute of Rhuddlan, the Welsh were effectively English, except that after the rebellion of Owain Glyndur they had fewer rights. I don't think the border between the countries was even properly defined. But since the king of England had dominion over them, I would at least allow them the right to rebel without being a foreign invasion. The Plantagenets had spent a great deal of effort in bringing Wales under their control. While Scotland had its own monarchy at that time, it can be regarded as foreign, but the Welsh must surely be non-English but not foreign.

Henry had no followers at all. In fact, he was not even allowed contact with his uncle Jasper. In the early 1470s Francis came to an accord with Edward by which all his English or Welsh servants were sent home and he was isolated with Breton guards - with Henry and Jasper to be kept apart. I think some of the income from the Earldom of Richmond was diverted to pay for the Breton guards. This situation existed until Edward's death. So Henry's activities are really only traceable through the accounts of the Breton court. It is little wonder that he became fluent in Breton French and Latin as a result of his isolation. So his description of himself as a poor exile is as true as it can be.

So until the Earl of Oxford he had no Lancastrian followers and only acquired the Edwardian loyalist / Woodville ones after the failure of the Buckingham rebellion in December 1483.

For the chronology of Henry's exile, the best work is still Griffiths and Thomas - The Making of the Tudor Dynasty.

For the period immediately around Richard's reign and the relations with Brittany, I have an article by C S L Davies called Richard III, Brittany and Henry Tudor 1483 to 1485. My copy is in French, but I think I have seen it in English. The situation was much more complex than simply fearing Richard and there were divisions both in Brittany and in France. I don't think Richard was in any position to threaten France alone.

Kind regards
David










From:

justcarol67@... ;


To:

;


Subject:

RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII


Sent:

Sun, Oct 13, 2013 11:48:16 PM















David Durose wrote:

" 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. "

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

No time for a proper reply, but about half of Wales was pro-Richard (his son-in-law was, as I understand it, keeping Tudor out of that part of Wales. Note also that the Vaughns (except the one Richard executed) sided with Richard (and the Staffords, other than Buckingham) in Buckingham's Rebellion. At any rate, the Tudor forces took care to land in a different part of Wales, Tudor having apparently bribed Rhys ap Thomas to break his promise to Richard. Others can correct, clarify, and develop these points.

Carol, who has to leave now to be on time!

---In , <> wrote:

I must admit my astonishment too. I am not Welsh, as far as I know, but I do visit a lot, and would have thought that comment would be apoplexy inducing.
It did set me thinking though, how great was the support for Henry Tudor in Wales at that time? Was it almost universal, or was Wales as much divided as England?

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 2:34:58 PM

Hi David

I nearly choked with your mention of the Welsh as being English! They'll never get over it! Probably give them an apoplectic fit! At present I am living not too far from Rhuddlan so know how the mindset is. Thanks for making my day; it did cheer me up.
Elaine

--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
> I have not forgotten that I promised to make a list of the followers of Henry Tudor that I know about. It may take a little time.
>
> As far as the exact numbers are concerned they vary with each book you read. Sometimes the French are only counted at 1500. But I think the idea of whether it was a foreign invasion can not simply be decided by a majority of the soldiers in the armies. Mercenaries were quite common in many armies. The test in this case can be empirical, since the invasion actually succeeded. Were the English dispossessed and their lands given to France? I remember Penn did call it a foreign invasion, and in some ways that is a clever sound bite. However, the result was not to hand the country to a foreign power.
>
> I am also surprised that you count the Welsh as "foreign" in this regard. Since the Statute of Rhuddlan, the Welsh were effectively English, except that after the rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr they had fewer rights. I don't think the border between the countries was even properly defined. But since the king of England had dominion over them, I would at least allow them the right to rebel without being a foreign invasion. The Plantagenets had spent a great deal of effort in bringing Wales under their control. While Scotland had its own monarchy at that time, it can be regarded as foreign, but the Welsh must surely be non-English but not foreign.
>
> Henry had no followers at all. In fact, he was not even allowed contact with his uncle Jasper. In the early 1470s Francis came to an accord with Edward by which all his English or Welsh servants were sent home and he was isolated with Breton guards - with Henry and Jasper to be kept apart. I think some of the income from the Earldom of Richmond was diverted to pay for the Breton guards. This situation existed until Edward's death. So Henry's activities are really only traceable through the accounts of the Breton court. It is little wonder that he became fluent in Breton French and Latin as a result of his isolation. So his description of himself as a poor exile is as true as it can be.
>
> So until the Earl of Oxford he had no Lancastrian followers and only acquired the Edwardian loyalist / Woodville ones after the failure of the Buckingham rebellion in December 1483.
>
> For the chronology of Henry's exile, the best work is still Griffiths and Thomas - The Making of the Tudor Dynasty.
>
> For the period immediately around Richard's reign and the relations with Brittany, I have an article by C S L Davies called Richard III, Brittany and Henry Tudor 1483 to 1485. My copy is in French, but I think I have seen it in English. The situation was much more complex than simply fearing Richard and there were divisions both in Brittany and in France. I don't think Richard was in any position to threaten France alone.
>
> Kind regards
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
>
> justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
>
>
> To:
>
> <>;
>
>
> Subject:
>
> RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
>
>
> Sent:
>
> Sun, Oct 13, 2013 11:48:16 PM
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â 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
>

TDavid/Carol/all This discussion has really raised a couple of questions with me; 1. Have we spent nigh on five hundred years 'naval-gazing' at why potentially Richard was disliked by the English when in fact the trouble lay with a much more astute and threatened regime across the channel (and I don't mean HT)? Have we given too much credit to the intelligence of MB, Morton etc when things manipulated by the Spider and his successor fell into their hands? France must have thought with Richard they had a new unswerving Henry V on their hands. 2. Would the Woodvilles, despite their lust to control the new child King, really have disposed of Richard so soon? He was the only decent soldier they/that child King had. Rivers was a great jouster but a notorious coward when it came down to fighting as he proved to Charles of Burgundy. Hastings was getting on. Edward V needed uncle Richard for some years yet, and he had been a tloyal, tame poodle to his father. So who stirred up the Woodvilles and Hastings and Richard. Perhaps we have been looking in the wrong place? H.

On Tuesday, 15 October 2013, 17:10, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
No time for a proper reply, but about half of Wales was pro-Richard (his son-in-law was, as I understand it, keeping Tudor out of that part of Wales. Note also that the Vaughns (except the one Richard executed) sided with Richard (and the Staffords, other than Buckingham) in Buckingham's Rebellion. At any rate, the Tudor forces took care to land in a different part of Wales, Tudor having apparently bribed Rhys ap Thomas to break his promise to Richard. Others can correct, clarify, and develop these points.

Carol, who has to leave now to be on time!


---In , <> wrote:

I must admit my astonishment too. I am not Welsh, as far as I know, but I do visit a lot, and would have thought that comment would be apoplexy inducing.
It did set me thinking though, how great was the support for Henry Tudor in Wales at that time? Was it almost universal, or was Wales as much divided as England? Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 2:34:58 PM

Hi David

I nearly choked with your mention of the Welsh as being English! They'll never get over it! Probably give them an apoplectic fit! At present I am living not too far from Rhuddlan so know how the mindset is. Thanks for making my day; it did cheer me up.
Elaine

--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
> I have not forgotten that I promised to make a list of the followers of Henry Tudor that I know about. It may take a little time.
>
> As far as the exact numbers are concerned they vary with each book you read. Sometimes the French are only counted at 1500. But I think the idea of whether it was a foreign invasion can not simply be decided by a majority of the soldiers in the armies. Mercenaries were quite common in many armies. The test in this case can be empirical, since the invasion actually succeeded. Were the English dispossessed and their lands given to France? I remember Penn did call it a foreign invasion, and in some ways that is a clever sound bite. However, the result was not to hand the country to a foreign power.
>
> I am also surprised that you count the Welsh as "foreign" in this regard. Since the Statute of Rhuddlan, the Welsh were effectively English, except that after the rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr they had fewer rights. I don't think the border between the countries was even properly defined. But since the king of England had dominion over them, I would at least allow them the right to rebel without being a foreign invasion. The Plantagenets had spent a great deal of effort in bringing Wales under their control. While Scotland had its own monarchy at that time, it can be regarded as foreign, but the Welsh must surely be non-English but not foreign.
>
> Henry had no followers at all. In fact, he was not even allowed contact with his uncle Jasper. In the early 1470s Francis came to an accord with Edward by which all his English or Welsh servants were sent home and he was isolated with Breton guards - with Henry and Jasper to be kept apart. I think some of the income from the Earldom of Richmond was diverted to pay for the Breton guards. This situation existed until Edward's death. So Henry's activities are really only traceable through the accounts of the Breton court. It is little wonder that he became fluent in Breton French and Latin as a result of his isolation. So his description of himself as a poor exile is as true as it can be.
>
> So until the Earl of Oxford he had no Lancastrian followers and only acquired the Edwardian loyalist / Woodville ones after the failure of the Buckingham rebellion in December 1483.
>
> For the chronology of Henry's exile, the best work is still Griffiths and Thomas - The Making of the Tudor Dynasty.
>
> For the period immediately around Richard's reign and the relations with Brittany, I have an article by C S L Davies called Richard III, Brittany and Henry Tudor 1483 to 1485. My copy is in French, but I think I have seen it in English. The situation was much more complex than simply fearing Richard and there were divisions both in Brittany and in France. I don't think Richard was in any position to threaten France alone.
>
> Kind regards
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
>
> justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
>
>
> To:
>
> <>;
>
>
> Subject:
>
> RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
>
>
> Sent:
>
> Sun, Oct 13, 2013 11:48:16 PM
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â 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
>

Jessie and Elaine,
I am really glad my post caused amusement. Although I think this demonstrates that it was not read very carefully. The point is, that if you are simply taking a head count to determine whether or not we are dealing with a foreign invasion (not my idea) then I think that you have to allow the Welsh to be counted among the non-foreign. At no point did I say that the Welsh were English.

If you subdue a people by force of arms and make your family kings over them, then you have to accept their right to take part in revolts.

You could look at it a different way and say it was an invasion of England and Wales.

Regards
David
From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>;
To: @yahoogroups com <>; kathryn198@... <kathryn198@...>;
Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 2:42:12 PM

 

I must admit my astonishment too. I am not Welsh, as far as I know, but I do visit a lot, and would have thought that comment would be apoplexy inducing.
It did set me thinking though, how great was the support for Henry Tudor in Wales at that time? Was it almost universal, or was Wales as much divided as England?

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 2:34:58 PM

 

Hi David

I nearly choked with your mention of the Welsh as being English! They'll never get over it! Probably give them an apoplectic fit! At present I am living not too far from Rhuddlan so know how the mindset is. Thanks for making my day; it did cheer me up.
Elaine

--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
> I have not forgotten that I promised to make a list of the followers of Henry Tudor that I know about. It may take a little time.
>
> As far as the exact numbers are concerned they vary with each book you read. Sometimes the French are only counted at 1500. But I think the idea of whether it was a foreign invasion can not simply be decided by a majority of the soldiers in the armies. Mercenaries were quite common in many armies. The test in this case can be empirical, since the invasion actually succeeded. Were the English dispossessed and their lands given to France? I remember Penn did call it a foreign invasion, and in some ways that is a clever sound bite. However, the result was not to hand the country to a foreign power.
>
> I am also surprised that you count the Welsh as "foreign" in this regard. Since the Statute of Rhuddlan, the Welsh were effectively English, except that after the rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr they had fewer rights. I don't think the border between the countries was even properly defined. But since the king of England had dominion over them, I would at least allow them the right to rebel without being a foreign invasion. The Plantagenets had spent a great deal of effort in bringing Wales under their control. While Scotland had its own monarchy at that time, it can be regarded as foreign, but the Welsh must surely be non-English but not foreign.
>
> Henry had no followers at all. In fact, he was not even allowed contact with his uncle Jasper. In the early 1470s Francis came to an accord with Edward by which all his English or Welsh servants were sent home and he was isolated with Breton guards - with Henry and Jasper to be kept apart. I think some of the income from the Earldom of Richmond was diverted to pay for the Breton guards. This situation existed until Edward's death. So Henry's activities are really only traceable through the accounts of the Breton court. It is little wonder that he became fluent in Breton French and Latin as a result of his isolation. So his description of himself as a poor exile is as true as it can be.
>
> So until the Earl of Oxford he had no Lancastrian followers and only acquired the Edwardian loyalist / Woodville ones after the failure of the Buckingham rebellion in December 1483.
>
> For the chronology of Henry's exile, the best work is still Griffiths and Thomas - The Making of the Tudor Dynasty.
>
> For the period immediately around Richard's reign and the relations with Brittany, I have an article by C S L Davies called Richard III, Brittany and Henry Tudor 1483 to 1485. My copy is in French, but I think I have seen it in English. The situation was much more complex than simply fearing Richard and there were divisions both in Brittany and in France. I don't think Richard was in any position to threaten France alone.
>
> Kind regards
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
>
> justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
>
>
> To:
>
> <>;
>
>
> Subject:
>
> RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
>
>
> Sent:
>
> Sun, Oct 13, 2013 11:48:16 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  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
>

David said:
At no point did I say that the Welsh were English.

David, this is what you said: " Since the Statute of Rhuddlan, the Welsh were effectively English," Call me pedantic if you will but as someone who is more Welsh than anything else, I'd say it's close enough. Fortunately we all see the funny side.
Liz
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 15 October 2013, 21:46
Subject: Re : Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII



Jessie and Elaine,
I am really glad my post caused amusement. Although I think this demonstrates that it was not read very carefully. The point is, that if you are simply taking a head count to determine whether or not we are dealing with a foreign invasion (not my idea) then I think that you have to allow the Welsh to be counted among the non-foreign. At no point did I say that the Welsh were English.

If you subdue a people by force of arms and make your family kings over them, then you have to accept their right to take part in revolts.

You could look at it a different way and say it was an invasion of England and Wales.

Regards
David
From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>;
To: @yahoogroups com <>; kathryn198@... <kathryn198@...>;
Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 2:42:12 PM

I must admit my astonishment too. I am not Welsh, as far as I know, but I do visit a lot, and would have thought that comment would be apoplexy inducing.
It did set me thinking though, how great was the support for Henry Tudor in Wales at that time? Was it almost universal, or was Wales as much divided as England? Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 2:34:58 PM

Hi David

I nearly choked with your mention of the Welsh as being English! They'll never get over it! Probably give them an apoplectic fit! At present I am living not too far from Rhuddlan so know how the mindset is. Thanks for making my day; it did cheer me up.
Elaine

--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
> I have not forgotten that I promised to make a list of the followers of Henry Tudor that I know about. It may take a little time.
>
> As far as the exact numbers are concerned they vary with each book you read. Sometimes the French are only counted at 1500. But I think the idea of whether it was a foreign invasion can not simply be decided by a majority of the soldiers in the armies. Mercenaries were quite common in many armies. The test in this case can be empirical, since the invasion actually succeeded. Were the English dispossessed and their lands given to France? I remember Penn did call it a foreign invasion, and in some ways that is a clever sound bite. However, the result was not to hand the country to a foreign power.
>
> I am also surprised that you count the Welsh as "foreign" in this regard. Since the Statute of Rhuddlan, the Welsh were effectively English, except that after the rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr they had fewer rights. I don't think the border between the countries was even properly defined. But since the king of England had dominion over them, I would at least allow them the right to rebel without being a foreign invasion. The Plantagenets had spent a great deal of effort in bringing Wales under their control. While Scotland had its own monarchy at that time, it can be regarded as foreign, but the Welsh must surely be non-English but not foreign.
>
> Henry had no followers at all. In fact, he was not even allowed contact with his uncle Jasper. In the early 1470s Francis came to an accord with Edward by which all his English or Welsh servants were sent home and he was isolated with Breton guards - with Henry and Jasper to be kept apart. I think some of the income from the Earldom of Richmond was diverted to pay for the Breton guards. This situation existed until Edward's death. So Henry's activities are really only traceable through the accounts of the Breton court. It is little wonder that he became fluent in Breton French and Latin as a result of his isolation. So his description of himself as a poor exile is as true as it can be.
>
> So until the Earl of Oxford he had no Lancastrian followers and only acquired the Edwardian loyalist / Woodville ones after the failure of the Buckingham rebellion in December 1483.
>
> For the chronology of Henry's exile, the best work is still Griffiths and Thomas - The Making of the Tudor Dynasty.
>
> For the period immediately around Richard's reign and the relations with Brittany, I have an article by C S L Davies called Richard III, Brittany and Henry Tudor 1483 to 1485. My copy is in French, but I think I have seen it in English. The situation was much more complex than simply fearing Richard and there were divisions both in Brittany and in France. I don't think Richard was in any position to threaten France alone.
>
> Kind regards
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
>
> justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
>
>
> To:
>
> <>;
>
>
> Subject:
>
> RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
>
>
> Sent:
>
> Sun, Oct 13, 2013 11:48:16 PM
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â 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
>

Hello Carol,
That seems a fair summary.

Marie has already provided part of the explanation, in that the exiles in Vannes were in no position to mobilize their usual retinues, except where they had escaped with them in 1483. Their places in the south of England had been taken by Richards's northern men, which itself increased Richard's unpopularity in the south.

As the article by C S L Davies points out, an unlikely string of circumstances in foreign power politics made Bosworth happen, but the battle was actually lost because of the unpopularity of Richard's adherents.

I don't know if Ralph Assheton made his way south, but I know that his sons did. If they were anything like their father, I can (for once) sympathize with the southerners. His cruelty was legendary in my mother's home town of Ashton, where he actually seemed to have revelled in his reputation.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 3:53:17 PM

 

Thank you very much for this reply. Although we disagree on whether Henry's invasion of England qualifies as "foreign" or not, you have effectively made my point that Tudor himself had no followers except Uncle Jasper (separated from him) and  the diehard Lancastrian Oxford, himself imprisoned until James Blount released him (his motives for so doing have, to my knowledge, never been made clear). Tudor's (conditional) supporters, we agree, were mostly Woodville supporters or Edwardian Yorkists who (after Buckingham's Rebellion) wanted him to marry Elizabeth of York and rule in her name (not what Henry wanted at all, as he later made clear).

In other words, there was no popular uprising in England against Richard or in support of Henry, an improbable pseudo-Lancastrian pretender who took advantage of his status as a "poor exile" to appeal to the sympathies of possible supporters (mostly those who had originally wanted to reinstate Edward V). And, of course, he took advantage of the rumors about Richard, whether he believed them or not, to make himself appear to be opposing a tyrant.

Apologies for top-posting but I'm in a hurry as I need to be clear across town in an hour.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol,
I have not forgotten that I promised to make a list of the followers of Henry Tudor that I know about. It may take a little time.

As far as the exact numbers are concerned they vary with each book you read. Sometimes the French are only counted at 1500. But I think the idea of whether it was a foreign invasion can not simply be decided by a majority of the soldiers in the armies. Mercenaries were quite common in many armies. The test in this case can be empirical, since the invasion actually succeeded. Were the English dispossessed and their lands given to France? I remember Penn did call it a foreign invasion, and in some ways that is a clever sound bite. However, the result was not to hand the country to a foreign power.

I am also surprised that you count the Welsh as "foreign" in this regard. Since the Statute of Rhuddlan, the Welsh were effectively English, except that after the rebellion of Owain Glyndur they had fewer rights. I don't think the border between the countries was even properly defined. But since the king of England had dominion over them, I would at least allow them the right to rebel without being a foreign invasion. The Plantagenets had spent a great deal of effort in bringing Wales under their control. While Scotland had its own monarchy at that time, it can be regarded as foreign, but the Welsh must surely be non-English but not foreign.

Henry had no followers at all. In fact, he was not even allowed contact with his uncle Jasper. In the early 1470s Francis came to an accord with Edward by which all his English or Welsh servants were sent home and he was isolated with Breton guards - with Henry and Jasper to be kept apart. I think some of the income from the Earldom of Richmond was diverted to pay for the Breton guards. This situation existed until Edward's death. So Henry's activities are really only traceable through the accounts of the Breton court. It is little wonder that he became fluent in Breton French and Latin as a result of his isolation. So his description of himself as a poor exile is as true as it can be.

So until the Earl of Oxford he had no Lancastrian followers and only acquired the Edwardian loyalist / Woodville ones after the failure of the Buckingham rebellion in December 1483.

For the chronology of Henry's exile, the best work is still Griffiths and Thomas - The Making of the Tudor Dynasty.

For the period immediately around Richard's reign and the relations with Brittany, I have an article by C S L Davies called Richard III, Brittany and Henry Tudor 1483 to 1485. My copy is in French, but I think I have seen it in English. The situation was much more complex than simply fearing Richard and there were divisions both in Brittany and in France. I don't think Richard was in any position to threaten France alone.

