Any maltreatment of the Princes?

Doug wrote:

"The only contemporary reference to their state of mind/physical condition comes from Mancini who wrote that, while Richard acted little differently than any other boy of his age, Edward spent his time praying and, apparently, fearing the worst"

Is it possible, I know it sounds far fetched, that neither Richard III or Henry VII knew what happened to the Princes?
Could they have left, escaped, been "rescued" etc without Richard's knowledge. He can't produce them either alive or dead, and neither can HT.
Richard would have felt great guilt and shame if this had occurred I would have thought at his inability to protect them.
A strange kite to fly, I know.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Doug wrote:

"The only contemporary reference to their state of mind/physical condition comes from Mancini who wrote that, while Richard acted little differently than any other boy of his age, Edward spent his time praying and, apparently, fearing the worst"

I'd like to back up what Carol says about Mancini's account being possibly based on rumours that spread in the autumn of 1483.. He was summoned back to France by the Archbishop of Vienne after Richard's coronation to write an account of what he knew of English events, but he did not finish his account until the middle of December - he told the Archbishop that the delay was due to his having had to check on certain facts such as the names of some of the protagonists! Given that he doesn't mention many individuals by name, this suggests to me that, either (contrary to the received wisdom) he had not been sent to England on a fact-finding mission at all, or if he had, that he had been doing a very poor job of it and was unprepared for the task the Archbishop set him on his return. We know - because he tells us - that Mancini made contact with Edward V's physician Dr Argentine, who had also travelled to France after being dismissed from Edward's service, and that it was Argentine who told him about Edward's melancholic state of mind.

Mancini suggests that the Princes were withdrawn to the inner part of the Tower, and had their attendants replaced, immediately after Richard accepted the throne, but this seems to contradict other accounts and is probably, I think, Mancini's interpretation of things told to him by anti-Richard rebels who fled to France in the late autumn of 1483. For instance, Mancini tells us that Edward's old servants were replaced pretty much as soon as Richard became king, Argentine being the last to go, but we can actually date the dismissal of the bulk of Edward's old servants (excluding Argentine) because we still have the authorisation for their final salary payment, which is dated 18th July. So a little later than Mancini suggests, and after he himself had left England. A London chronicle, written up in the 1490s using earlier notes, says that the boys could be seen playing in the garden and practising archery during the mayoralty of Edmund Shaa, which went on until late October, so that seems to contradict Mancini's claim that they disappeared from view between Richard's assumption of power on 26th June and his coronation on 6th July. The boys were evidently known to be in the Tower in late July, when a plot to free them involving some Tower staff, was foiled.

There does *not* seem to have been a rumour that Edward V had been killed until about early October, just as a major rebellion to restore Edward V was about to break (Crowland is quite clear about this); it was this rumour that caused 'Buckingham's Rebellion' to change tack, in favour of either Henry Tudor as per the Tudor histories, or perhaps in favour of Buckingham himself (historians are no longer sure).

The things that Mancini describes - the gradual disappearance of the boys, and the rumours that Edward V had been killed - seem to have occurred about two months later than he actually places them, which is what makes me think that he got this information from rebels who had fled to France after the collapse of Buckingham's Rebellion, but felt obliged to slip it into the period before he himself left England so it would look to his patron Archbishop Cato like first-hand information. I don't know if that makes sense.

Marie

Marie wrote:

<< Edward V's physician Dr Argentine, who had also travelled to France after being dismissed from Edward's service>>

Marie, thank you for the wealth of information you always provide. May I ask you a related question I've been wondering about lately? I was recently very surprised to read in Argentine's DNB entry that, after being dismissed as young Edward's physician, Argentine seems to have continued in the service of Richard III and Henry VII &. I had never before seen anything suggesting that Argentine stayed on with Richard; I'd always thought he went off to stew somewhere (like France) until Tudor made him physician to Prince Arthur.

His DNB entry is here: http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/0/101000642/ but unfortunately it's no longer available for free.

Is this just a mistake in DNB, or do you know of any documentation (credible or otherwise) for Argentine continuing as one of Richard's physicians? I didn't see anything about him in the Calendar of Patent Rolls (by contrast, Hobbys's salary as physician is in there for December 1483). The DNB lists a number of archival sources at the end of Argentine's entry, but I can't tell which of them is supposed to be the source for this:

* BL, Cotton MS Julius F.vii, fols. 165r166r

* Bodl. Oxf., MS Ashmole 1437

* CCC Oxf., MS 255, art. 6, fol. 43rv

* King's Cam., muniments, mundum and commons books, ledger book 1

The DNB entry also refers to his friends Archbishop John Morton (d. 1500) and Bishop John Alcock of Ely, which makes it even harder to square with him staying in Richard's service.

If Argentine really did continue serving Richard afterwards, then I guess the cynical explanation could be that he was working to bring down Richard from within (or that he just figured a paycheck was a paycheck). But could it alternately imply that he was at some point satisfied the boys were alive?

Thanks,

Cathy

How much is known about the attempts to "rescue" the Princes? Not much from my researches so far.
Would love to know more.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Sorry Doug I should have included you in my thanks x

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
> Carol wrote:
> "Esssentially, I