Kind regards
David










From:

justcarol67@... ;


To:

;


Subject:

RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII


Sent:

Sun, Oct 13, 2013 11:48:16 PM





 









 David Durose wrote:

" 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.  "

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

Hi Hilary,
As usual, some very perceptive observations.

We all criticize More and Vergil for writing in a Tudor era with the benefit of hindsight - painting the events of 1483-5 as an inevitable march of conspiracy and rumours that lead to the accession of the man with no claim to the throne.

However, aren't the revisionists and Ricardians just as guilty of the same 20/20 hindsight? Take for example, the rumour that the 'princes' were dead. This is seen as a clever part of a dark master plan that blackened Richard's name and provided an excuse for Henry's triumph. But could these consequences be foreseen in the summer of 1483? Hardly, nor is it in any way inevitable or even likely that the string of events in Brittany and France leading to Bosworth - including the deaths of important figures - could be envisaged.

Remember, More was Morton's pupil and writing in an established Tudor time would naturally overstate his mentor's part in the birth of the dynasty. Virgil interestingly takes a different view on the early conspiracy and has Buckingham taking the lead, with Morton being in fear of his life and suspecting a trick. In view of the recent council meeting, this has more of a ring of truth.

But let's examine the sense of starting a false rumour. While starting a rumour about someones character or behaviour may be succesful 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.

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.

You ask where was Louis XI's famous spy network in 1483. Our best test of this is Philippes de Commynes. He almost certainly records what the spies were reporting to Louis's court at the time. And I think he had no axe to grind in the politics of England. His accuracy seems quite good - we have a summary of the contents of Titulus Regius from him, together with the name of the bishop Stillington.

I hope this makes sense.

Kind regards
David



From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 4:25:12 PM

 

TDavid/Carol/all This discussion has really raised a couple of questions with me; 1. Have we spent nigh on five hundred years 'naval-gazing' at why potentially Richard was disliked by the English when in fact the trouble lay with a much more astute and threatened regime across the channel (and I don't mean HT)? Have we given too much credit to the intelligence of MB, Morton etc when things manipulated by the Spider and his successor fell into their hands? France must have thought with Richard they had a new unswerving Henry V on their hands. 2. Would the Woodvilles, despite their lust to control the new child King, really have disposed of Richard so soon? He was the only decent soldier they/that child King had. Rivers was a great jouster but a notorious coward when it came down to fighting as he proved to Charles of Burgundy. Hastings was getting on. Edward V needed uncle Richard for some years yet, and he had been a tloyal, tame poodle to his father. So who stirred up the Woodvilles and Hastings and Richard.  Perhaps we have been looking in the wrong place? H.

On Tuesday, 15 October 2013, 17:10, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
  No time for a proper reply, but about half of Wales was pro-Richard (his son-in-law was, as I understand it, keeping Tudor out of that part of Wales. Note also that the Vaughns (except the one Richard executed) sided with Richard (and the Staffords, other than Buckingham) in Buckingham's Rebellion. At any rate, the Tudor forces took care to land in a different part of Wales, Tudor having apparently bribed Rhys ap Thomas to break his promise to Richard. Others can correct, clarify, and develop these points.

Carol, who has to leave now to be on time!
 

---In , <> wrote:

I must admit my astonishment too. I am not Welsh, as far as I know, but I do visit a lot, and would have thought that comment would be apoplexy inducing.
It did set me thinking though, how great was the support for Henry Tudor in Wales at that time? Was it almost universal, or was Wales as much divided as England? Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 2:34:58 PM

  Hi David

I nearly choked with your mention of the Welsh as being English! They'll never get over it! Probably give them an apoplectic fit! At present I am living not too far from Rhuddlan so know how the mindset is. Thanks for making my day; it did cheer me up.
Elaine

--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
> I have not forgotten that I promised to make a list of the followers of Henry Tudor that I know about. It may take a little time.
>
> As far as the exact numbers are concerned they vary with each book you read. Sometimes the French are only counted at 1500. But I think the idea of whether it was a foreign invasion can not simply be decided by a majority of the soldiers in the armies. Mercenaries were quite common in many armies. The test in this case can be empirical, since the invasion actually succeeded. Were the English dispossessed and their lands given to France? I remember Penn did call it a foreign invasion, and in some ways that is a clever sound bite. However, the result was not to hand the country to a foreign power.
>
> I am also surprised that you count the Welsh as "foreign" in this regard. Since the Statute of Rhuddlan, the Welsh were effectively English, except that after the rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr they had fewer rights. I don't think the border between the countries was even properly defined. But since the king of England had dominion over them, I would at least allow them the right to rebel without being a foreign invasion. The Plantagenets had spent a great deal of effort in bringing Wales under their control. While Scotland had its own monarchy at that time, it can be regarded as foreign, but the Welsh must surely be non-English but not foreign.
>
> Henry had no followers at all. In fact, he was not even allowed contact with his uncle Jasper. In the early 1470s Francis came to an accord with Edward by which all his English or Welsh servants were sent home and he was isolated with Breton guards - with Henry and Jasper to be kept apart. I think some of the income from the Earldom of Richmond was diverted to pay for the Breton guards. This situation existed until Edward's death. So Henry's activities are really only traceable through the accounts of the Breton court. It is little wonder that he became fluent in Breton French and Latin as a result of his isolation. So his description of himself as a poor exile is as true as it can be.
>
> So until the Earl of Oxford he had no Lancastrian followers and only acquired the Edwardian loyalist / Woodville ones after the failure of the Buckingham rebellion in December 1483.
>
> For the chronology of Henry's exile, the best work is still Griffiths and Thomas - The Making of the Tudor Dynasty.
>
> For the period immediately around Richard's reign and the relations with Brittany, I have an article by C S L Davies called Richard III, Brittany and Henry Tudor 1483 to 1485. My copy is in French, but I think I have seen it in English. The situation was much more complex than simply fearing Richard and there were divisions both in Brittany and in France. I don't think Richard was in any position to threaten France alone.
>
> Kind regards
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
>
> justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
>
>
> To:
>
> <>;
>
>
> Subject:
>
> RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
>
>
> Sent:
>
> Sun, Oct 13, 2013 11:48:16 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  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
>

Rumour, and urban myth, can be a very powerful force and have a life of its own. There doesn't actually have to be truth behind it. People love gossip, and to have their own prejudices reinforced.
In our own time, how many people have spoken of "immigrants"coming here (the UK), and being given four bedroomed houses almost the moment that they got off the plane?
I have heard this so many times, and from experience know that it is highly unlikely to be true, but it is still doing the rounds.
Is the rumour about the Princes in the Tower any more likely to be true, or any less likely to be self propagating?

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Wed, Oct 16, 2013 12:06:39 PM

 

Hi Hilary,
As usual, some very perceptive observations.

We all criticize More and Vergil for writing in a Tudor era with the benefit of hindsight - painting the events of 1483-5 as an inevitable march of conspiracy and rumours that lead to the accession of the man with no claim to the throne.

However, arenx27;t the revisionists and Ricardians just as guilty of the same 20/20 hindsight? Take for example, the rumour that the x27;princesx27; were dead. This is seen as a clever part of a dark master plan that blackened Richardx27;s name and provided an excuse for Henryx27;s triumph. But could these consequences be foreseen in the summer of 1483? Hardly, nor is it in any way inevitable or even likely that the string of events in Brittany and France leading to Bosworth - including the deaths of important figures - could be envisaged.

Remember, More was Mortonx27;s pupil and writing in an established Tudor time would naturally overstate his mentorx27;s part in the birth of the dynasty. Virgil interestingly takes a different view on the early conspiracy and has Buckingham taking the lead, with Morton being in fear of his life and suspecting a trick. In view of the recent council meeting, this has more of a ring of truth.

But letx27;s examine the sense of starting a false rumour. While starting a rumour about someones character or behaviour may be succesful in spite of lack of truth - on the basis that x27;there is no smokex27;, intentionally false rumours about a fact that could be demonstrated to be false make no sense.

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.

You ask where was Louis XIx27;s famous spy network in 1483. Our best test of this is Philippes de Commynes. He almost certainly records what the spies were reporting to Louisx27;s court at the time. And I think he had no axe to grind in the politics of England. His accuracy seems quite good - we have a summary of the contents of Titulus Regius from him, together with the name of the bishop Stillington.

I hope this makes sense.

Kind regards
David

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 4:25:12 PM

 

TDavid/Carol/all This discussion has really raised a couple of questions with me; 1. Have we spent nigh on five hundred years 'naval-gazing' at why potentially Richard was disliked by the English when in fact the trouble lay with a much more astute and threatened regime across the channel (and I don't mean HT)? Have we given too much credit to the intelligence of MB, Morton etc when things manipulated by the Spider and his successor fell into their hands? France must have thought with Richard they had a new unswerving Henry V on their hands. 2. Would the Woodvilles, despite their lust to control the new child King, really have disposed of Richard so soon? He was the only decent soldier they/that child King had. Rivers was a great jouster but a notorious coward when it came down to fighting as he proved to Charles of Burgundy. Hastings was getting on. Edward V needed uncle Richard for some years yet, and he had been a tloyal, tame poodle to his father. So who stirred up the Woodvilles and Hastings and Richard.  Perhaps we have been looking in the wrong place? H.

On Tuesday, 15 October 2013, 17:10, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
  No time for a proper reply, but about half of Wales was pro-Richard (his son-in-law was, as I understand it, keeping Tudor out of that part of Wales. Note also that the Vaughns (except the one Richard executed) sided with Richard (and the Staffords, other than Buckingham) in Buckingham's Rebellion. At any rate, the Tudor forces took care to land in a different part of Wales, Tudor having apparently bribed Rhys ap Thomas to break his promise to Richard. Others can correct, clarify, and develop these points.

Carol, who has to leave now to be on time!
 

---In , <> wrote:

I must admit my astonishment too. I am not Welsh, as far as I know, but I do visit a lot, and would have thought that comment would be apoplexy inducing.
It did set me thinking though, how great was the support for Henry Tudor in Wales at that time? Was it almost universal, or was Wales as much divided as England? Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 2:34:58 PM

  Hi David

I nearly choked with your mention of the Welsh as being English! They'll never get over it! Probably give them an apoplectic fit! At present I am living not too far from Rhuddlan so know how the mindset is. Thanks for making my day; it did cheer me up.
Elaine

--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
> I have not forgotten that I promised to make a list of the followers of Henry Tudor that I know about. It may take a little time.
>
> As far as the exact numbers are concerned they vary with each book you read. Sometimes the French are only counted at 1500. But I think the idea of whether it was a foreign invasion can not simply be decided by a majority of the soldiers in the armies. Mercenaries were quite common in many armies. The test in this case can be empirical, since the invasion actually succeeded. Were the English dispossessed and their lands given to France? I remember Penn did call it a foreign invasion, and in some ways that is a clever sound bite. However, the result was not to hand the country to a foreign power.
>
> I am also surprised that you count the Welsh as "foreign" in this regard. Since the Statute of Rhuddlan, the Welsh were effectively English, except that after the rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr they had fewer rights. I don't think the border between the countries was even properly defined. But since the king of England had dominion over them, I would at least allow them the right to rebel without being a foreign invasion. The Plantagenets had spent a great deal of effort in bringing Wales under their control. While Scotland had its own monarchy at that time, it can be regarded as foreign, but the Welsh must surely be non-English but not foreign.
>
> Henry had no followers at all. In fact, he was not even allowed contact with his uncle Jasper. In the early 1470s Francis came to an accord with Edward by which all his English or Welsh servants were sent home and he was isolated with Breton guards - with Henry and Jasper to be kept apart. I think some of the income from the Earldom of Richmond was diverted to pay for the Breton guards. This situation existed until Edward's death. So Henry's activities are really only traceable through the accounts of the Breton court. It is little wonder that he became fluent in Breton French and Latin as a result of his isolation. So his description of himself as a poor exile is as true as it can be.
>
> So until the Earl of Oxford he had no Lancastrian followers and only acquired the Edwardian loyalist / Woodville ones after the failure of the Buckingham rebellion in December 1483.
>
> For the chronology of Henry's exile, the best work is still Griffiths and Thomas - The Making of the Tudor Dynasty.
>
> For the period immediately around Richard's reign and the relations with Brittany, I have an article by C S L Davies called Richard III, Brittany and Henry Tudor 1483 to 1485. My copy is in French, but I think I have seen it in English. The situation was much more complex than simply fearing Richard and there were divisions both in Brittany and in France. I don't think Richard was in any position to threaten France alone.
>
> Kind regards
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
>
> justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
>
>
> To:
>
> <>;
>
>
> Subject:
>
> RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
>
>
> Sent:
>
> Sun, Oct 13, 2013 11:48:16 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  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
>

ÿ Precisely. There is a word for those who write false history thirty years after the event by someone else's order. There are words for those naive enough to take it in. Tyrrell and Assheton are among the (posthumous) victims of such traducers - the former would be remembered as the man who rescued the ex-Princes to the continent, had Richard won.
Henry, Jasper and Oxford had indeed been absent from the realm for some years but his mother, stepfather and their cronies had not. Carson shows clearly how the rumours began from this second group. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jessie Skinner To: @yahoogroups com ; daviddurose2000@... Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:40 PM Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII

Rumour, and urban myth, can be a very powerful force and have a life of its own. There doesn't actually have to be truth behind it. People love gossip, and to have their own prejudices reinforced.
In our own time, how many people have spoken of "immigrants"coming here (the UK), and being given four bedroomed houses almost the moment that they got off the plane?
I have heard this so many times, and from experience know that it is highly unlikely to be true, but it is still doing the rounds.
Is the rumour about the Princes in the Tower any more likely to be true, or any less likely to be self propagating?

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Wed, Oct 16, 2013 12:06:39 PM

Hi Hilary,
As usual, some very perceptive observations.

We all criticize More and Vergil for writing in a Tudor era with the benefit of hindsight - painting the events of 1483-5 as an inevitable march of conspiracy and rumours that lead to the accession of the man with no claim to the throne.

However, arenx27;t the revisionists and Ricardians just as guilty of the same 20/20 hindsight? Take for example, the rumour that the x27;princesx27; were dead. This is seen as a clever part of a dark master plan that blackened Richardx27;s name and provided an excuse for Henryx27;s triumph. But could these consequences be foreseen in the summer of 1483? Hardly, nor is it in any way inevitable or even likely that the string of events in Brittany and France leading to Bosworth - including the deaths of important figures - could be envisaged.

Remember, More was Mortonx27;s pupil and writing in an established Tudor time would naturally overstate his mentorx27;s part in the birth of the dynasty. Virgil interestingly takes a different view on the early conspiracy and has Buckingham taking the lead, with Morton being in fear of his life and suspecting a trick. In view of the recent council meeting, this has more of a ring of truth.

But letx27;s examine the sense of starting a false rumour. While starting a rumour about someones character or behaviour may be succesful in spite of lack of truth - on the basis that x27;there is no smokex27;, intentionally false rumours about a fact that could be demonstrated to be false make no sense.

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.

You ask where was Louis XIx27;s famous spy network in 1483. Our best test of this is Philippes de Commynes. He almost certainly records what the spies were reporting to Louisx27;s court at the time. And I think he had no axe to grind in the politics of England. His accuracy seems quite good - we have a summary of the contents of Titulus Regius from him, together with the name of the bishop Stillington.

I hope this makes sense.

Kind regards
David

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 4:25:12 PM

TDavid/Carol/all This discussion has really raised a couple of questions with me; 1. Have we spent nigh on five hundred years &apos;naval-gazing&apos; at why potentially Richard was disliked by the English when in fact the trouble lay with a much more astute and threatened regime across the channel (and I don&apos;t mean HT)? Have we given too much credit to the intelligence of MB, Morton etc when things manipulated by the Spider and his successor fell into their hands? France must have thought with Richard they had a new unswerving Henry V on their hands. 2. Would the Woodvilles, despite their lust to control the new child King, really have disposed of Richard so soon? He was the only decent soldier they/that child King had. Rivers was a great jouster but a notorious coward when it came down to fighting as he proved to Charles of Burgundy. Hastings was getting on. Edward V needed uncle Richard for some years yet, and he had been a tloyal, tame poodle to his father. So who stirred up the Woodvilles and Hastings and Richard. Perhaps we have been looking in the wrong place? H.

On Tuesday, 15 October 2013, 17:10, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
No time for a proper reply, but about half of Wales was pro-Richard (his son-in-law was, as I understand it, keeping Tudor out of that part of Wales. Note also that the Vaughns (except the one Richard executed) sided with Richard (and the Staffords, other than Buckingham) in Buckingham&apos;s Rebellion. At any rate, the Tudor forces took care to land in a different part of Wales, Tudor having apparently bribed Rhys ap Thomas to break his promise to Richard. Others can correct, clarify, and develop these points.

Carol, who has to leave now to be on time!


---In , <> wrote:

I must admit my astonishment too. I am not Welsh, as far as I know, but I do visit a lot, and would have thought that comment would be apoplexy inducing.
It did set me thinking though, how great was the support for Henry Tudor in Wales at that time? Was it almost universal, or was Wales as much divided as England? Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 2:34:58 PM

Hi David

I nearly choked with your mention of the Welsh as being English! They&apos;ll never get over it! Probably give them an apoplectic fit! At present I am living not too far from Rhuddlan so know how the mindset is. Thanks for making my day; it did cheer me up.
Elaine

--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
> I have not forgotten that I promised to make a list of the followers of Henry Tudor that I know about. It may take a little time.
>
> As far as the exact numbers are concerned they vary with each book you read. Sometimes the French are only counted at 1500. But I think the idea of whether it was a foreign invasion can not simply be decided by a majority of the soldiers in the armies. Mercenaries were quite common in many armies. The test in this case can be empirical, since the invasion actually succeeded. Were the English dispossessed and their lands given to France? I remember Penn did call it a foreign invasion, and in some ways that is a clever sound bite. However, the result was not to hand the country to a foreign power.
>
> I am also surprised that you count the Welsh as "foreign" in this regard. Since the Statute of Rhuddlan, the Welsh were effectively English, except that after the rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr they had fewer rights. I don&apos;t think the border between the countries was even properly defined. But since the king of England had dominion over them, I would at least allow them the right to rebel without being a foreign invasion. The Plantagenets had spent a great deal of effort in bringing Wales under their control. While Scotland had its own monarchy at that time, it can be regarded as foreign, but the Welsh must surely be non-English but not foreign.
>
> Henry had no followers at all. In fact, he was not even allowed contact with his uncle Jasper. In the early 1470s Francis came to an accord with Edward by which all his English or Welsh servants were sent home and he was isolated with Breton guards - with Henry and Jasper to be kept apart. I think some of the income from the Earldom of Richmond was diverted to pay for the Breton guards. This situation existed until Edward&apos;s death. So Henry&apos;s activities are really only traceable through the accounts of the Breton court. It is little wonder that he became fluent in Breton French and Latin as a result of his isolation. So his description of himself as a poor exile is as true as it can be.
>
> So until the Earl of Oxford he had no Lancastrian followers and only acquired the Edwardian loyalist / Woodville ones after the failure of the Buckingham rebellion in December 1483.
>
> For the chronology of Henry&apos;s exile, the best work is still Griffiths and Thomas - The Making of the Tudor Dynasty.
>
> For the period immediately around Richard&apos;s reign and the relations with Brittany, I have an article by C S L Davies called Richard III, Brittany and Henry Tudor 1483 to 1485. My copy is in French, but I think I have seen it in English. The situation was much more complex than simply fearing Richard and there were divisions both in Brittany and in France. I don&apos;t think Richard was in any position to threaten France alone.
>
> Kind regards
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
>
> justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
>
>
> To:
>
> <>;
>
>
> Subject:
>
> RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
>
>
> Sent:
>
> Sun, Oct 13, 2013 11:48:16 PM
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â David Durose wrote:
>
> " <snip> As to the foreign invasion nature of Henry&apos;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&apos;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&apos;t have Penn&apos;s biography of Henry VII. but if I&apos;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&apos;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&apos;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&apos;m primarily interested in the number of Tudor&apos;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&apos;s sister, Anne of Beaujolais, thought that he might resume Edward IV&apos;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
>

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 14:38, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
ÿ Precisely. There is a word for those who write false history thirty years after the event by someone else's order. There are words for those naive enough to take it in. Tyrrell and Assheton are among the (posthumous) victims of such traducers - the former would be remembered as the man who rescued the ex-Princes to the continent, had Richard won.
Henry, Jasper and Oxford had indeed been absent from the realm for some years but his mother, stepfather and their cronies had not. Carson shows clearly how the rumours began from this second group. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jessie Skinner To: mailto:@yahoogroups%20com ; daviddurose2000@... Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:40 PM Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Rumour, and urban myth, can be a very powerful force and have a life of its own. There doesn't actually have to be truth behind it. People love gossip, and to have their own prejudices reinforced.
In our own time, how many people have spoken of "immigrants"coming here (the UK), and being given four bedroomed houses almost the moment that they got off the plane?
I have heard this so many times, and from experience know that it is highly unlikely to be true, but it is still doing the rounds.
Is the rumour about the Princes in the Tower any more likely to be true, or any less likely to be self propagating? Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : Re: Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Wed, Oct 16, 2013 12:06:39 PM

Hi Hilary,
As usual, some very perceptive observations.

We all criticize More and Vergil for writing in a Tudor era with the benefit of hindsight - painting the events of 1483-5 as an inevitable march of conspiracy and rumours that lead to the accession of the man with no claim to the throne.

However, arenx27;t the revisionists and Ricardians just as guilty of the same 20/20 hindsight? Take for example, the rumour that the x27;princesx27; were dead. This is seen as a clever part of a dark master plan that blackened Richardx27;s name and provided an excuse for Henryx27;s triumph. But could these consequences be foreseen in the summer of 1483? Hardly, nor is it in any way inevitable or even likely that the string of events in Brittany and France leading to Bosworth - including the deaths of important figures - could be envisaged.

Remember, More was Mortonx27;s pupil and writing in an established Tudor time would naturally overstate his mentorx27;s part in the birth of the dynasty. Virgil interestingly takes a different view on the early conspiracy and has Buckingham taking the lead, with Morton being in fear of his life and suspecting a trick. In view of the recent council meeting, this has more of a ring of truth.

But letx27;s examine the sense of starting a false rumour. While starting a rumour about someones character or behaviour may be succesful in spite of lack of truth - on the basis that x27;there is no smokex27;, intentionally false rumours about a fact that could be demonstrated to be false make no sense.

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.

You ask where was Louis XIx27;s famous spy network in 1483. Our best test of this is Philippes de Commynes. He almost certainly records what the spies were reporting to Louisx27;s court at the time. And I think he had no axe to grind in the politics of England. His accuracy seems quite good - we have a summary of the contents of Titulus Regius from him, together with the name of the bishop Stillington.

I hope this makes sense.

Kind regards
David



From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 4:25:12 PM

TDavid/Carol/all This discussion has really raised a couple of questions with me; 1. Have we spent nigh on five hundred years &apos;naval-gazing&apos; at why potentially Richard was disliked by the English when in fact the trouble lay with a much more astute and threatened regime across the channel (and I don&apos;t mean HT)? Have we given too much credit to the intelligence of MB, Morton etc when things manipulated by the Spider and his successor fell into their hands? France must have thought with Richard they had a new unswerving Henry V on their hands. 2. Would the Woodvilles, despite their lust to control the new child King, really have disposed of Richard so soon? He was the only decent soldier they/that child King had. Rivers was a great jouster but a notorious coward when it came down to fighting as he proved to Charles of Burgundy. Hastings was getting on. Edward V needed uncle Richard for some years yet, and he had been a tloyal, tame poodle to his father. So who stirred up the Woodvilles and Hastings and Richard. Perhaps we have been looking in the wrong place? H.

On Tuesday, 15 October 2013, 17:10, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
No time for a proper reply, but about half of Wales was pro-Richard (his son-in-law was, as I understand it, keeping Tudor out of that part of Wales. Note also that the Vaughns (except the one Richard executed) sided with Richard (and the Staffords, other than Buckingham) in Buckingham&apos;s Rebellion. At any rate, the Tudor forces took care to land in a different part of Wales, Tudor having apparently bribed Rhys ap Thomas to break his promise to Richard. Others can correct, clarify, and develop these points.

Carol, who has to leave now to be on time!


---In , <> wrote:

I must admit my astonishment too. I am not Welsh, as far as I know, but I do visit a lot, and would have thought that comment would be apoplexy inducing.
It did set me thinking though, how great was the support for Henry Tudor in Wales at that time? Was it almost universal, or was Wales as much divided as England? Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Tue, Oct 15, 2013 2:34:58 PM

Hi David

I nearly choked with your mention of the Welsh as being English! They&apos;ll never get over it! Probably give them an apoplectic fit! At present I am living not too far from Rhuddlan so know how the mindset is. Thanks for making my day; it did cheer me up.
Elaine

--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
> I have not forgotten that I promised to make a list of the followers of Henry Tudor that I know about. It may take a little time.
>
> As far as the exact numbers are concerned they vary with each book you read. Sometimes the French are only counted at 1500. But I think the idea of whether it was a foreign invasion can not simply be decided by a majority of the soldiers in the armies. Mercenaries were quite common in many armies. The test in this case can be empirical, since the invasion actually succeeded. Were the English dispossessed and their lands given to France? I remember Penn did call it a foreign invasion, and in some ways that is a clever sound bite. However, the result was not to hand the country to a foreign power.
>
> I am also surprised that you count the Welsh as "foreign" in this regard. Since the Statute of Rhuddlan, the Welsh were effectively English, except that after the rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr they had fewer rights. I don&apos;t think the border between the countries was even properly defined. But since the king of England had dominion over them, I would at least allow them the right to rebel without being a foreign invasion. The Plantagenets had spent a great deal of effort in bringing Wales under their control. While Scotland had its own monarchy at that time, it can be regarded as foreign, but the Welsh must surely be non-English but not foreign.
>
> Henry had no followers at all. In fact, he was not even allowed contact with his uncle Jasper. In the early 1470s Francis came to an accord with Edward by which all his English or Welsh servants were sent home and he was isolated with Breton guards - with Henry and Jasper to be kept apart. I think some of the income from the Earldom of Richmond was diverted to pay for the Breton guards. This situation existed until Edward&apos;s death. So Henry&apos;s activities are really only traceable through the accounts of the Breton court. It is little wonder that he became fluent in Breton French and Latin as a result of his isolation. So his description of himself as a poor exile is as true as it can be.
>
> So until the Earl of Oxford he had no Lancastrian followers and only acquired the Edwardian loyalist / Woodville ones after the failure of the Buckingham rebellion in December 1483.
>
> For the chronology of Henry&apos;s exile, the best work is still Griffiths and Thomas - The Making of the Tudor Dynasty.
>
> For the period immediately around Richard&apos;s reign and the relations with Brittany, I have an article by C S L Davies called Richard III, Brittany and Henry Tudor 1483 to 1485. My copy is in French, but I think I have seen it in English. The situation was much more complex than simply fearing Richard and there were divisions both in Brittany and in France. I don&apos;t think Richard was in any position to threaten France alone.
>
> Kind regards
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
>
> justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
>
>
> To:
>
> <>;
>
>
> Subject:
>
> RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
>
>
> Sent:
>
> Sun, Oct 13, 2013 11:48:16 PM
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â David Durose wrote:
>
> " <snip> As to the foreign invasion nature of Henry&apos;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&apos;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&apos;t have Penn&apos;s biography of Henry VII. but if I&apos;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&apos;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&apos;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&apos;m primarily interested in the number of Tudor&apos;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&apos;s sister, Anne of Beaujolais, thought that he might resume Edward IV&apos;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
>

David wrote:

"" <snip>The point is, that if you are simply taking a head count to determine whether or not we are dealing with a foreign invasion (not my idea) then I think that you have to allow the Welsh to be counted among the non-foreign. At no point did I say that the Welsh were English. If you subdue a people by force of arms and make your family kings over them, then you have to accept their right to take part in revolts. You could look at it a different way and say it was an invasion of England and Wales."

Carol responds:

Or an invasion of England by way of Wales--either way, a foreign invasion as the non-English Welsh had not yet joined up. It's also important to note that only one Welsh leader, Rhys ap Thomas, betrayed Richard and joined up (after allegedly promising Richard that Tudor's forces would have to pass over his belly to enter Wales). Much of Wales, including the part controlled by the Herberts, remained loyal to Richard, and Tudor carefully avoided landing there. The idea that the Welsh happily joined Tudor in overthrowing the "tyrant" is as false as the idea that all of England rose up against Richard. Or as false as Henry Tudor's Welshness--a mere quarter of his ancestry--for that matter. That the Welsh later chose to depict Tudor in their ballads as the prophesied hero who would defeat the Sassanach was their delusion, as they later learned to their cost. They should have realized--as the Irish did-- that Richard and the Yorkists in general treated them better than the Lancastrians had or the pseudo-Lancastrian Tudor ever would.

Apologies for any formatting glitches. Yahoo won't let me delete the horizontal line and is placing squares and doodles all over my post.

Carol

David D. wrote:

"Hello Carol, That seems a fair summary."

Carol responds:

Glad we agree on that much.

David D. again:

"Marie has already provided part of the explanation, in that the exiles in Vannes were in no position to mobilize their usual retinues, except where they had escaped with them in 1483. Their places in the south of England had been taken by Richards's northern men, which itself increased Richard's unpopularity in the south.

"As the article by C S L Davies points out, an unlikely string of circumstances in foreign power politics made Bosworth happen, but the battle was actually lost because of the unpopularity of Richard's adherents.

"I don't know if Ralph Assheton made his way south, but I know that his sons did. If they were anything like their father, I can (for once) sympathize with the southerners. His cruelty was legendary in my mother's home town of Ashton, where he actually seemed to have revelled in his reputation."

Carol responds:

Richard's supposed unpopularity in the South of England was not increased, so far as I know, after Buckingham's rebellion. The same people, mostly gentry, who had rebelled against Richard in 1483, originally to reinstate Edward V, had no choice but to rebel again in 1485, Even those whose treason had been forgiven had lost their positions and in some cases their property. The only way to get it back was to (conditionally) support the only rival candidate, Tudor.

As for the unpopularity of Richard's followers, please note that their reputations (Norfolk excepted because Tudor wanted the loyalty of his sons and grandsons) suffered the same fate as Richard's. As followers of a "tyrant," they must have been "tyrants" themselves. Sir Ralph Assheton was singled out, I believe, because he executed one of Richard's "innocent victims," Buckingham. (Sir James Tyrrell, though he didn't fight at Bosworth, is another famous example of a follower whose reputation was ruined. It's hard to find a good word online or in pro-Tudor sources about Lovell and Ratcliffe, either. And even many Ricardians dislike Catesby!)

At any rate, while we're sorting through the legends about Richard and trying to find the truth, we might do well to question legends about his followers as well.

Carol

Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

We don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Margaret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

We don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England to have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

We don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds:This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in Henry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset - seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister. But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "homicide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood".So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England to have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

We don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

Hi Carol,
I would have been surprised if the Herberts had not remained loyal, they had a big hand in fighting the Lancastrians in Wales. I would also have been surprised if Henry had been stupid enough to head straight for Herbert's stronghold before he had added to his numbers.

Are you confusing Rhys ap Thomas with Thomas Mitton, who allowed Henry across the Severn over his body at Shrewsbury, so as not to break his oath?

There were a number of Welsh and English contingents that joined Henry on his march, such as Gilbert Talbot.

Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Wed, Oct 16, 2013 3:30:40 PM

 

David wrote:

"" <snip>The point is, that if you are simply taking a head count to determine whether or not we are dealing with a foreign invasion (not my idea) then I think that you have to allow the Welsh to be counted among the non-foreign. At no point did I say that the Welsh were English. If you subdue a people by force of arms and make your family kings over them, then you have to accept their right to take part in revolts. You could look at it a different way and say it was an invasion of England and Wales."

Carol responds:

Or an invasion of England by way of Wales--either way, a foreign invasion as the non-English Welsh had not yet joined up. It's also important to note that only one Welsh leader, Rhys ap Thomas, betrayed Richard and joined up (after allegedly promising Richard that Tudor's forces would have to pass over his belly to enter Wales). Much of Wales, including the part controlled by the Herberts, remained loyal to Richard, and Tudor carefully avoided landing there. The idea that the Welsh happily joined Tudor in overthrowing the "tyrant" is as false as the idea that all of England rose up against Richard. Or as false as Henry Tudor's Welshness--a mere quarter of his ancestry--for that matter. That the Welsh later chose to depict Tudor in their ballads as the prophesied hero who would defeat the Sassanach was their delusion, as they later learned to their cost. They should have realized--as the Irish did-- that Richard and the Yorkists in general treated them better than the Lancastrians had or the pseudo-Lancastrian Tudor ever would.

Apologies for any formatting glitches. Yahoo won't let me delete the horizontal line and is placing squares and doodles all over my post.

Carol

Yes, I agree that Henry didn't seem to know for certain what had happened to the boys. But my point was referring to the time period when the rumours started (around the time of Buckingham's rebellion). The boys were not seen playing in The Tower and then it is 'passed around' that they were dead, murdered by Richard III. At that point, surely, if everyone was uncertain as to their fate, there was the chance that Richard would produce them which would put paid to that attack for a long time. That is what I meant about them taking a risk.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds:This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in He nry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset - seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister. But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "hom icide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood".So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England t o have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

W e don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

Doug/David all, thanks. Doug you put things so much more eloquently than me. By pure chance last night I decided to watch the Henry VI part of the Janina Ramirez's Hundred Years' War (well not hers personally :)). There were a couple of points relating to this which made me sit up: 1. When things started to go wrong for England in France the English attacked the King of France's right to rule by character assassination. In this case it was that as Charles VII had supported a heretic (Joan of Arc) he must be tainted with the same thing and was no longer fit to rule. Now Ramirez (who is excellent) was at pains to say how much Charles learned from English tactics, both military and other, so that by the end of his reign he was playing them very well at their own game. This would have been inherited by his son Louis; so character assassination would have been a supremely useful part of any plot to unseat the threatening Richard. 2. Juliet Barker (they had some good historians on this including Mortimer and Anne Curry) was saying what a wave of horror swept through England when they were left with a child king (Henry VI), even though in this case he undisputedly had his father's two brothers to rule for him. Child kings just didn't fit the medieval concept of monarchy - a king with a sword in his hand. Going back to my last point, I can just imagine a huddle at Westminster saying 'we've got years of those pesky Woodvilles to look forward to. Is there no way we can persuade good old Richard? Now what was that you heard about Eleanor Butler, Stillington?' Hilary (who has no answers but likes asking questions)

On Friday, 18 October 2013, 6:14, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
Yes, I agree that Henry didn't seem to know for certain what had happened to the boys. But my point was referring to the time period when the rumours started (around the time of Buckingham's rebellion). The boys were not seen playing in The Tower and then it is 'passed around' that they were dead, murdered by Richard III. At that point, surely, if everyone was uncertain as to their fate, there was the chance that Richard would produce them which would put paid to that attack for a long time. That is what I meant about them taking a risk.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds:This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in He nry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset - seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister. But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "hom icide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood".So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England t o have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

W e don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

Yes, I see what you mean. Of course a lot of early sources claim that Buckingham was involved in their murder. Even "Perkin Warbeck's" story seems to point to Buckingham as the lord who killed Edward V but spared him because he was his godson. If Buckingham did know something (say, Richard had had the boys removed to a remote location whence he would not be able to produce them in a hurry), or if he, Buckingham, had done something with them himself, then he could confidently start such a rumour knowing Richard was in no position to disprove it. But his knowledge would not necessarily extend to Tudor and Margaret Beaufort, or at least they would never have known for sure that what Buckingham had told them was true.

And then there's the odd question of why nobody ever claimed to be Edward V (Gordon Smith's theory about "Lambert Simnel" doesn't stand up, I'm afraid).

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I agree that Henry didn't seem to know for certain what had happened to the boys. But my point was referring to the time period when the rumours started (around the time of Buckingham's rebellion). The boys were not seen playing in The Tower and then it is 'passed around' that they were dead, murdered by Richard III. At that point, surely, if everyone was uncertain as to their fate, there was the chance that Richard would produce them which would put paid to that attack for a long time. That is what I meant about them taking a risk.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds:This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in He nry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset - seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister. But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "hom icide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood".So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England t o have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

W e don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

Yes it came to me too, Jonathan. I haven't read it either (but turned to the conclusion like you). Although she offers no solution other than he didn't do it it's very timely and looks to have discussed the contemporary sources well. Sorry Paul, if you're out there :). H.

On Friday, 18 October 2013, 12:54, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, I see what you mean. Of course a lot of early sources claim that Buckingham was involved in their murder. Even "Perkin Warbeck's" story seems to point to Buckingham as the lord who killed Edward V but spared him because he was his godson. If Buckingham did know something (say, Richard had had the boys removed to a remote location whence he would not be able to produce them in a hurry), or if he, Buckingham, had done something with them himself, then he could confidently start such a rumour knowing Richard was in no position to disprove it. But his knowledge would not necessarily extend to Tudor and Margaret Beaufort, or at least they would never have known for sure that what Buckingham had told them was true.And then there's the odd question of why nobody ever claimed to be Edward V (Gordon Smith's theory about "Lambert Simnel" doesn't stand up, I'm afraid).Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I agree that Henry didn't seem to know for certain what had happened to the boys. But my point was referring to the time period when the rumours started (around the time of Buckingham's rebellion). The boys were not seen playing in The Tower and then it is 'passed around' that they were dead, murdered by Richard III. At that point, surely, if everyone was uncertain as to their fate, there was the chance that Richard would produce them which would put paid to that attack for a long time. That is what I meant about them taking a risk.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds:This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in He nry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset - seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister. But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "hom icide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood".So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England t o have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

W e don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 18 October 2013, 12:59
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re : Re: Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII

> Yes it came to me too, Jonathan. I haven't read it either (but turned to the conclusion like you). Although she offers no
> solution other than he didn't do it it's very timely and looks to have discussed the contemporary sources well.

Yes, that's what appealed to me. Bibliography looks thorough, too, including stuff like Williamson, so I assume she considers the Gipping angle. I'm also particularly interested in her More essay and her aim to look at it in the context of "authorial intent".

I know Paul isn't exactly her greatest fan (!), but I'd class her as that rare thing - a serious historian who isn't entirely sheep-like.

Felt momentarily guilty looking at the last page first, but decided it wasn't Agatha Christie!

Jonathan




From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 18 October 2013, 12:59
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re : Re: Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII

Yes it came to me too, Jonathan. I haven't read it either (but turned to the conclusion like you). Although she offers no solution other than he didn't do it it's very timely and looks to have discussed the contemporary sources well. Sorry Paul, if you're out there :). H.

On Friday, 18 October 2013, 12:54, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, I see what you mean. Of course a lot of early sources claim that Buckingham was involved in their murder. Even "Perkin Warbeck's" story seems to point to Buckingham as the lord who killed Edward V but spared him because he was his godson. If Buckingham did know something (say, Richard had had the boys removed to a remote location whence he would not be able to produce them in a hurry), or if he, Buckingham, had done something with them himself, then he could confidently start such a rumour knowing Richard was in no position to disprove it. But his knowledge would not necessarily extend to Tudor and Margaret Beaufort, or at least they would never have known for sure that what Buckingham had told them was true.And then there's the odd question of why nobody ever claimed to be Edward V (Gordon Smith's theory about "Lambert Simnel" doesn't stand up, I'm afraid).Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I agree that Henry didn't seem to know for certain what had happened to the boys. But my point was referring to the time period when the rumours started (around the time of Buckingham's rebellion). The boys were not seen playing in The Tower and then it is 'passed around' that they were dead, murdered by Richard III. At that point, surely, if everyone was uncertain as to their fate, there was the chance that Richard would produce them which would put paid to that attack for a long time. That is what I meant about them taking a risk.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds:This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in He nry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset - seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister. But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "hom icide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood".So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England t o have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

W e don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

David D. asked:

"<snip> Are you confusing Rhys ap Thomas with Thomas Mitton, who allowed Henry across the Severn over his body at Shrewsbury, so as not to break his oath?" and added, "There were a number of Welsh and English contingents that joined Henry on his march, such as Gilbert Talbot."

Carol responds:

No. I've never heard of Thomas Mitton. I'm definitely thinking of Rhys ap Thomas. Since I don't have access to the new Dictionary of National Biography, I'm resorting to quoting from Wikipedia:

"Rhys had declined to support Buckingham's uprising. In the aftermath, when Richard appointed officers to replace those who had joined the revolt, he made Rhys ap Thomas his principal lieutenant in south west Wales and granted him an annuity for life of 40 marks. Rhys was required to send his son Gruffydd ap Rhys ap Thomas to the King's court at Nottingham as a hostage, but he excused himself from this obligation by claiming that nothing could bind him to his duty more strongly than his conscience. He is supposed to have taken an oath that

Whoever ill-affected to the state, shall dare to land in those parts of Wales where I have any employment under your majesty, must resolve with himself to make his entrance and irruption over my belly.

"Nevertheless, he is presumed to have carried on some correspondence with Henry Tudor, who was preparing another attempt in France to overthrow Richard."

The hostage story is probably a myth (confusion with Richard's holding Lord Strange, Thomas Stanley's son?), and the "belly" story may also be a myth, but Rhys's betrayal of Richard (probably because of bribes by Henry or perhaps some fanciful belief that the "Welsh" Henry had come to save Wales from the English despite Richard's own descent from Cadwallader, which he may not have known about), is a historical fact.

As for Gilbert Talbot, whose small "contingent" of, I believe, a few hundred men, is the only one I know about besides that of Rhys ap Thomas (I'm not counting a few strays like the two who escaped the custody of Sir Robert Brackenbury to join Tudor), I suspect that his motive in rebelling against Richard had something to do with either Titulus Regius or the old Lancastrian loyalties of his family.

Who was Thomas Mitton and which other "contingents" did you have in mind? (Even Vergil emphasizes the small numbers who joined Henry, the better to make his victory seem miraculous.)

Carol, with apologies for my long, tangled sentences

Carol responds:

In my view, which could ,of course, be wrong, the rumor that "arose" around the time of Buckingham's Rebellion and seems to have been spread only among factions hostile to Richard (Woodville supporters, Tudor supporters, the French) should be distinguished from stray rumors that may have arisen among Londoners and so forth, spread by more normal means at a later time (the type that could have been dispelled by showing the "Princes," alive or dead, had that been possible and suited Richard's purposes). The purpose of the deliberately circulated rumor was clearly to deflect support from Edward V to an alternative candidate (Buckingham or Tudor) and Richard may not have been aware of it at the time. No one was in a position to prove or disprove the rumor, but it was a useful propaganda tool. If it were later disproved or questioned (as Dorset's and EW's conduct suggests), it had nevertheless already served its purpose, and it was too late to switch support back to Edward V, whose whereabouts were unknown.

The risk of spreading the rumor among people who were already opposed to Richard and nowhere near London, especially if the boys really had disappeared from sight, was small compared with the benefits. And if it was Buckingham who spread the rumor, perhaps he didn't think ahead to anything except his dreams of kingship, while the Woodvillites and Tudorites would have no reason to question his knowledge of the murder (and perhaps to whisper among themselves that he had killed them himself--note the lack of specificity of the rumor ("none knew how [the boys supposedly died]").

I forget where the rebels gathered or were supposed to gather.

No time to format the post. This anorak (love the word!) has to leave her computer!

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I agree that Henry didn't seem to know for certain what had happened to the boys. But my point was referring to the time period when the rumours started (around the time of Buckingham's rebellion). The boys were not seen playing in The Tower and then it is 'passed around' that they were dead, murdered by Richard III. At that point, surely, if everyone was uncertain as to their fate, there was the chance that Richard would produce them which would put paid to that attack for a long time. That is what I meant about them taking a risk.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds:This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in He nry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset - seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister. But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "hom icide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood".So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England t o have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

W e don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

Hi Hilary,
I did make a distiction in my earlier post about character assassination and this specific rumour which was about a fact that could be established.

I think that Louis XI was not at the peak of his powers and had known that he was dying for some time. I think he had no cause to fear Richard because England had its home made troubles. He was more concerned with his succession.

I used to think that the great conspiracy theory would have been that Louis had Edward poisoned, because he knew France would be at a disadvantage with a child king when England had one at the peak of his powers.

But again, Commynes only says that Louis was greatly saddened by the news. So the conventional story is as usual probably true.

Regards
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re : Re: Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Fri, Oct 18, 2013 9:30:34 AM

 

Doug/David all, thanks. Doug you put things so much more eloquently than me. By pure chance last night  I decided to watch the Henry VI part of the Janina Ramirez's Hundred Years' War (well not hers personally :)). There were a couple of points relating to this which made me sit up: 1. When things started to go wrong for England in France the English attacked the King of France's right to rule by character assassination. In this case it was that as Charles VII had supported a heretic (Joan of Arc) he must be tainted with the same thing and was no longer fit to rule. Now Ramirez (who is excellent) was at pains to say how much Charles learned from English tactics, both military and other, so that by the end of his reign he was playing them very well at their own game. This would have been inherited by his son Louis; so character assassination would have been a supremely useful part of any plot to unseat the threatening Richard. 2. Juliet Barker (they had some good historians on this including Mortimer and Anne Curry) was saying what a wave of horror swept through England when they were left with a child king (Henry VI), even though in this case he undisputedly had his father's two brothers to rule for him. Child kings just didn't fit the medieval concept of monarchy - a king with a sword in his hand. Going back to my last point, I can just imagine a huddle at Westminster saying 'we've got years of those pesky Woodvilles to look forward to. Is there no way we can persuade good old Richard? Now what was that you heard about Eleanor Butler, Stillington?' Hilary (who has no answers but likes asking questions)   

On Friday, 18 October 2013, 6:14, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
  Yes, I agree that Henry didn't seem to know for certain what had happened to the boys.  But my point was referring to the time period when the rumours started (around the time of Buckingham's rebellion).  The boys were not seen playing in The Tower and then it is 'passed around' that they were dead, murdered by Richard III.  At that point, surely, if everyone was uncertain as to their fate, there was the chance that Richard would produce them which would put paid to that attack for a long time.  That is what I meant about them taking a risk.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

   On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
  But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds:This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in He nry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset -  seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister.  But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "hom icide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood".So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England t o have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
  But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


  Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

W e don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

Carol,
Thomas Mitton or Mytton was squire and bailiff of Shrewsbury. Shrewsbury is a strategic crossing point of the Severn river. He had been rewarded by Richard after the 1483 rebellion, but allowed Henry to pass into England over his body.

The story is similar, both legends may be true - who knows?

Regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re : Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Fri, Oct 18, 2013 5:23:36 PM

 

David D. asked:

"<snip> Are you confusing Rhys ap Thomas with Thomas Mitton, who allowed Henry across the Severn over his body at Shrewsbury, so as not to break his oath?" and added, "There were a number of Welsh and English contingents that joined Henry on his march, such as Gilbert Talbot."

Carol responds:

No. I've never heard of Thomas Mitton. I'm definitely thinking of Rhys ap Thomas. Since I don't have access to the new Dictionary of National Biography, I'm resorting to quoting from Wikipedia:

"Rhys had declined to support Buckingham's uprising. In the aftermath, when Richard appointed officers to replace those who had joined the revolt, he made Rhys ap Thomas his principal lieutenant in south west Wales and granted him an annuity for life of 40 marks. Rhys was required to send his son Gruffydd ap Rhys ap Thomas to the King's court at Nottingham as a hostage, but he excused himself from this obligation by claiming that nothing could bind him to his duty more strongly than his conscience. He is supposed to have taken an oath that

Whoever ill-affected to the state, shall dare to land in those parts of Wales where I have any employment under your majesty, must resolve with himself to make his entrance and irruption over my belly.

"Nevertheless, he is presumed to have carried on some correspondence with Henry Tudor, who was preparing another attempt in France to overthrow Richard."

The hostage story is probably a myth (confusion with Richard's holding Lord Strange, Thomas Stanley's son?), and the "belly" story may also be a myth, but Rhys's betrayal of Richard (probably because of bribes by Henry or perhaps some fanciful belief that the "Welsh" Henry had come to save Wales from the English despite Richard's own descent from Cadwallader, which he may not have known about), is a historical fact.

As for Gilbert Talbot, whose small "contingent" of, I believe, a few hundred men, is the only one I know about besides that of Rhys ap Thomas (I'm not counting a few strays like the two who escaped the custody of Sir Robert Brackenbury to join Tudor), I suspect that his motive in rebelling against Richard had something to do with either Titulus Regius or the old Lancastrian loyalties of his family.

Who was Thomas Mitton and which other "contingents" did you have in mind? (Even Vergil emphasizes the small numbers who joined Henry, the better to make his victory seem miraculous.)

Carol, with apologies for my long, tangled sentences

Maire wrote:

"<snip> Of course a lot of early sources claim that Buckingham was involved in their murder. Even "Perkin Warbeck's" story seems to point to Buckingham as the lord who killed Edward V but spared him because he was his godson. If Buckingham did know something (say, Richard had had the boys removed to a remote location whence he would not be able to produce them in a hurry), or if he, Buckingham, had done something with them himself, then he could confidently start such a rumour knowing Richard was in no position to disprove it. But his knowledge would not necessarily extend to Tudor and Margaret Beaufort, or at least they would never have known for sure that what Buckingham had told them was true.

And then there's the odd question of why nobody ever claimed to be Edward V (Gordon Smith's theory about "Lambert Simnel" doesn't stand up, I'm afraid)."

Carol responds:

Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I agree that Henry didn't seem to know for certain what had happened to the boys. But my point was referring to the time period when the rumours started (around the time of Buckingham's rebellion). The boys were not seen playing in The Tower and then it is 'passed around' that they were dead, murdered by Richard III. At that point, surely, if everyone was uncertain as to their fate, there was the chance that Richard would produce them which would put paid to that attack for a long time. That is what I meant about them taking a risk.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds:This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in He nry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset - seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister. But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "hom icide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood".So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England t o have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

W e don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

David wrote:

"Thomas Mitton or Mytton was squire and bailiff of Shrewsbury. Shrewsbury is a strategic crossing point of the Severn river. He had been rewarded by Richard after the 1483 rebellion, but allowed Henry to pass into England over his body. The story is similar, both legends may be true - who knows?"

Regards
David
Carol responds:

Thanks for the information on Mitton/Mytton. I knew that someone had opened the gates to Tudor at Shrewsbury but didn't know the name.Rhys ap Thomas, on the other hand, is too famous--or infamous--to forget. Some stories identify him as the man who delivered the fatal blow to Richard. (I forget how Tudor rewarded him--probably not as well as he had hoped.)

At any rate, if the story is true (including the part about lying under a bridge to keep his word to Richard), it was probably Rhys, not Mytton, who said it. It's highly unlikely that two men would have made the same colorful promise (or kept it in the same bizarre way). More likely, neither of them said it and it's just a folktale.

By the way, I could not disagree more with your statement in another post that "the conventional view as usual is probably true." As far as I'm concerned, the whole purpose of this forum is to question the conventional version of any story (whether it's Richard's spur striking a bridge or Edward holding a knife to Elizabeth Woodville's throat). The more colorful the story, the less likely it is to be true. Check the source. Check alternate sources. And trust nothing but official documents, knowing that even they will sometimes reflect the official Yorkist, Lancastrian, or Tudor position.

I just realized that my statement about clicking "Show More" was misleading. You have to click a tiny square first.

Carol, getting rid of nine out of ten "res" before hitting Send

Hi Carol,
Just checking on the forum's own spreadsheet of combatants at Bosworth, and it quotes at least 22 names of Welshmen who fought for Henry.

I think from researching a few of the names that they are all equires or knights - the class of gentlemen who would have brought their own retinues.

Regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re : Re: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Fri, Oct 18, 2013 5:23:36 PM

 

David D. asked:

"<snip> Are you confusing Rhys ap Thomas with Thomas Mitton, who allowed Henry across the Severn over his body at Shrewsbury, so as not to break his oath?" and added, "There were a number of Welsh and English contingents that joined Henry on his march, such as Gilbert Talbot."

Carol responds:

No. I've never heard of Thomas Mitton. I'm definitely thinking of Rhys ap Thomas. Since I don't have access to the new Dictionary of National Biography, I'm resorting to quoting from Wikipedia:

"Rhys had declined to support Buckingham's uprising. In the aftermath, when Richard appointed officers to replace those who had joined the revolt, he made Rhys ap Thomas his principal lieutenant in south west Wales and granted him an annuity for life of 40 marks. Rhys was required to send his son Gruffydd ap Rhys ap Thomas to the King's court at Nottingham as a hostage, but he excused himself from this obligation by claiming that nothing could bind him to his duty more strongly than his conscience. He is supposed to have taken an oath that

Whoever ill-affected to the state, shall dare to land in those parts of Wales where I have any employment under your majesty, must resolve with himself to make his entrance and irruption over my belly.

"Nevertheless, he is presumed to have carried on some correspondence with Henry Tudor, who was preparing another attempt in France to overthrow Richard."

The hostage story is probably a myth (confusion with Richard's holding Lord Strange, Thomas Stanley's son?), and the "belly" story may also be a myth, but Rhys's betrayal of Richard (probably because of bribes by Henry or perhaps some fanciful belief that the "Welsh" Henry had come to save Wales from the English despite Richard's own descent from Cadwallader, which he may not have known about), is a historical fact.

As for Gilbert Talbot, whose small "contingent" of, I believe, a few hundred men, is the only one I know about besides that of Rhys ap Thomas (I'm not counting a few strays like the two who escaped the custody of Sir Robert Brackenbury to join Tudor), I suspect that his motive in rebelling against Richard had something to do with either Titulus Regius or the old Lancastrian loyalties of his family.

Who was Thomas Mitton and which other "contingents" did you have in mind? (Even Vergil emphasizes the small numbers who joined Henry, the better to make his victory seem miraculous.)

Carol, with apologies for my long, tangled sentences

David D. wrote:

Hi Carol,
Just checking on the forum's own spreadsheet of combatants at Bosworth, and it quotes at least 22 names of Welshmen who fought for Henry.

I think from researching a few of the names that they are all equires or knights - the class of gentlemen who would have brought their own retinues.

Carol responds:

Thank you, David, but that doesn't really answer my question. I believe that the number of men who would have accompanied a gentleman would have been rather limited (especially given that Welsh gentlemen would be unlikely to be wealthy and their power restricted). I suspect that these gentlemen were Rhys's own followers and any "contingents" they brought to the battle would have been small.

However, I confess to hating Bosworth based on its outcome and I yield to anyone who has researched it. Stephen has recently written a book on Bosworth. Perhaps he or Paul or the other David could step in here and help us out.

Yahoo seems to think that I'm quoting a figure or table, so who knows what it will do to my format. (Sorry, everyone. I'll try to limit my rants against the Yahooligans in future posts, but the post I was typing just disappeared in front of my eyes.)

Carol

Carol wrote:

"Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it."

Marie responds:

It morphed into writing a book about Edward Earl of Warwick, or really about what other people were doing around him during his short life. I I have done much of the research, and am now about 2/3 of the way through writing Chapter 1. Slow work, though.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Maire wrote:

"<snip> Of course a lot of early sources claim that Buckingham was involved in their murder. Even "Perkin Warbeck's" story seems to point to Buckingham as the lord who killed Edward V but spared him because he was his godson. If Buckingham did know something (say, Richard had had the boys removed to a remote location whence he would not be able to produce them in a hurry), or if he, Buckingham, had done something with them himself, then he could confidently start such a rumour knowing Richard was in no position to disprove it. But his knowledge would not necessarily extend to Tudor and Margaret Beaufort, or at least they would never have known for sure that what Buckingham had told them was true.

And then there's the odd question of why nobody ever claimed to be Edward V (Gordon Smith's theory about "Lambert Simnel" doesn't stand up, I'm afraid)."

Carol responds:

Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I agree that Henry didn't seem to know for certain what had happened to the boys. But my point was referring to the time period when the rumours started (around the time of Buckingham's rebellion). The boys were not seen playing in The Tower and then it is 'passed around' that they were dead, murdered by Richard III. At that point, surely, if everyone was uncertain as to their fate, there was the chance that Richard would produce them which would put paid to that attack for a long time. That is what I meant about them taking a risk.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds:This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in He nry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset - seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister. But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "hom icide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood".So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England t o have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

W e don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

Carol earlier:

"Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it."

Marie responded:

"It morphed into writing a book about Edward Earl of Warwick, or really about what other people were doing around him during his short life. I I have done much of the research, and am now about 2/3 of the way through writing Chapter 1. Slow work, though."

Carol again:

Please keep us posted on your progress (and the title and other details when it's available). I can't wait to read it. Can you provide a hint as to who those other persons will be? (I personally would be interested in reading about Margaret of York, the entire de la Pole family, and Warwick's sister, Margaret, though I suspect that information on her childhood is particularly scarce if not nonexistent.) If you prefer not to discuss the book before it's ready, of course I'll understand that.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Maire wrote:

"<snip> Of course a lot of early sources claim that Buckingham was involved in their murder. Even "Perkin Warbeck's" story seems to point to Buckingham as the lord who killed Edward V but spared him because he was his godson. If Buckingham did know something (say, Richard had had the boys removed to a remote location whence he would not be able to produce them in a hurry), or if he, Buckingham, had done something with them himself, then he could confidently start such a rumour knowing Richard was in no position to disprove it. But his knowledge would not necessarily extend to Tudor and Margaret Beaufort, or at least they would never have known for sure that what Buckingham had told them was true.

And then there's the odd question of why nobody ever claimed to be Edward V (Gordon Smith's theory about "Lambert Simnel" doesn't stand up, I'm afraid)."

Carol responds:

Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I agree that Henry didn't seem to know for certain what had happened to the boys. But my point was referring to the time period when the rumours started (around the time of Buckingham's rebellion). The boys were not seen playing in The Tower and then it is 'passed around' that they were dead, murdered by Richard III. At that point, surely, if everyone was uncertain as to their fate, there was the chance that Richard would produce them which would put paid to that attack for a long time. That is what I meant about them taking a risk.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds:This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in He nry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset - seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister. But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "hom icide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood".So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England t o have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

W e don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

Hi Carol,

Thanks for the interest. It's more a case of Edward Earl of Warwick being in the hands of one person after another, and his fate being determined by events over which he had no control. So for his early life, for example, there is the story of what happened to his two parents. So there will be the story of Clarence's ambitions, grudges and suspicions, Isabel's death, the Ankarette Twynyho case, the Burdet/Stacy case and Clarence's own downfall.

Etc, etc. Obviously I don't want to say too much, but Warwick was at the eye of a lot of storms during his short and powerless life.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Carol earlier:

"Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it."

Marie responded:

"It morphed into writing a book about Edward Earl of Warwick, or really about what other people were doing around him during his short life. I I have done much of the research, and am now about 2/3 of the way through writing Chapter 1. Slow work, though."

Carol again:

Please keep us posted on your progress (and the title and other details when it's available). I can't wait to read it. Can you provide a hint as to who those other persons will be? (I personally would be interested in reading about Margaret of York, the entire de la Pole family, and Warwick's sister, Margaret, though I suspect that information on her childhood is particularly scarce if not nonexistent.) If you prefer not to discuss the book before it's ready, of course I'll understand that.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Maire wrote:

"<snip> Of course a lot of early sources claim that Buckingham was involved in their murder. Even "Perkin Warbeck's" story seems to point to Buckingham as the lord who killed Edward V but spared him because he was his godson. If Buckingham did know something (say, Richard had had the boys removed to a remote location whence he would not be able to produce them in a hurry), or if he, Buckingham, had done something with them himself, then he could confidently start such a rumour knowing Richard was in no position to disprove it. But his knowledge would not necessarily extend to Tudor and Margaret Beaufort, or at least they would never have known for sure that what Buckingham had told them was true.

And then there's the odd question of why nobody ever claimed to be Edward V (Gordon Smith's theory about "Lambert Simnel" doesn't stand up, I'm afraid)."

Carol responds:

Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I agree that Henry didn't seem to know for certain what had happened to the boys. But my point was referring to the time period when the rumours started (around the time of Buckingham's rebellion). The boys were not seen playing in The Tower and then it is 'passed around' that they were dead, murdered by Richard III. At that point, surely, if everyone was uncertain as to their fate, there was the chance that Richard would produce them which would put paid to that attack for a long time. That is what I meant about them taking a risk.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds:This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in He nry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset - seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister. But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "hom icide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood".So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England t o have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

W e don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

Going back to Rhys ap Thomas, I wonder if he would have been such a faithful servant of Henry Tudor if he'd known that Tudor's son would have barely waited for Rhys' body to cool in 1525 before stripping Rhys' grandson and heir of the estates Rhys ap Thomas thought would be in the family for ever, and then executing said grandson six years later when he dared to fight back over being ruined. Tamara ---In , <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Carol,

Thanks for the interest. It's more a case of Edward Earl of Warwick being in the hands of one person after another, and his fate being determined by events over which he had no control. So for his early life, for example, there is the story of what happened to his two parents. So there will be the story of Clarence's ambitions, grudges and suspicions, Isabel's death, the Ankarette Twynyho case, the Burdet/Stacy case and Clarence's own downfall.

Etc, etc. Obviously I don't want to say too much, but Warwick was at the eye of a lot of storms during his short and powerless life.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Carol earlier:

"Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it."

Marie responded:

"It morphed into writing a book about Edward Earl of Warwick, or really about what other people were doing around him during his short life. I I have done much of the research, and am now about 2/3 of the way through writing Chapter 1. Slow work, though."

Carol again:

Please keep us posted on your progress (and the title and other details when it's available). I can't wait to read it. Can you provide a hint as to who those other persons will be? (I personally would be interested in reading about Margaret of York, the entire de la Pole family, and Warwick's sister, Margaret, though I suspect that information on her childhood is particularly scarce if not nonexistent.) If you prefer not to discuss the book before it's ready, of course I'll understand that.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Maire wrote:

"<snip> Of course a lot of early sources claim that Buckingham was involved in their murder. Even "Perkin Warbeck's" story seems to point to Buckingham as the lord who killed Edward V but spared him because he was his godson. If Buckingham did know something (say, Richard had had the boys removed to a remote location whence he would not be able to produce them in a hurry), or if he, Buckingham, had done something with them himself, then he could confidently start such a rumour knowing Richard was in no position to disprove it. But his knowledge would not necessarily extend to Tudor and Margaret Beaufort, or at least they would never have known for sure that what Buckingham had told them was true.

And then there's the odd question of why nobody ever claimed to be Edward V (Gordon Smith's theory about "Lambert Simnel" doesn't stand up, I'm afraid)."

Carol responds:

Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I agree that Henry didn't seem to know for certain what had happened to the boys. But my point was referring to the time period when the rumours started (around the time of Buckingham's rebellion). The boys were not seen playing in The Tower and then it is 'passed around' that they were dead, murdered by Richard III. At that point, surely, if everyone was uncertain as to their fate, there was the chance that Richard would produce them which would put paid to that attack for a long time. That is what I meant about them taking a risk.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds: This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in He nry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset - seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister. But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "hom icide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood". So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's. Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England t o have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :) I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

W e don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

Marie wrote:

Hi Carol,

Thanks for the interest. It's more a case of Edward Earl of Warwick being in the hands of one person after another, and his fate being determined by events over which he had no control. So for his early life, for example, there is the story of what happened to his two parents. So there will be the story of Clarence's ambitions, grudges and suspicions, Isabel's death, the Ankarette Twynyho case, the Burdet/Stacy case and Clarence's own downfall.

Etc, etc. Obviously I don't want to say too much, but Warwick was at the eye of a lot of storms during his short and powerless life.

Marie

Carol responds:

Thanks, Marie. I'm looking forward to it as I said. Of course, there's also his wardship under Dorset, the question of whether he was ever Richard's heir, and much more. Any idea when the manuscript will be complete? (I won't even get into the time-consuming process of book production, assuming that you go the traditional route!)

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Carol earlier:

"Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it."

Marie responded:

"It morphed into writing a book about Edward Earl of Warwick, or really about what other people were doing around him during his short life. I I have done much of the research, and am now about 2/3 of the way through writing Chapter 1. Slow work, though."

Carol again:

Please keep us posted on your progress (and the title and other details when it's available). I can't wait to read it. Can you provide a hint as to who those other persons will be? (I personally would be interested in reading about Margaret of York, the entire de la Pole family, and Warwick's sister, Margaret, though I suspect that information on her childhood is particularly scarce if not nonexistent.) If you prefer not to discuss the book before it's ready, of course I'll understand that.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Maire wrote:

"<snip> Of course a lot of early sources claim that Buckingham was involved in their murder. Even "Perkin Warbeck's" story seems to point to Buckingham as the lord who killed Edward V but spared him because he was his godson. If Buckingham did know something (say, Richard had had the boys removed to a remote location whence he would not be able to produce them in a hurry), or if he, Buckingham, had done something with them himself, then he could confidently start such a rumour knowing Richard was in no position to disprove it. But his knowledge would not necessarily extend to Tudor and Margaret Beaufort, or at least they would never have known for sure that what Buckingham had told them was true.

And then there's the odd question of why nobody ever claimed to be Edward V (Gordon Smith's theory about "Lambert Simnel" doesn't stand up, I'm afraid)."

Carol responds:

Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I agree that Henry didn't seem to know for certain what had happened to the boys. But my point was referring to the time period when the rumours started (around the time of Buckingham's rebellion). The boys were not seen playing in The Tower and then it is 'passed around' that they were dead, murdered by Richard III. At that point, surely, if everyone was uncertain as to their fate, there was the chance that Richard would produce them which would put paid to that attack for a long time. That is what I meant about them taking a risk.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds:This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in He nry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset - seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister. But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "hom icide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood".So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England t o have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

W e don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

Yes, indeed, it gives me a chance to bring in Dorset. And Lincoln. And the question of whether he was Richard's heir. And what on earth was going on with the Lambert Simnel stuff. And Perkin Warbeck. In fact, just all the best stuff.

But please don't expect a complete MS for at least a couple of years. I don't work fast.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Marie wrote:

Hi Carol,

Thanks for the interest. It's more a case of Edward Earl of Warwick being in the hands of one person after another, and his fate being determined by events over which he had no control. So for his early life, for example, there is the story of what happened to his two parents. So there will be the story of Clarence's ambitions, grudges and suspicions, Isabel's death, the Ankarette Twynyho case, the Burdet/Stacy case and Clarence's own downfall.

Etc, etc. Obviously I don't want to say too much, but Warwick was at the eye of a lot of storms during his short and powerless life.

Marie

Carol responds:

Thanks, Marie. I'm looking forward to it as I said. Of course, there's also his wardship under Dorset, the question of whether he was ever Richard's heir, and much more. Any idea when the manuscript will be complete? (I won't even get into the time-consuming process of book production, assuming that you go the traditional route!)

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Carol earlier:

"Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it."

Marie responded:

"It morphed into writing a book about Edward Earl of Warwick, or really about what other people were doing around him during his short life. I I have done much of the research, and am now about 2/3 of the way through writing Chapter 1. Slow work, though."

Carol again:

Please keep us posted on your progress (and the title and other details when it's available). I can't wait to read it. Can you provide a hint as to who those other persons will be? (I personally would be interested in reading about Margaret of York, the entire de la Pole family, and Warwick's sister, Margaret, though I suspect that information on her childhood is particularly scarce if not nonexistent.) If you prefer not to discuss the book before it's ready, of course I'll understand that.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Maire wrote:

"<snip> Of course a lot of early sources claim that Buckingham was involved in their murder. Even "Perkin Warbeck's" story seems to point to Buckingham as the lord who killed Edward V but spared him because he was his godson. If Buckingham did know something (say, Richard had had the boys removed to a remote location whence he would not be able to produce them in a hurry), or if he, Buckingham, had done something with them himself, then he could confidently start such a rumour knowing Richard was in no position to disprove it. But his knowledge would not necessarily extend to Tudor and Margaret Beaufort, or at least they would never have known for sure that what Buckingham had told them was true.

And then there's the odd question of why nobody ever claimed to be Edward V (Gordon Smith's theory about "Lambert Simnel" doesn't stand up, I'm afraid)."

Carol responds:

Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I agree that Henry didn't seem to know for certain what had happened to the boys. But my point was referring to the time period when the rumours started (around the time of Buckingham's rebellion). The boys were not seen playing in The Tower and then it is 'passed around' that they were dead, murdered by Richard III. At that point, surely, if everyone was uncertain as to their fate, there was the chance that Richard would produce them which would put paid to that attack for a long time. That is what I meant about them taking a risk.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds:This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in He nry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset - seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister. But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "hom icide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood".So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England t o have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

W e don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

Marie wrote:

Yes, indeed, it gives me a chance to bring in Dorset. And Lincoln. And the question of whether he was Richard's heir. And what on earth was going on with the Lambert Simnel stuff. And Perkin Warbeck. In fact, just all the best stuff.

But please don't expect a complete MS for at least a couple of years. I don't work fast.

Marie

Carol responds:

If you want a professional copyeditor to read it through and point out any typos or unclear sentences, let me know. I'll do it free of charge.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Marie wrote:

Hi Carol,

Thanks for the interest. It's more a case of Edward Earl of Warwick being in the hands of one person after another, and his fate being determined by events over which he had no control. So for his early life, for example, there is the story of what happened to his two parents. So there will be the story of Clarence's ambitions, grudges and suspicions, Isabel's death, the Ankarette Twynyho case, the Burdet/Stacy case and Clarence's own downfall.

Etc, etc. Obviously I don't want to say too much, but Warwick was at the eye of a lot of storms during his short and powerless life.

Marie

Carol responds:

Thanks, Marie. I'm looking forward to it as I said. Of course, there's also his wardship under Dorset, the question of whether he was ever Richard's heir, and much more. Any idea when the manuscript will be complete? (I won't even get into the time-consuming process of book production, assuming that you go the traditional route!)

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Carol earlier:

"Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it."

Marie responded:

"It morphed into writing a book about Edward Earl of Warwick, or really about what other people were doing around him during his short life. I I have done much of the research, and am now about 2/3 of the way through writing Chapter 1. Slow work, though."

Carol again:

Please keep us posted on your progress (and the title and other details when it's available). I can't wait to read it. Can you provide a hint as to who those other persons will be? (I personally would be interested in reading about Margaret of York, the entire de la Pole family, and Warwick's sister, Margaret, though I suspect that information on her childhood is particularly scarce if not nonexistent.) If you prefer not to discuss the book before it's ready, of course I'll understand that.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Maire wrote:

"<snip> Of course a lot of early sources claim that Buckingham was involved in their murder. Even "Perkin Warbeck's" story seems to point to Buckingham as the lord who killed Edward V but spared him because he was his godson. If Buckingham did know something (say, Richard had had the boys removed to a remote location whence he would not be able to produce them in a hurry), or if he, Buckingham, had done something with them himself, then he could confidently start such a rumour knowing Richard was in no position to disprove it. But his knowledge would not necessarily extend to Tudor and Margaret Beaufort, or at least they would never have known for sure that what Buckingham had told them was true.

And then there's the odd question of why nobody ever claimed to be Edward V (Gordon Smith's theory about "Lambert Simnel" doesn't stand up, I'm afraid)."

Carol responds:

Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I agree that Henry didn't seem to know for certain what had happened to the boys. But my point was referring to the time period when the rumours started (around the time of Buckingham's rebellion). The boys were not seen playing in The Tower and then it is 'passed around' that they were dead, murdered by Richard III. At that point, surely, if everyone was uncertain as to their fate, there was the chance that Richard would produce them which would put paid to that attack for a long time. That is what I meant about them taking a risk.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds:This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in He nry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset - seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister. But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "hom icide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood".So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England t o have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

W e don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

Thanks very much, Carol; I will certainly do that. I was an editor once myself, but lack the concentration now. Also it is just impossible to edit your own work.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Marie wrote:

Yes, indeed, it gives me a chance to bring in Dorset. And Lincoln. And the question of whether he was Richard's heir. And what on earth was going on with the Lambert Simnel stuff. And Perkin Warbeck. In fact, just all the best stuff.

But please don't expect a complete MS for at least a couple of years. I don't work fast.

Marie

Carol responds:

If you want a professional copyeditor to read it through and point out any typos or unclear sentences, let me know. I'll do it free of charge.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Marie wrote:

Hi Carol,

Thanks for the interest. It's more a case of Edward Earl of Warwick being in the hands of one person after another, and his fate being determined by events over which he had no control. So for his early life, for example, there is the story of what happened to his two parents. So there will be the story of Clarence's ambitions, grudges and suspicions, Isabel's death, the Ankarette Twynyho case, the Burdet/Stacy case and Clarence's own downfall.

Etc, etc. Obviously I don't want to say too much, but Warwick was at the eye of a lot of storms during his short and powerless life.

Marie

Carol responds:

Thanks, Marie. I'm looking forward to it as I said. Of course, there's also his wardship under Dorset, the question of whether he was ever Richard's heir, and much more. Any idea when the manuscript will be complete? (I won't even get into the time-consuming process of book production, assuming that you go the traditional route!)

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Carol earlier:

"Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it."

Marie responded:

"It morphed into writing a book about Edward Earl of Warwick, or really about what other people were doing around him during his short life. I I have done much of the research, and am now about 2/3 of the way through writing Chapter 1. Slow work, though."

Carol again:

Please keep us posted on your progress (and the title and other details when it's available). I can't wait to read it. Can you provide a hint as to who those other persons will be? (I personally would be interested in reading about Margaret of York, the entire de la Pole family, and Warwick's sister, Margaret, though I suspect that information on her childhood is particularly scarce if not nonexistent.) If you prefer not to discuss the book before it's ready, of course I'll understand that.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Maire wrote:

"<snip> Of course a lot of early sources claim that Buckingham was involved in their murder. Even "Perkin Warbeck's" story seems to point to Buckingham as the lord who killed Edward V but spared him because he was his godson. If Buckingham did know something (say, Richard had had the boys removed to a remote location whence he would not be able to produce them in a hurry), or if he, Buckingham, had done something with them himself, then he could confidently start such a rumour knowing Richard was in no position to disprove it. But his knowledge would not necessarily extend to Tudor and Margaret Beaufort, or at least they would never have known for sure that what Buckingham had told them was true.

And then there's the odd question of why nobody ever claimed to be Edward V (Gordon Smith's theory about "Lambert Simnel" doesn't stand up, I'm afraid)."

Carol responds:

Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I agree that Henry didn't seem to know for certain what had happened to the boys. But my point was referring to the time period when the rumours started (around the time of Buckingham's rebellion). The boys were not seen playing in The Tower and then it is 'passed around' that they were dead, murdered by Richard III. At that point, surely, if everyone was uncertain as to their fate, there was the chance that Richard would produce them which would put paid to that attack for a long time. That is what I meant about them taking a risk.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds:This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in He nry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset - seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister. But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "hom icide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood".So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England t o have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

W e don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

Marie wrote:

"Thanks very much, Carol; I will certainly do that. I was an editor once myself, but lack the concentration now. Also it is just impossible to edit your own work."

Carol responds:

You're welcome. And I agree completely with the impossibility of editing your own work. Witness some of the typos and other inadvertent errors that have appeared in my posts!

Carol, trying to type in the dark and realizing just how bad a typist I really am

---In , <> wrote:

Marie wrote:

Yes, indeed, it gives me a chance to bring in Dorset. And Lincoln. And the question of whether he was Richard's heir. And what on earth was going on with the Lambert Simnel stuff. And Perkin Warbeck. In fact, just all the best stuff.

But please don't expect a complete MS for at least a couple of years. I don't work fast.

Marie

Carol responds:

If you want a professional copyeditor to read it through and point out any typos or unclear sentences, let me know. I'll do it free of charge.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Marie wrote:

Hi Carol,

Thanks for the interest. It's more a case of Edward Earl of Warwick being in the hands of one person after another, and his fate being determined by events over which he had no control. So for his early life, for example, there is the story of what happened to his two parents. So there will be the story of Clarence's ambitions, grudges and suspicions, Isabel's death, the Ankarette Twynyho case, the Burdet/Stacy case and Clarence's own downfall.

Etc, etc. Obviously I don't want to say too much, but Warwick was at the eye of a lot of storms during his short and powerless life.

Marie

Carol responds:

Thanks, Marie. I'm looking forward to it as I said. Of course, there's also his wardship under Dorset, the question of whether he was ever Richard's heir, and much more. Any idea when the manuscript will be complete? (I won't even get into the time-consuming process of book production, assuming that you go the traditional route!)

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Carol earlier:

"Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it."

Marie responded:

"It morphed into writing a book about Edward Earl of Warwick, or really about what other people were doing around him during his short life. I I have done much of the research, and am now about 2/3 of the way through writing Chapter 1. Slow work, though."

Carol again:

Please keep us posted on your progress (and the title and other details when it's available). I can't wait to read it. Can you provide a hint as to who those other persons will be? (I personally would be interested in reading about Margaret of York, the entire de la Pole family, and Warwick's sister, Margaret, though I suspect that information on her childhood is particularly scarce if not nonexistent.) If you prefer not to discuss the book before it's ready, of course I'll understand that.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Maire wrote:

"<snip> Of course a lot of early sources claim that Buckingham was involved in their murder. Even "Perkin Warbeck's" story seems to point to Buckingham as the lord who killed Edward V but spared him because he was his godson. If Buckingham did know something (say, Richard had had the boys removed to a remote location whence he would not be able to produce them in a hurry), or if he, Buckingham, had done something with them himself, then he could confidently start such a rumour knowing Richard was in no position to disprove it. But his knowledge would not necessarily extend to Tudor and Margaret Beaufort, or at least they would never have known for sure that what Buckingham had told them was true.

And then there's the odd question of why nobody ever claimed to be Edward V (Gordon Smith's theory about "Lambert Simnel" doesn't stand up, I'm afraid)."

Carol responds:

Marie, I seem to recall that you were writing an article about the "feigned boys." Did that ever materialize? I'd love to read it.

Carol

---In , <> wrote:

Yes, I agree that Henry didn't seem to know for certain what had happened to the boys. But my point was referring to the time period when the rumours started (around the time of Buckingham's rebellion). The boys were not seen playing in The Tower and then it is 'passed around' that they were dead, murdered by Richard III. At that point, surely, if everyone was uncertain as to their fate, there was the chance that Richard would produce them which would put paid to that attack for a long time. That is what I meant about them taking a risk.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had. Marie responds:This isn't quite the way I see it, actually. Nothing in He nry's behaviour either as pretender or as king suggests to me that he knew for certain the boys were dead. We are so used to the later Tudor version of events, according to which Henry boldly announced his intention to make Elizabeth of York his queen, and made that a big part of his campaign, but it's not really what he seems to have done. Yes, the Woodville exiles in Brittany - ie Sir Edward and Dorset - seem to have believed the story that Richard had killed the Princes, at least to start with, and to have supported Henry's promise to marry their sister. But unless my memory is deceiving me, none of Henry's extant proclamations and letters soliciting support in England refer to his promise to marry Elizabeth, And when he became king he didn't marry her until he realised he had no option. As for the fate of Richard's uncrowned predecessor, Henry only ever gives the most oblique hints, eg Richard being a "hom icide and unnatural tyant" or guilty of "shedding... infants' blood".So Henry simply dealt with the fly in the ointment by avoiding that side of the ointment jar - he pressed his own claim, not Elizabeth's.Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol, Yes I know Louis died but his legacy was strong in his regent daughter and those around her. Actually I was thinking more of Bosworth and invasion. It would have suited the French for England t o have a boy king and lots of internal quarrels. I don't think Louis had anything to do with the disappearance of the boys. If indeed they were dead, it would be much more likely to have been the unstable Buckingham. It was after their disappearance and Richard's accession that the French would have become afraid. Hilary

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013, 17:31, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
But surely the fly in the ointment is that were the boys still alive, the rumour-starters ran the risk that Richard would suddenly produce them like a rabbit out the hat - unless they knew the boys were dead, perhaps because either they had organised the killing or they knew Buckingham had.
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Thanks David. I just think that attributing all this to Morton, MB, Henry, the Woodvilles, makes them much cleverer than they really were. Opportunists absolutely, but there was only one Spider who'd spent years collecting dossiers and no doubt passing them on to his successors. He'd even fought his own father at some point, hadn't he? And they reckon he knew what Edward IV had for breakfast every day :)I must brush up my very neglected French history. And yes, Commines had no axe to grind, certainly at this point. Hilary
Carol responds:

Slight problem, Hilary. Louis XI died in August 1483. I agree that the rumors benefited the French and that they likely spread them, but I don't think they originated there. (I certainly agree that they didn't originate with the Woodvilles!)

As for David D's claim that Richard benefited from the claim that his nephews were dead, clearly not. True, the rescue attempts ceased, but those who had incited them (and had not been executed) switched their support to Tudor. Even Croyland implies that the rumors that "arose" from an unnamed source had this effect. (And Vergil notes that Margaret Beaufort welcomed the rumors!)

W e don't know who started them, but we do know who benefited--Tudor and his camp. One of Marga ret Beaufort's spies could have noted that the boys had disappeared from the Tower. The question of whether they were alive or dead would arise, and speculation that they had been killed (presumably on on Richard's orders though the rumor didn't say so) would find fertile ground in France and Brittany--and among the disaffected Yorkists still in England.

I wonder--and there's no answer to this question--whether the followers of Buckingham deserted him partly because they thought he had killed the boys?

Carol (who thinks the boys weren't killed at all but sent to Burgundy, perhaps spending time at Gipping first)

Hi Carol,
I have been doing a bit of research on Ralph Assheton on local history pages and will respond in more detail.

However, I think a worthwhile exercise to verify the proposition that Richard's men took over places in the southern counties is to look at the lists of various High Sheriffs over the period 1483-1485. The High Sheriff was probably the highest ranking position in each county - effectively the king's representative.

If you google "high sheriff of xxxx" where xxxx is the name of a county you are interested in, you will find complete lists of the names of the office holders.

If you search using the names of the "rebellious" southern counties, you will see that many of Richard's close circle took these positions. In several cases, these were from the north, or at least from outside the county in question.

It is a fairly empirical approach, which I don't think can be accused of bias.

Kind regards

David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Wed, Oct 16, 2013 3:49:38 PM

 

David D. wrote:

"Hello Carol, That seems a fair summary."

Carol responds:

Glad we agree on that much.

David D. again:

"Marie has already provided part of the explanation, in that the exiles in Vannes were in no position to mobilize their usual retinues, except where they had escaped with them in 1483. Their places in the south of England had been taken by Richards's northern men, which itself increased Richard's unpopularity in the south.

"As the article by C S L Davies points out, an unlikely string of circumstances in foreign power politics made Bosworth happen, but the battle was actually lost because of the unpopularity of Richard's adherents.

"I don't know if Ralph Assheton made his way south, but I know that his sons did. If they were anything like their father, I can (for once) sympathize with the southerners. His cruelty was legendary in my mother's home town of Ashton, where he actually seemed to have revelled in his reputation."

Carol responds:

Richard's supposed unpopularity in the South of England was not increased, so far as I know, after Buckingham's rebellion. The same people, mostly gentry, who had rebelled against Richard in 1483, originally to reinstate Edward V, had no choice but to rebel again in 1485, Even those whose treason had been forgiven had lost their positions and in some cases their property. The only way to get it back was to (conditionally) support the only rival candidate, Tudor.

As for the unpopularity of Richard's followers, please note that their reputations (Norfolk excepted because Tudor wanted the loyalty of his sons and grandsons) suffered the same fate as Richard's. As followers of a "tyrant," they must have been "tyrants" themselves. Sir Ralph Assheton was singled out, I believe, because he executed one of Richard's "innocent victims," Buckingham. (Sir James Tyrrell, though he didn't fight at Bosworth, is another famous example of a follower whose reputation was ruined. It's hard to find a good word online or in pro-Tudor sources about Lovell and Ratcliffe, either. And even many Ricardians dislike Catesby!)

At any rate, while we're sorting through the legends about Richard and trying to find the truth, we might do well to question legends about his followers as well.

Carol

David,

I don't disagree that Richard felt the need, after Buckingham's Rebellion and in the run-up to the Tudor landing (ie for the duration of his short reign), to appoint people he knew and trusted as county sheriff. But my suspicion is that, had he won Bosworth and secured his throne, you would have started to see a lot of these northern placements unwinding again. There's always a danger of judging Richard as a king on the basis of the first two years, but not doing the same exercise with other monarchs whose claim to the throne was contested but who held on for longer.

If you've made a list of the High Sheriffs, David, could you possibly post it, then we can all analyse it together?

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Carol,
I have been doing a bit of research on Ralph Assheton on local history pages and will respond in more detail.

However, I think a worthwhile exercise to verify the proposition that Richard's men took over places in the southern counties is to look at the lists of various High Sheriffs over the period 1483-1485. The High Sheriff was probably the highest ranking position in each county - effectively the king's representative.

If you google "high sheriff of xxxx" where xxxx is the name of a county you are interested in, you will find complete lists of the names of the office holders.

If you search using the names of the "rebellious" southern counties, you will see that many of Richard's close circle took these positions. In several cases, these were from the north, or at least from outside the county in question.

It is a fairly empirical approach, which I don't think can be accused of bias.

Kind regards

David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Wed, Oct 16, 2013 3:49:38 PM

David D. wrote:

"Hello Carol, That seems a fair summary."

Carol responds:

Glad we agree on that much.

David D. again:

"Marie has already provided part of the explanation, in that the exiles in Vannes were in no position to mobilize their usual retinues, except where they had escaped with them in 1483. Their places in the south of England had been taken by Richards's northern men, which itself increased Richard's unpopularity in the south.

"As the article by C S L Davies points out, an unlikely string of circumstances in foreign power politics made Bosworth happen, but the battle was actually lost because of the unpopularity of Richard's adherents.

"I don't know if Ralph Assheton made his way south, but I know that his sons did. If they were anything like their father, I can (for once) sympathize with the southerners. His cruelty was legendary in my mother's home town of Ashton, where he actually seemed to have revelled in his reputation."

Carol responds:

Richard's supposed unpopularity in the South of England was not increased, so far as I know, after Buckingham's rebellion. The same people, mostly gentry, who had rebelled against Richard in 1483, originally to reinstate Edward V, had no choice but to rebel again in 1485, Even those whose treason had been forgiven had lost their positions and in some cases their property. The only way to get it back was to (conditionally) support the only rival candidate, Tudor.

As for the unpopularity of Richard's followers, please note that their reputations (Norfolk excepted because Tudor wanted the loyalty of his sons and grandsons) suffered the same fate as Richard's. As followers of a "tyrant," they must have been "tyrants" themselves. Sir Ralph Assheton was singled out, I believe, because he executed one of Richard's "innocent victims," Buckingham. (Sir James Tyrrell, though he didn't fight at Bosworth, is another famous example of a follower whose reputation was ruined. It's hard to find a good word online or in pro-Tudor sources about Lovell and Ratcliffe, either. And even many Ricardians dislike Catesby!)

At any rate, while we're sorting through the legends about Richard and trying to find the truth, we might do well to question legends about his followers as well.

Carol

David D. wrote:

"<snip> I have been doing a bit of research on Ralph Assheton on local history pages and will respond in more detail. However, I think a worthwhile exercise to verify the proposition that Richard's men took over places in the southern counties is to look at the lists of various High Sheriffs over the period 1483-1485. The High Sheriff was probably the highest ranking position in each county - effectively the king's representative. If you google "high sheriff of xxxx" where xxxx is the name of a county you are interested in, you will find complete lists of the names of the office holders. If you search using the names of the "rebellious" southern counties, you will see that many of Richard's close circle took these positions. In several cases, these were from the north, or at least from outside the county in question.

"It is a fairly empirical approach, which I don't think can be accused of bias."

Carol responds:

Hi, David. I agree that your idea sounds reasonable (see Marie's reply), but since I'm American and geographically challenged when it comes to England, I think it would be best if you and she worked on this together. But suppose that you're right (and see Annette Carson for Richard's attempts to maintain the status quo before Buckingham's rebellion), did the need to replace the rebels with Northern men (or supporters from any part of England or even Wales) make a difference in the number of rebels, or were the rebels at Bosworth for the most part the same people who joined or would have joined Buckingham's rebellion? In other words, did the presence of Richard's men as high sheriffs make a difference to the ordinary people of the rebel counties, or was the rebellion still among the gentry who feared displacement and brought it upon themselves by rebelling?

And, of course, we would need to see how this altogether necessary policy (Richard could hardly retain rebels in office) compares with the policy of Edward IV and Henry VII after their own deposition of a reigning king (in Edward's case, it happened twice).

I wonder, in Henry's case, how much people feared to rebel against the man who had (somehow) defeated Richard III in battle. Or were the rebellions limited because so many of Richard's followers had died or been imprisoned after Bosworth and the remainder killed at Stoke? Or was it because the candidates to replace him (setting aside Edward V and his brother, whose whereabouts no one knew and whom many believed dead) were another child and a virtually unknown sister's son? In other words, why did Henry's usurpation succeed when Richard's deposition of his nephew, approved by Parliament, failed? Would it, as Marie suggests, have succeeded if he had won Bosworth (his victory "proving" that his reign was God's will)? We need to remember that much of the kingdom supported Richard before Bosworth (not just the North but also, I believe, the Midlands and London, as well as parts of Wales. He also had alliances with Scotland, Portugal, and Spain, and had he won, France would have ceased to harass him.

I'm just asking questions here. I think the idea that all of England was either up in arms against or terrified of Richard, the supposed "tyrant" and "homicide," is Tudor's pre-Bosworth propaganda spread over the kingdom after Bosworth. But did people really believe it, or were they afraid of Henry? And did Henry's success "prove" the lies? Or were people content with his marriage to Elizabeth of York and willing to accept this supposed union of the warring houses because they were sick of fighting (with the exception of those who fought and for the most part died at Stoke)?

I can be sure of only one thing. If Richard had won, England and the world would have a different view of him. Even David Starkey would approve of him because he would have succeeded, and there would have been no Tudor dynasty, only Henry "Tydder" as a footnote in history.

Regarding Ralph Assheton, I don't think local *legends* are the place to seek the truth considering that they would reflect the post-Bosworth view of Richard's followers that pervaded much of England after Tudor became king. We would have to look in historical documents. Is there anything about him in the Harleian manuscripts, for example? Or someone's will?

Carol

Carol I tend to agree with you. David, if you read my stuff about the gentry which I posted a little while back you'll see it wasn't that cut and dried. In fact how much did the gentry actually care unless they'd been naughty and had something to fear? A lot has been said about H7 thinning down the nobility, but you could say they did it themselves over the century by participating in a royal quarrel, usually in the hope of gaining significant lands (I know that sounds cynical, but that's life).The gentry on the other hand, kept their heads down, married well, and by the end of the fifteenth century had done much better financially (and physically) than the nobility. You don't find many of them at Tyburn or Tower Hill unless like Simon Mountfort they were in dispute about an inheritance at home.By co-incidence I just happen to be looking at a relative of Reggie Bray called Sir Ralph Joselyne from Bed s & Bucks. His grandfather had been sheriff of those counties in the late 14th century but by the 1470s he'd buried the hatchet with E4 and become Lord Mayor of London.Add to that that there were already a lot of northerners like the Vavasours, Andrews, Clarells, Annesleys, now settled in the south and this story of imposition by Richard doesn't add up. If you like a neat and tidy answer then I can see where you're coming from but I don't think any of this is neat and tidy. And to back up Marie I'd say look at the turmoils of earlier monarchs, including E4 in their early years. There was conspiracy after conspiracy. Regards H.

On Sunday, 27 October 2013, 17:19, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
David D. wrote:
"<snip> I have been doing a bit of research on Ralph Assheton on local history pages and will respond in more detail. However, I think a worthwhile exercise to verify the proposition that Richard's men took over places in the southern counties is to look at the lists of various High Sheriffs over the period 1483-1485. The High Sheriff was probably the highest ranking position in each county - effectively the king's representative. If you google "high sheriff of xxxx" where xxxx is the name of a county you are interested in, you will find complete lists of the names of the office holders. If you search using the names of the "rebellious" southern counties, you will see that many of Richard's close circle took these positions. In several cases, these were from the north, or at least from outside the county in question.

"It is a fairly empirical approach, which I don't think can be accused of bias."

Carol responds:

Hi, David. I agree that your idea sounds reasonable (see Marie's reply), but since I'm American and geographically challenged when it comes to England, I think it would be best if you and she worked on this together. But suppose that you're right (and see Annette Carson for Richard's attempts to maintain the status quo before Buckingham's rebellion), did the need to replace the rebels with Northern men (or supporters from any part of England or even Wales) make a difference in the number of rebels, or were the rebels at Bosworth for the most part the same people who joined or would have joined Buckingham's rebellion? In other words, did the presence of Richard's men as high sheriffs make a difference to the ordinary people of the rebel counties, or was the rebellion still among the gentry who feared displacement and brought it upon themselves by rebelling?
And, of course, we would need to see how this altogether necessary policy (Richard could hardly retain rebels in office) compares with the policy of Edward IV and Henry VII after their own deposition of a reigning king (in Edward's case, it happened twice).
I wonder, in Henry's case, how much people feared to rebel against the man who had (somehow) defeated Richard III in battle. Or were the rebellions limited because so many of Richard's followers had died or been imprisoned after Bosworth and the remainder killed at Stoke? Or was it because the candidates to replace him (setting aside Edward V and his brother, whose whereabouts no one knew and whom many believed dead) were another child and a virtually unknown sister's son? In other words, why did Henry's usurpation succeed when Richard's deposition of his nephew, approved by Parliament, failed? Would it, as Marie suggests, have succeeded if he had won Bosworth (his victory "proving" that his reign was God's will)? We need to remember that much of the kingdom supported Richard before Bosworth (not just the North but also, I believe, the Midlands and London, as well as parts of Wales. He also had alliances with Scotland, Portugal, and Spain, and had he won, France would have ceased to harass him.
I'm just asking questions here. I think the idea that all of England was either up in arms against or terrified of Richard, the supposed "tyrant" and "homicide," is Tudor's pre-Bosworth propaganda spread over the kingdom after Bosworth. But did people really believe it, or were they afraid of Henry? And did Henry's success "prove" the lies? Or were people content with his marriage to Elizabeth of York and willing to accept this supposed union of the warring houses because they were sick of fighting (with the exception of those who fought and for the most part died at Stoke)?
I can be sure of only one thing. If Richard had won, England and the world would have a different view of him. Even David Starkey would approve of him because he would have succeeded, and there would have been no Tudor dynasty, only Henry "Tydder" as a footnote in history.
Regarding Ralph Assheton, I don't think local *legends* are the place to seek the truth considering that they would reflect the post-Bosworth view of Richard's followers that pervaded much of England after Tudor became king. We would have to look in historical documents. Is there anything about him in the Harleian manuscripts, for example? Or someone's will?

Carol

Which continued, did it not with the Tudors?
On Oct 27, 2013, at 2:04 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Carol I tend to agree with you. David, if you read my stuff about the gentry which I posted a little while back you'll see it wasn't that cut and dried. In fact how much did the gentry actually care unless they'd been naughty and had something to fear? A lot has been said about H7 thinning down the nobility, but you could say they did it themselves over the century by participating in a royal quarrel, usually in the hope of gaining significant lands (I know that sounds cynical, but that's life). The gentry on the other hand, kept their heads down, married well, and by the end of the fifteenth century had done much better financially (and physically) than the nobility. You don't find many of them at Tyburn or Tower Hill unless like Simon Mountfort they were in dispute about an inheritance at home. By co-incidence I just happen to be looking at a relative of Reggie Bray called Sir Ralph Joselyne from Bed s & Bucks. His grandfather had been sheriff of those counties in the late 14th century but by the 1470s he'd buried the hatchet with E4 and become Lord Mayor of London. Add to that that there were already a lot of northerners like the Vavasours, Andrews, Clarells, Annesleys, now settled in the south and this story of imposition by Richard doesn't add up. If you like a neat and tidy answer then I can see where you're coming from but I don't think any of this is neat and tidy. And to back up Marie I'd say look at the turmoils of earlier monarchs, including E4 in their early years. There was conspiracy after conspiracy. Regards H.

On Sunday, 27 October 2013, 17:19, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
David D. wrote:
"<snip> I have been doing a bit of research on Ralph Assheton on local history pages and will respond in more detail. However, I think a worthwhile exercise to verify the proposition that Richard's men took over places in the southern counties is to look at the lists of various High Sheriffs over the period 1483-1485. The High Sheriff was probably the highest ranking position in each county - effectively the king's representative. If you google "high sheriff of xxxx" where xxxx is the name of a county you are interested in, you will find complete lists of the names of the office holders. If you search using the names of the "rebellious" southern counties, you will see that many of Richard's close circle took these positions. In several cases, these were from the north, or at least from outside the county in question.

"It is a fairly empirical approach, which I don't think can be accused of bias."

Carol responds:

Hi, David. I agree that your idea sounds reasonable (see Marie's reply), but since I'm American and geographically challenged when it comes to England, I think it would be best if you and she worked on this together. But suppose that you're right (and see Annette Carson for Richard's attempts to maintain the status quo before Buckingham's rebellion), did the need to replace the rebels with Northern men (or supporters from any part of England or even Wales) make a difference in the number of rebels, or were the rebels at Bosworth for the most part the same people who joined or would have joined Buckingham's rebellion? In other words, did the presence of Richard's men as high sheriffs make a difference to the ordinary people of the rebel counties, or was the rebellion still among the gentry who feared displacement and brought it upon themselves by rebelling?
And, of course, we would need to see how this altogether necessary policy (Richard could hardly retain rebels in office) compares with the policy of Edward IV and Henry VII after their own deposition of a reigning king (in Edward's case, it happened twice).
I wonder, in Henry's case, how much people feared to rebel against the man who had (somehow) defeated Richard III in battle. Or were the rebellions limited because so many of Richard's followers had died or been imprisoned after Bosworth and the remainder killed at Stoke? Or was it because the candidates to replace him (setting aside Edward V and his brother, whose whereabouts no one knew and whom many believed dead) were another child and a virtually unknown sister's son? In other words, why did Henry's usurpation succeed when Richard's deposition of his nephew, approved by Parliament, failed? Would it, as Marie suggests, have succeeded if he had won Bosworth (his victory "proving" that his reign was God's will)? We need to remember that much of the kingdom supported Richard before Bosworth (not just the North but also, I believe, the Midlands and London, as well as parts of Wales. He also had alliances with Scotland, Portugal, and Spain, and had he won, France would have ceased to harass him.
I'm just asking questions here. I think the idea that all of England was either up in arms against or terrified of Richard, the supposed "tyrant" and "homicide," is Tudor's pre-Bosworth propaganda spread over the kingdom after Bosworth. But did people really believe it, or were they afraid of Henry? And did Henry's success "prove" the lies? Or were people content with his marriage to Elizabeth of York and willing to accept this supposed union of the warring houses because they were sick of fighting (with the exception of those who fought and for the most part died at Stoke)?
I can be sure of only one thing. If Richard had won, England and the world would have a different view of him. Even David Starkey would approve of him because he would have succeeded, and there would have been no Tudor dynasty, only Henry "Tydder" as a footnote in history.
Regarding Ralph Assheton, I don't think local *legends* are the place to seek the truth considering that they would reflect the post-Bosworth view of Richard's followers that pervaded much of England after Tudor became king. We would have to look in historical documents. Is there anything about him in the Harleian manuscripts, for example? Or someone's will?

Carol

Absolutely H.

On Sunday, 27 October 2013, 19:58, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
Which continued, did it not with the Tudors?
On Oct 27, 2013, at 2:04 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Carol I tend to agree with you. David, if you read my stuff about the gentry which I posted a little while back you'll see it wasn't that cut and dried. In fact how much did the gentry actually care unless they'd been naughty and had something to fear? A lot has been said about H7 thinning down the nobility, but you could say they did it themselves over the century by participating in a royal quarrel, usually in the hope of gaining significant lands (I know that sounds cynical, but that's life). The gentry on the other hand, kept their heads down, married well, and by the end of the fifteenth century had done much better financially (and physically) than the nobility. You don't find many of them at Tyburn or Tower Hill unless like Simon Mountfort they were in dispute about an inheritance at home. By co-incidence I just happen to be looking at a relative of Reggie Bray called Sir Ralph Joselyne from Bed s & Bucks. His grandfather had been sheriff of those counties in the late 14th century but by the 1470s he'd buried the hatchet with E4 and become Lord Mayor of London. Add to that that there were already a lot of northerners like the Vavasours, Andrews, Clarells, Annesleys, now settled in the south and this story of imposition by Richard doesn't add up. If you like a neat and tidy answer then I can see where you're coming from but I don't think any of this is neat and tidy. And to back up Marie I'd say look at the turmoils of earlier monarchs, including E4 in their early years. There was conspiracy after conspiracy. Regards H.

On Sunday, 27 October 2013, 17:19, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
David D. wrote:
"<snip> I have been doing a bit of research on Ralph Assheton on local history pages and will respond in more detail. However, I think a worthwhile exercise to verify the proposition that Richard's men took over places in the southern counties is to look at the lists of various High Sheriffs over the period 1483-1485. The High Sheriff was probably the highest ranking position in each county - effectively the king's representative. If you google "high sheriff of xxxx" where xxxx is the name of a county you are interested in, you will find complete lists of the names of the office holders. If you search using the names of the "rebellious" southern counties, you will see that many of Richard's close circle took these positions. In several cases, these were from the north, or at least from outside the county in question.

"It is a fairly empirical approach, which I don't think can be accused of bias."

Carol responds:

Hi, David. I agree that your idea sounds reasonable (see Marie's reply), but since I'm American and geographically challenged when it comes to England, I think it would be best if you and she worked on this together. But suppose that you're right (and see Annette Carson for Richard's attempts to maintain the status quo before Buckingham's rebellion), did the need to replace the rebels with Northern men (or supporters from any part of England or even Wales) make a difference in the number of rebels, or were the rebels at Bosworth for the most part the same people who joined or would have joined Buckingham's rebellion? In other words, did the presence of Richard's men as high sheriffs make a difference to the ordinary people of the rebel counties, or was the rebellion still among the gentry who feared displacement and brought it upon themselves by rebelling?
And, of course, we would need to see how this altogether necessary policy (Richard could hardly retain rebels in office) compares with the policy of Edward IV and Henry VII after their own deposition of a reigning king (in Edward's case, it happened twice).
I wonder, in Henry's case, how much people feared to rebel against the man who had (somehow) defeated Richard III in battle. Or were the rebellions limited because so many of Richard's followers had died or been imprisoned after Bosworth and the remainder killed at Stoke? Or was it because the candidates to replace him (setting aside Edward V and his brother, whose whereabouts no one knew and whom many believed dead) were another child and a virtually unknown sister's son? In other words, why did Henry's usurpation succeed when Richard's deposition of his nephew, approved by Parliament, failed? Would it, as Marie suggests, have succeeded if he had won Bosworth (his victory "proving" that his reign was God's will)? We need to remember that much of the kingdom supported Richard before Bosworth (not just the North but also, I believe, the Midlands and London, as well as parts of Wales. He also had alliances with Scotland, Portugal, and Spain, and had he won, France would have ceased to harass him.
I'm just asking questions here. I think the idea that all of England was either up in arms against or terrified of Richard, the supposed "tyrant" and "homicide," is Tudor's pre-Bosworth propaganda spread over the kingdom after Bosworth. But did people really believe it, or were they afraid of Henry? And did Henry's success "prove" the lies? Or were people content with his marriage to Elizabeth of York and willing to accept this supposed union of the warring houses because they were sick of fighting (with the exception of those who fought and for the most part died at Stoke)?
I can be sure of only one thing. If Richard had won, England and the world would have a different view of him. Even David Starkey would approve of him because he would have succeeded, and there would have been no Tudor dynasty, only Henry "Tydder" as a footnote in history.
Regarding Ralph Assheton, I don't think local *legends* are the place to seek the truth considering that they would reflect the post-Bosworth view of Richard's followers that pervaded much of England after Tudor became king. We would have to look in historical documents. Is there anything about him in the Harleian manuscripts, for example? Or someone's will?

Carol

Hi Hilary and Carol,
Firstly, my stab at identifying the High Sheriffs of rebellious southern counties just before Bosworth:
Cornwall - Sir James Tyrrell
Devon - Thomas Maleverer
Somerset - Edward Redmayne / Thomas Fulford
Wiltshire - Sir Roger Tocotes
Hampshire - Robert Carr
Sussex / Surrey - John Norbury, John Dudley
Kent - Robert Brackenberry
Essex - John Sturgeon

Hilary, I did read the post you wrote about the gentry and I think the historians who speak of Richard's unpopularity in the south are looking at it from a different angle. I did write a reply but it did not seem to appear. I don't think that there is a suggestion that there was something inherent in the southern gentry that would predispose them to rebel. And I don't think that having some Yorkshire antecedents would ensure that someone would automatically support Richard. Robert Willoughby's family had I believe moved from Lincolnshire to The West Country.

I think that in his later years, Edward allowed Richard to rule in the north like a viceroy, and so the south was principally loyal to Edward and his son.

I think that much of the southern gentry rose up against Richard in 1483, and then many escaped to Brittany and formed the core of Henry's army at Bosworth, not rising up in their home counties, but landing in Wales. So Henry's "court in exile" was made up of the southern escapees.

I hope this makes sense.

Kind regards
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Sun, Oct 27, 2013 5:41:44 PM

 

Carol I tend to agree with you. David, if you read my stuff about the gentry which I posted a little while back you'll see it wasn't that cut and dried. In fact how much did the gentry actually care unless they'd been naughty and had something to fear? A lot has been said about H7 thinning down the nobility, but you could say they did it themselves over the century by participating in a royal quarrel, usually in the hope of gaining significant lands (I know that sounds cynical, but that's life).The gentry on the other hand, kept their heads down, married well, and by the end of the fifteenth century had done much better financially (and physically) than the nobility. You don't find many of them at Tyburn or Tower Hill unless like Simon Mountfort they were in dispute about an inheritance at home.By co-incidence I just happen to be looking at a relative of Reggie Bray called Sir Ralph Joselyne from Bed s & Bucks. His grandfather had been sheriff of those counties in the late 14th century but by the 1470s he'd buried the hatchet with E4 and become Lord Mayor of London.Add to that that there were already a lot of northerners like the Vavasours, Andrews, Clarells, Annesleys, now settled in the south and this story of imposition by Richard doesn't add up. If you like a neat and tidy answer then I can see where you're coming from but I don't think any of this is neat and tidy. And to back up Marie I'd say look at the turmoils of earlier monarchs, including E4 in their early years. There was conspiracy after conspiracy.  Regards H.  

On Sunday, 27 October 2013, 17:19, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
  David D. wrote:
"<snip> I have been doing a bit of research on Ralph Assheton on local history pages and will respond in more detail. However, I think a worthwhile exercise to verify the proposition that Richard's men took over places in the southern counties is to look at the lists of various High Sheriffs over the period 1483-1485. The High Sheriff was probably the highest ranking position in each county - effectively the king's representative. If you google "high sheriff of xxxx" where xxxx is the name of a county you are interested in, you will find complete lists of the names of the office holders. If you search using the names of the "rebellious" southern counties, you will see that many of Richard's close circle took these positions. In several cases, these were from the north, or at least from outside the county in question.

"It is a fairly empirical approach, which I don't think can be accused of bias."

Carol responds:

Hi, David. I agree that your idea sounds reasonable (see Marie's reply), but since I'm American and geographically challenged when it comes to England, I think it would be best if you and she worked on this together. But suppose that you're right (and see Annette Carson for Richard's attempts to maintain the status quo before Buckingham's rebellion), did the need to replace the rebels with Northern men (or supporters from any part of England or even Wales) make a difference in the number of rebels, or were the rebels at Bosworth for the most part the same people who joined or would have joined Buckingham's rebellion? In other words, did the presence of Richard's men as high sheriffs make a difference to the ordinary people of the rebel counties, or was the rebellion still among the gentry who feared displacement and brought it upon themselves by rebelling?
And, of course, we would need to see how this altogether necessary policy (Richard could hardly retain rebels in office) compares with the policy of Edward IV and Henry VII after their own deposition of a reigning king (in Edward's case, it happened twice).
I wonder, in Henry's case, how much people feared to rebel against the man who had (somehow) defeated Richard III in battle. Or were the rebellions limited because so many of Richard's followers had died or been imprisoned after Bosworth and the remainder killed at Stoke? Or was it because the candidates to replace him (setting aside Edward V and his brother, whose whereabouts no one knew and whom many believed dead) were another child and a virtually unknown sister's son? In other words, why did Henry's usurpation succeed when Richard's deposition of his nephew, approved by Parliament, failed? Would it, as Marie suggests, have succeeded if he had won Bosworth (his victory "proving" that his reign was God's will)? We need to remember that much of the kingdom supported Richard before Bosworth (not just the North but also, I believe, the Midlands and London, as well as parts of Wales. He also had alliances with Scotland, Portugal, and Spain, and had he won, France would have ceased to harass him.
I'm just asking questions here. I think the idea that all of England was either up in arms against or terrified of Richard, the supposed "tyrant" and "homicide," is Tudor's pre-Bosworth propaganda spread over the kingdom after Bosworth. But did people really believe it, or were they afraid of Henry? And did Henry's success "prove" the lies? Or were people content with his marriage to Elizabeth of York and willing to accept this supposed union of the warring houses because they were sick of fighting (with the exception of those who fought and for the most part died at Stoke)?
I can be sure of only one thing. If Richard had won, England and the world would have a different view of him. Even David Starkey would approve of him because he would have succeeded, and there would have been no Tudor dynasty, only Henry "Tydder" as a footnote in history.
Regarding Ralph Assheton, I don't think local *legends* are the place to seek the truth considering that they would reflect the post-Bosworth view of Richard's followers that pervaded much of England after Tudor became king. We would have to look in historical documents. Is there anything about him in the Harleian manuscripts, for example? Or someone's will?

Carol

Hi David, Co-incidentally in connection with something else, I'm doing a lot of work on the gentry in Staffs/Notts/Derbyshire at the moment. There are a lot of family trails from close servants of Richard II, through the Lancastrian Kings to return to favour under HVII. Unsurprisingly they involve to a certain extent the Staffords and the Stanleys, but not just them at a high level, also many, many more who were close to them: they even lead to Reggie Bray. Were some of them keeping their powder dry for years until an opportunity arose? Many had been MPs and High Sheriffs.As Marie says, this is long tortuous work and it will take ages to follow all the trails and to draw a proper conclusion. It does make one wonder though how far Buckingham had been indoctrinated with some of this. Although he was removed from that area at a young age his father, uncle and MB must have been quite close to several of these families. Whatever it was, I don't think it was aimed at Richard personally; it was at the opportunity Regards HPS Norbury, Dudley and Maleverer certainly had family interests in that area

On Monday, 28 October 2013, 19:21, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Hi Hilary and Carol,
Firstly, my stab at identifying the High Sheriffs of rebellious southern counties just before Bosworth:
Cornwall - Sir James Tyrrell
Devon - Thomas Maleverer
Somerset - Edward Redmayne / Thomas Fulford
Wiltshire - Sir Roger Tocotes
Hampshire - Robert Carr
Sussex / Surrey - John Norbury, John Dudley
Kent - Robert Brackenberry
Essex - John Sturgeon

Hilary, I did read the post you wrote about the gentry and I think the historians who speak of Richardx27;s unpopularity in the south are looking at it from a different angle. I did write a reply but it did not seem to appear. I donx27;t think that there is a suggestion that there was something inherent in the southern gentry that would predispose them to rebel. And I donx27;t think that having some Yorkshire antecedents would ensure that someone would automatically support Richard. Robert Willoughbyx27;s family had I believe moved from Lincolnshire to The West Country.

I think that in his later years, Edward allowed Richard to rule in the north like a viceroy, and so the south was principally loyal to Edward and his son.

I think that much of the southern gentry rose up against Richard in 1483, and then many escaped to Brittany and formed the core of Henryx27;s army at Bosworth, not rising up in their home counties, but landing in Wales. So Henryx27;s "court in exile" was made up of the southern escapees.

I hope this makes sense.

Kind regards
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Sun, Oct 27, 2013 5:41:44 PM

Carol I tend to agree with you. David, if you read my stuff about the gentry which I posted a little while back you'll see it wasn't that cut and dried. In fact how much did the gentry actually care unless they'd been naughty and had something to fear? A lot has been said about H7 thinning down the nobility, but you could say they did it themselves over the century by participating in a royal quarrel, usually in the hope of gaining significant lands (I know that sounds cynical, but that's life).The gentry on the other hand, kept their heads down, married well, and by the end of the fifteenth century had done much better financially (and physically) than the nobility. You don't find many of them at Tyburn or Tower Hill unless like Simon Mountfort they were in dispute about an inheritance at home.By co-incidence I just happen to be looking at a relative of Reggie Bray called Sir Ralph Joselyne from Bed s & Bucks. His grandfather had been sheriff of those counties in the late 14th century but by the 1470s he'd buried the hatchet with E4 and become Lord Mayor of London.Add to that that there were already a lot of northerners like the Vavasours, Andrews, Clarells, Annesleys, now settled in the south and this story of imposition by Richard doesn't add up. If you like a neat and tidy answer then I can see where you're coming from but I don't think any of this is neat and tidy. And to back up Marie I'd say look at the turmoils of earlier monarchs, including E4 in their early years. There was conspiracy after conspiracy. Regards H.

On Sunday, 27 October 2013, 17:19, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
David D. wrote:
"<snip> I have been doing a bit of research on Ralph Assheton on local history pages and will respond in more detail. However, I think a worthwhile exercise to verify the proposition that Richard's men took over places in the southern counties is to look at the lists of various High Sheriffs over the period 1483-1485. The High Sheriff was probably the highest ranking position in each county - effectively the king's representative. If you google "high sheriff of xxxx" where xxxx is the name of a county you are interested in, you will find complete lists of the names of the office holders. If you search using the names of the "rebellious" southern counties, you will see that many of Richard's close circle took these positions. In several cases, these were from the north, or at least from outside the county in question.

"It is a fairly empirical approach, which I don't think can be accused of bias."

Carol responds:

Hi, David. I agree that your idea sounds reasonable (see Marie's reply), but since I'm American and geographically challenged when it comes to England, I think it would be best if you and she worked on this together. But suppose that you're right (and see Annette Carson for Richard's attempts to maintain the status quo before Buckingham's rebellion), did the need to replace the rebels with Northern men (or supporters from any part of England or even Wales) make a difference in the number of rebels, or were the rebels at Bosworth for the most part the same people who joined or would have joined Buckingham's rebellion? In other words, did the presence of Richard's men as high sheriffs make a difference to the ordinary people of the rebel counties, or was the rebellion still among the gentry who feared displacement and brought it upon themselves by rebelling?
And, of course, we would need to see how this altogether necessary policy (Richard could hardly retain rebels in office) compares with the policy of Edward IV and Henry VII after their own deposition of a reigning king (in Edward's case, it happened twice).
I wonder, in Henry's case, how much people feared to rebel against the man who had (somehow) defeated Richard III in battle. Or were the rebellions limited because so many of Richard's followers had died or been imprisoned after Bosworth and the remainder killed at Stoke? Or was it because the candidates to replace him (setting aside Edward V and his brother, whose whereabouts no one knew and whom many believed dead) were another child and a virtually unknown sister's son? In other words, why did Henry's usurpation succeed when Richard's deposition of his nephew, approved by Parliament, failed? Would it, as Marie suggests, have succeeded if he had won Bosworth (his victory "proving" that his reign was God's will)? We need to remember that much of the kingdom supported Richard before Bosworth (not just the North but also, I believe, the Midlands and London, as well as parts of Wales. He also had alliances with Scotland, Portugal, and Spain, and had he won, France would have ceased to harass him.
I'm just asking questions here. I think the idea that all of England was either up in arms against or terrified of Richard, the supposed "tyrant" and "homicide," is Tudor's pre-Bosworth propaganda spread over the kingdom after Bosworth. But did people really believe it, or were they afraid of Henry? And did Henry's success "prove" the lies? Or were people content with his marriage to Elizabeth of York and willing to accept this supposed union of the warring houses because they were sick of fighting (with the exception of those who fought and for the most part died at Stoke)?
I can be sure of only one thing. If Richard had won, England and the world would have a different view of him. Even David Starkey would approve of him because he would have succeeded, and there would have been no Tudor dynasty, only Henry "Tydder" as a footnote in history.
Regarding Ralph Assheton, I don't think local *legends* are the place to seek the truth considering that they would reflect the post-Bosworth view of Richard's followers that pervaded much of England after Tudor became king. We would have to look in historical documents. Is there anything about him in the Harleian manuscripts, for example? Or someone's will?

Carol

Well said Carol. The world would certainly have had a better opinion of Richard if he had won and the world would have been a much better place. Seventy two thousand people were executed by the Tudors and many of them on trumped up charges. Henry Tydder has a lot to answer for.

---In , <> wrote:

David D. wrote:

"<snip> I have been doing a bit of research on Ralph Assheton on local history pages and will respond in more detail. However, I think a worthwhile exercise to verify the proposition that Richard's men took over places in the southern counties is to look at the lists of various High Sheriffs over the period 1483-1485. The High Sheriff was probably the highest ranking position in each county - effectively the king's representative. If you google "high sheriff of xxxx" where xxxx is the name of a county you are interested in, you will find complete lists of the names of the office holders. If you search using the names of the "rebellious" southern counties, you will see that many of Richard's close circle took these positions. In several cases, these were from the north, or at least from outside the county in question.

"It is a fairly empirical approach, which I don't think can be accused of bias."

Carol responds:

Hi, David. I agree that your idea sounds reasonable (see Marie's reply), but since I'm American and geographically challenged when it comes to England, I think it would be best if you and she worked on this together. But suppose that you're right (and see Annette Carson for Richard's attempts to maintain the status quo before Buckingham's rebellion), did the need to replace the rebels with Northern men (or supporters from any part of England or even Wales) make a difference in the number of rebels, or were the rebels at Bosworth for the most part the same people who joined or would have joined Buckingham's rebellion? In other words, did the presence of Richard's men as high sheriffs make a difference to the ordinary people of the rebel counties, or was the rebellion still among the gentry who feared displacement and brought it upon themselves by rebelling?

And, of course, we would need to see how this altogether necessary policy (Richard could hardly retain rebels in office) compares with the policy of Edward IV and Henry VII after their own deposition of a reigning king (in Edward's case, it happened twice).

I wonder, in Henry's case, how much people feared to rebel against the man who had (somehow) defeated Richard III in battle. Or were the rebellions limited because so many of Richard's followers had died or been imprisoned after Bosworth and the remainder killed at Stoke? Or was it because the candidates to replace him (setting aside Edward V and his brother, whose whereabouts no one knew and whom many believed dead) were another child and a virtually unknown sister's son? In other words, why did Henry's usurpation succeed when Richard's deposition of his nephew, approved by Parliament, failed? Would it, as Marie suggests, have succeeded if he had won Bosworth (his victory "proving" that his reign was God's will)? We need to remember that much of the kingdom supported Richard before Bosworth (not just the North but also, I believe, the Midlands and London, as well as parts of Wales. He also had alliances with Scotland, Portugal, and Spain, and had he won, France would have ceased to harass him.

I'm just asking questions here. I think the idea that all of England was either up in arms against or terrified of Richard, the supposed "tyrant" and "homicide," is Tudor's pre-Bosworth propaganda spread over the kingdom after Bosworth. But did people really believe it, or were they afraid of Henry? And did Henry's success "prove" the lies? Or were people content with his marriage to Elizabeth of York and willing to accept this supposed union of the warring houses because they were sick of fighting (with the exception of those who fought and for the most part died at Stoke)?

I can be sure of only one thing. If Richard had won, England and the world would have a different view of him. Even David Starkey would approve of him because he would have succeeded, and there would have been no Tudor dynasty, only Henry "Tydder" as a footnote in history.

Regarding Ralph Assheton, I don't think local *legends* are the place to seek the truth considering that they would reflect the post-Bosworth view of Richard's followers that pervaded much of England after Tudor became king. We would have to look in historical documents. Is there anything about him in the Harleian manuscripts, for example? Or someone's will?

Carol

Hi David,

I got this pretty complete list of appointments of sheriffs from the Calendar of Fine Rolls. I've noted down the southern and south midlands counties listed. Starting in the far SW and moving backwards and forwards to the S. Midlands, then.

November 1483:-

Cornwall - Sir James Tyrell [wife Cornish  Tyrell granted the Cornish lands of her rebel brother T. Arundell]

Devon - Halnath Mauleverer [Yorkshireman by birth, but a brother of St John's, Clerkenwell. Was being placed in Plymouth  family connections, anyone?]

Somerset & Dorset - Edward Redmayne [removed from Westmorland commission of peace to Wilts. Later granted a Wiltshire manor of T. Arundell, as well as many of the properties of the Wiltshire rebel Sir Roger Tocotes v himself a Yorkshireman by birth who had married into Wiltshire in 1458 ]

Hampshire - John Rogers [had also been Sheriff of Hampshire in 1472]

Surrey & Sussex - John Dudley [local man]

Kent  John Bamme [local man]

Essex & Herts - John Sturgeon [local man]

Beds & Bucks - Thomas Fowler [local man]

Oxfordshire & Berkshire - John Barantyne [local man]

Wiltshire - Edward Hardgill (northerner by the sound of him)

Gloucestershire - Sir Thomas Huddlestone [almost certainly an error for John Huddlestone  Cumbrian by birth but settled in Gloucestershire since at least 1478; kept Sudeley Castle for Richard]

Herefordshire - Sir John Cornwall [local man]

[Worcestershire  Sir William Houghton apptd. July 1483]

Warwickshire & Leicestershire - Humphrey Beaufo [local man]

Northamptonshire - Roger Wake [local man]

Cambridgeshire & Huntingdonshire - John Wake [local man]

Norfolk & Suffolk - Ralph Willoughby [local man]

Rutland - Geoffrey Sherard [of Leicestershire & Rutland]

November 1484:-

Cornwall - Sir William Houghton [seems to have originated from Worcestershire, but had fairly recently acquired manors in Cornwall in right of his wife]

Devon  Sir Thomas Mauleverer [of Allerton Mauleverer, Yorks, nephew of Halnath]

Somerset & Dorset  Sir Thomas Fulford [local man]

Hampshire  Robert Carre

Surrey & Sussex  Sir John Norbury [local man]

Kent  Sir Robert Brackenbury from Co. Durham, but had been appointed Constable of the Tower in 1483 and granted confiscated lands in Kent, etc, in 1484. Daughter Elizabeth died unmarried at the London Minories in 1504]

Essex & Herts  Sir Robert Percy [born Yorkshire. Wife Joyce Washbourne a co-heiress from Worcs. Certainly associated with Essex during Richard's reign, but whether he had any previous connection to the county I don't know.]

Beds & Bucks  Sir John Donne [of Kidwelly, S. Wales, but married to a sister of Lord Hastings. Had been Sheriff of Bucks 1482-3.]

Oxfordshire & Berkshire  Edward Franke [Born N. Yorks, but was Lord Lovell's right-hand man and seemingly well known in Oxfordshire]

Wiltshire  John Musgrave [From the far north. Esquire of the Body. RIII had appointed him as keeper of the royal launds' of Clarendon (Wilts) and constable of Old Sarum. After Bosworth Musgrave was replaced by Sir Roger Tocotes, himself a North Riding man by birth]

Bristol  John Swayn

Gloucestershire - Sir William Berkeley [of Uley in Gloucs & Weoley in Worcs.]

Herefordshire - Sir Richard Croft [local man]

Worcestershire  Sir Humphrey Stafford [local man]

Warwickshire & Leicestershire  Richard Boughton [local man]

Northamptonshire  Richard Burton [local man]

Cambridgeshire & Huntingdonshire  No mention. Perhaps Ralph Willoughy continued.

Norfolk & Suffolk  Richard Pole [Richard Pole ordered to be arrested by Sheriff of Essex in 1478. An esquire of the Body and on commissions for Norfolk during Richard's reign, but not earlier.]

Rutland  John Pylton [local man]

It's not quite the total plantation scene often described by modern historians. I don't have much family background on some of the implants, but where I do have information it suggests Richard was perhaps trying where possible to give the forfeited lands to loyal relations or in-laws of the attainted men, or people with family connections in the areas to which they had been moved. For instance, Sir Thomas Arundell's lands in Cornwall, which went to his brother-in-law Sir James Tyrell (a southerner whom Richard had previously brought north!). The same is true of the lands of Edward Norreys, which went to his brother-in-law Viscount Lovell. In this context, it is interesting that Tocotes' lands were distributed amongst a small group of northen men, since Tocotes himself was a North Riding man by birth. Could they all have been related? I don't know the answer but it seems worth investigating.

Anyway, this sort of policy would have made it easier for Richard to restore the attaindees to their estates in course of time; Tocotes, for instance, had already received a pardon early in 1485, and if he had stayed loyal to Richard thereafter (which he didn't) and Richard had won at Bosworth, he would in time have got his lands back. The other Buckingham rebel I studied, Sir William Berkeley of Beverstone, had also been pardoned.

I've also noticed that Lord Scrope of Bolton was drafted into Devon at the time of Buckingham's Rebellion. He had a cousin of sorts who was lord of Castle Combe in Wilts, and may well have held land in Devon although I've not checked this out. So I wonder if the Mauleverers and Scrope of Bolton may have been placed in Devon because they were northerners with family connections to the area. It's a question that I think ought to be looked at. Can anyone else on the forum shed light on this?

There's a different pattern with the Northern men appointed as sheriffs in the South in 1484-5: these now had lands in the south.

It's also worth remembering that England was not a country where nobody ever moved. Warwick had brought Yorkshire men with him to Warwick. Richard brought southerners with him up to Yorkshire (eg. Tyrell, John Kendall, Morgan Kidwelly). Every Yorkshire gentry surname you can think of was already represented in the South of England well before Richard became king. Even dear Mistress Shore belonged to a family that seems to have settled in London from the Doncaster area. So the question is to do with the scale of the introduction of northerners by Richard into southern gentry society: was it excessive or not?

I don't have time to look into this any further as I'm away until early next week, but I'd welcome any further information on the interlopers from other members.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Hilary and Carol,
Firstly, my stab at identifying the High Sheriffs of rebellious southern counties just before Bosworth:
Cornwall - Sir James Tyrrell
Devon - Thomas Maleverer
Somerset - Edward Redmayne / Thomas Fulford
Wiltshire - Sir Roger Tocotes
Hampshire - Robert Carr
Sussex / Surrey - John Norbury, John Dudley
Kent - Robert Brackenberry
Essex - John Sturgeon

Hilary, I did read the post you wrote about the gentry and I think the historians who speak of Richard's unpopularity in the south are looking at it from a different angle. I did write a reply but it did not seem to appear. I don't think that there is a suggestion that there was something inherent in the southern gentry that would predispose them to rebel. And I don't think that having some Yorkshire antecedents would ensure that someone would automatically support Richard. Robert Willoughby's family had I believe moved from Lincolnshire to The West Country.

I think that in his later years, Edward allowed Richard to rule in the north like a viceroy, and so the south was principally loyal to Edward and his son.

I think that much of the southern gentry rose up against Richard in 1483, and then many escaped to Brittany and formed the core of Henry's army at Bosworth, not rising up in their home counties, but landing in Wales. So Henry's "court in exile" was made up of the southern escapees.

I hope this makes sense.

Kind regards
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Sun, Oct 27, 2013 5:41:44 PM

Carol I tend to agree with you. David, if you read my stuff about the gentry which I posted a little while back you'll see it wasn't that cut and dried. In fact how much did the gentry actually care unless they'd been naughty and had something to fear? A lot has been said about H7 thinning down the nobility, but you could say they did it themselves over the century by participating in a royal quarrel, usually in the hope of gaining significant lands (I know that sounds cynical, but that's life).The gentry on the other hand, kept their heads down, married well, and by the end of the fifteenth century had done much better financially (and physically) than the nobility. You don't find many of them at Tyburn or Tower Hill unless like Simon Mountfort they were in dispute about an inheritance at home.By co-incidence I just happen to be looking at a relative of Reggie Bray called Sir Ralph Joselyne from Bed s & Bucks. His grandfather had been sheriff of those counties in the late 14th century but by the 1470s he'd buried the hatchet with E4 and become Lord Mayor of London.Add to that that there were already a lot of northerners like the Vavasours, Andrews, Clarells, Annesleys, now settled in the south and this story of imposition by Richard doesn't add up. If you like a neat and tidy answer then I can see where you're coming from but I don't think any of this is neat and tidy. And to back up Marie I'd say look at the turmoils of earlier monarchs, including E4 in their early years. There was conspiracy after conspiracy. Regards H.

On Sunday, 27 October 2013, 17:19, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
David D. wrote:
"<snip> I have been doing a bit of research on Ralph Assheton on local history pages and will respond in more detail. However, I think a worthwhile exercise to verify the proposition that Richard's men took over places in the southern counties is to look at the lists of various High Sheriffs over the period 1483-1485. The High Sheriff was probably the highest ranking position in each county - effectively the king's representative. If you google "high sheriff of xxxx" where xxxx is the name of a county you are interested in, you will find complete lists of the names of the office holders. If you search using the names of the "rebellious" southern counties, you will see that many of Richard's close circle took these positions. In several cases, these were from the north, or at least from outside the county in question.

"It is a fairly empirical approach, which I don't think can be accused of bias."

Carol responds:

Hi, David. I agree that your idea sounds reasonable (see Marie's reply), but since I'm American and geographically challenged when it comes to England, I think it would be best if you and she worked on this together. But suppose that you're right (and see Annette Carson for Richard's attempts to maintain the status quo before Buckingham's rebellion), did the need to replace the rebels with Northern men (or supporters from any part of England or even Wales) make a difference in the number of rebels, or were the rebels at Bosworth for the most part the same people who joined or would have joined Buckingham's rebellion? In other words, did the presence of Richard's men as high sheriffs make a difference to the ordinary people of the rebel counties, or was the rebellion still among the gentry who feared displacement and brought it upon themselves by rebelling?
And, of course, we would need to see how this altogether necessary policy (Richard could hardly retain rebels in office) compares with the policy of Edward IV and Henry VII after their own deposition of a reigning king (in Edward's case, it happened twice).
I wonder, in Henry's case, how much people feared to rebel against the man who had (somehow) defeated Richard III in battle. Or were the rebellions limited because so many of Richard's followers had died or been imprisoned after Bosworth and the remainder killed at Stoke? Or was it because the candidates to replace him (setting aside Edward V and his brother, whose whereabouts no one knew and whom many believed dead) were another child and a virtually unknown sister's son? In other words, why did Henry's usurpation succeed when Richard's deposition of his nephew, approved by Parliament, failed? Would it, as Marie suggests, have succeeded if he had won Bosworth (his victory "proving" that his reign was God's will)? We need to remember that much of the kingdom supported Richard before Bosworth (not just the North but also, I believe, the Midlands and London, as well as parts of Wales. He also had alliances with Scotland, Portugal, and Spain, and had he won, France would have ceased to harass him.
I'm just asking questions here. I think the idea that all of England was either up in arms against or terrified of Richard, the supposed "tyrant" and "homicide," is Tudor's pre-Bosworth propaganda spread over the kingdom after Bosworth. But did people really believe it, or were they afraid of Henry? And did Henry's success "prove" the lies? Or were people content with his marriage to Elizabeth of York and willing to accept this supposed union of the warring houses because they were sick of fighting (with the exception of those who fought and for the most part died at Stoke)?
I can be sure of only one thing. If Richard had won, England and the world would have a different view of him. Even David Starkey would approve of him because he would have succeeded, and there would have been no Tudor dynasty, only Henry "Tydder" as a footnote in history.
Regarding Ralph Assheton, I don't think local *legends* are the place to seek the truth considering that they would reflect the post-Bosworth view of Richard's followers that pervaded much of England after Tudor became king. We would have to look in historical documents. Is there anything about him in the Harleian manuscripts, for example? Or someone's will?

Carol

Excellent research as usual Marie. I wish other historians were as rigorous as you are.

---In , <> wrote:

Hi David,

I got this pretty complete list of appointments of sheriffs from the Calendar of Fine Rolls. I've noted down the southern and south midlands counties listed. Starting in the far SW and moving backwards and forwards to the S. Midlands, then.

November 1483:-

Cornwall - Sir James Tyrell [wife Cornish  Tyrell granted the Cornish lands of her rebel brother T. Arundell]

Devon - Halnath Mauleverer [Yorkshireman by birth, but a brother of St John's, Clerkenwell. Was being placed in Plymouth  family connections, anyone?]

Somerset & Dorset - Edward Redmayne [removed from Westmorland commission of peace to Wilts. Later granted a Wiltshire manor of T. Arundell, as well as many of the properties of the Wiltshire rebel Sir Roger Tocotes v himself a Yorkshireman by birth who had married into Wiltshire in 1458 ]

Hampshire - John Rogers [had also been Sheriff of Hampshire in 1472]

Surrey & Sussex - John Dudley [local man]

Kent  John Bamme [local man]

Essex & Herts - John Sturgeon [local man]

Beds & Bucks - Thomas Fowler [local man]

Oxfordshire & Berkshire - John Barantyne [local man]

Wiltshire - Edward Hardgill (northerner by the sound of him)

Gloucestershire - Sir Thomas Huddlestone [almost certainly an error for John Huddlestone  Cumbrian by birth but settled in Gloucestershire since at least 1478; kept Sudeley Castle for Richard]

Herefordshire - Sir John Cornwall [local man]

[Worcestershire  Sir William Houghton apptd. July 1483]

Warwickshire & Leicestershire - Humphrey Beaufo [local man]

Northamptonshire - Roger Wake [local man]

Cambridgeshire & Huntingdonshire - John Wake [local man]

Norfolk & Suffolk - Ralph Willoughby [local man]

Rutland - Geoffrey Sherard [of Leicestershire & Rutland]

November 1484:-

Cornwall - Sir William Houghton [seems to have originated from Worcestershire, but had fairly recently acquired manors in Cornwall in right of his wife]

Devon  Sir Thomas Mauleverer [of Allerton Mauleverer, Yorks, nephew of Halnath]

Somerset & Dorset  Sir Thomas Fulford [local man]

Hampshire  Robert Carre

Surrey & Sussex  Sir John Norbury [local man]

Kent  Sir Robert Brackenbury from Co. Durham, but had been appointed Constable of the Tower in 1483 and granted confiscated lands in Kent, etc, in 1484. Daughter Elizabeth died unmarried at the London Minories in 1504]

Essex & Herts  Sir Robert Percy [born Yorkshire. Wife Joyce Washbourne a co-heiress from Worcs. Certainly associated with Essex during Richard's reign, but whether he had any previous connection to the county I don't know.]

Beds & Bucks  Sir John Donne [of Kidwelly, S. Wales, but married to a sister of Lord Hastings. Had been Sheriff of Bucks 1482-3.]

Oxfordshire & Berkshire  Edward Franke [Born N. Yorks, but was Lord Lovell's right-hand man and seemingly well known in Oxfordshire]

Wiltshire  John Musgrave [From the far north. Esquire of the Body. RIII had appointed him as keeper of the royal launds' of Clarendon (Wilts) and constable of Old Sarum. After Bosworth Musgrave was replaced by Sir Roger Tocotes, himself a North Riding man by birth]

Bristol  John Swayn

Gloucestershire - Sir William Berkeley [of Uley in Gloucs & Weoley in Worcs.]

Herefordshire - Sir Richard Croft [local man]

Worcestershire  Sir Humphrey Stafford [local man]

Warwickshire & Leicestershire  Richard Boughton [local man]

Northamptonshire  Richard Burton [local man]

Cambridgeshire & Huntingdonshire  No mention. Perhaps Ralph Willoughy continued.

Norfolk & Suffolk  Richard Pole [Richard Pole ordered to be arrested by Sheriff of Essex in 1478. An esquire of the Body and on commissions for Norfolk during Richard's reign, but not earlier.]

Rutland  John Pylton [local man]

It's not quite the total plantation scene often described by modern historians. I don't have much family background on some of the implants, but where I do have information it suggests Richard was perhaps trying where possible to give the forfeited lands to loyal relations or in-laws of the attainted men, or people with family connections in the areas to which they had been moved. For instance, Sir Thomas Arundell's lands in Cornwall, which went to his brother-in-law Sir James Tyrell (a southerner whom Richard had previously brought north!). The same is true of the lands of Edward Norreys, which went to his brother-in-law Viscount Lovell. In this context, it is interesting that Tocotes' lands were distributed amongst a small group of northen men, since Tocotes himself was a North Riding man by birth. Could they all have been related? I don't know the answer but it seems worth investigating.

Anyway, this sort of policy would have made it easier for Richard to restore the attaindees to their estates in course of time; Tocotes, for instance, had already received a pardon early in 1485, and if he had stayed loyal to Richard thereafter (which he didn't) and Richard had won at Bosworth, he would in time have got his lands back. The other Buckingham rebel I studied, Sir William Berkeley of Beverstone, had also been pardoned.

I've also noticed that Lord Scrope of Bolton was drafted into Devon at the time of Buckingham's Rebellion. He had a cousin of sorts who was lord of Castle Combe in Wilts, and may well have held land in Devon although I've not checked this out. So I wonder if the Mauleverers and Scrope of Bolton may have been placed in Devon because they were northerners with family connections to the area. It's a question that I think ought to be looked at. Can anyone else on the forum shed light on this?

There's a different pattern with the Northern men appointed as sheriffs in the South in 1484-5: these now had lands in the south.

It's also worth remembering that England was not a country where nobody ever moved. Warwick had brought Yorkshire men with him to Warwick. Richard brought southerners with him up to Yorkshire (eg. Tyrell, John Kendall, Morgan Kidwelly). Every Yorkshire gentry surname you can think of was already represented in the South of England well before Richard became king. Even dear Mistress Shore belonged to a family that seems to have settled in London from the Doncaster area. So the question is to do with the scale of the introduction of northerners by Richard into southern gentry society: was it excessive or not?

I don't have time to look into this any further as I'm away until early next week, but I'd welcome any further information on the interlopers from other members.

Marie

---In , <> wrote:

Hi Hilary and Carol,
Firstly, my stab at identifying the High Sheriffs of rebellious southern counties just before Bosworth:
Cornwall - Sir James Tyrrell
Devon - Thomas Maleverer
Somerset - Edward Redmayne / Thomas Fulford
Wiltshire - Sir Roger Tocotes
Hampshire - Robert Carr
Sussex / Surrey - John Norbury, John Dudley
Kent - Robert Brackenberry
Essex - John Sturgeon

Hilary, I did read the post you wrote about the gentry and I think the historians who speak of Richard's unpopularity in the south are looking at it from a different angle. I did write a reply but it did not seem to appear. I don't think that there is a suggestion that there was something inherent in the southern gentry that would predispose them to rebel. And I don't think that having some Yorkshire antecedents would ensure that someone would automatically support Richard. Robert Willoughby's family had I believe moved from Lincolnshire to The West Country.

I think that in his later years, Edward allowed Richard to rule in the north like a viceroy, and so the south was principally loyal to Edward and his son.

I think that much of the southern gentry rose up against Richard in 1483, and then many escaped to Brittany and formed the core of Henry's army at Bosworth, not rising up in their home counties, but landing in Wales. So Henry's "court in exile" was made up of the southern escapees.

I hope this makes sense.

Kind regards
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re: Proclamation from Henry VII
Sent: Sun, Oct 27, 2013 5:41:44 PM

Carol I tend to agree with you. David, if you read my stuff about the gentry which I posted a little while back you'll see it wasn't that cut and dried. In fact how much did the gentry actually care unless they'd been naughty and had something to fear? A lot has been said about H7 thinning down the nobility, but you could say they did it themselves over the century by participating in a royal quarrel, usually in the hope of gaining significant lands (I know that sounds cynical, but that's life).The gentry on the other hand, kept their heads down, married well, and by the end of the fifteenth century had done much better financially (and physically) than the nobility. You don't find many of them at Tyburn or Tower Hill unless like Simon Mountfort they were in dispute about an inheritance at home.By co-incidence I just happen to be looking at a relative of Reggie Bray called Sir Ralph Joselyne from Bed s & Bucks. His grandfather had been sheriff of those counties in the late 14th century but by the 1470s he'd buried the hatchet with E4 and become Lord Mayor of London.Add to that that there were already a lot of northerners like the Vavasours, Andrews, Clarells, Annesleys, now settled in the south and this story of imposition by Richard doesn't add up. If you like a neat and tidy answer then I can see where you're coming from but I don't think any of this is neat and tidy. And to back up Marie I'd say look at the turmoils of earlier monarchs, including E4 in their early years. There was conspiracy after conspiracy. Regards H.

On Sunday, 27 October 2013, 17:19, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
David D. wrote:
"<snip> I have been doing a bit of research on Ralph Assheton on local history pages and will respond in more detail. However, I think a worthwhile exercise to verify the proposition that Richard's men took over places in the southern counties is to look at the lists of various High Sheriffs over the period 1483-1485. The High Sheriff was probably the highest ranking position in each county - effectively the king's representative. If you google "high sheriff of xxxx" where xxxx is the name of a county you are interested in, you will find complete lists of the names of the office holders. If you search using the names of the "rebellious" southern counties, you will see that many of Richard's close circle took these positions. In several cases, these were from the north, or at least from outside the county in question.

"It is a fairly empirical approach, which I don't think can be accused of bias."

Carol responds:

Hi, David. I agree that your idea sounds reasonable (see Marie's reply), but since I'm American and geographically challenged when it comes to England, I think it would be best if you and she worked on this together. But suppose that you're right (and see Annette Carson for Richard's attempts to maintain the status quo before Buckingham's rebellion), did the need to replace the rebels with Northern men (or supporters from any part of England or even Wales) make a difference in the number of rebels, or were the rebels at Bosworth for the most part the same people who joined or would have joined Buckingham's rebellion? In other words, did the presence of Richard's men as high sheriffs make a difference to the ordinary people of the rebel counties, or was the rebellion still among the gentry who feared displacement and brought it upon themselves by rebelling?
And, of course, we would need to see how this altogether necessary policy (Richard could hardly retain rebels in office) compares with the policy of Edward IV and Henry VII after their own deposition of a reigning king (in Edward's case, it happened twice).
I wonder, in Henry's case, how much people feared to rebel against the man who had (somehow) defeated Richard III in battle. Or were the rebellions limited because so many of Richard's followers had died or been imprisoned after Bosworth and the remainder killed at Stoke? Or was it because the candidates to replace him (setting aside Edward V and his brother, whose whereabouts no one knew and whom many believed dead) were another child and a virtually unknown sister's son? In other words, why did Henry's usurpation succeed when Richard's deposition of his nephew, approved by Parliament, failed? Would it, as Marie suggests, have succeeded if he had won Bosworth (his victory "proving" that his reign was God's will)? We need to remember that much of the kingdom supported Richard before Bosworth (not just the North but also, I believe, the Midlands and London, as well as parts of Wales. He also had alliances with Scotland, Portugal, and Spain, and had he won, France would have ceased to harass him.
I'm just asking questions here. I think the idea that all of England was either up in arms against or terrified of Richard, the supposed "tyrant" and "homicide," is Tudor's pre-Bosworth propaganda spread over the kingdom after Bosworth. But did people really believe it, or were they afraid of Henry? And did Henry's success "prove" the lies? Or were people content with his marriage to Elizabeth of York and willing to accept this supposed union of the warring houses because they were sick of fighting (with the exception of those who fought and for the most part died at Stoke)?
I can be sure of only one thing. If Richard had won, England and the world would have a different view of him. Even David Starkey would approve of him because he would have succeeded, and there would have been no Tudor dynasty, only Henry "Tydder" as a footnote in history.
Regarding Ralph Assheton, I don't think local *legends* are the place to seek the truth considering that they would reflect the post-Bosworth view of Richard's followers that pervaded much of England after Tudor became king. We would have to look in historical documents. Is there anything about him in the Harleian manuscripts, for example? Or someone's will?

Carol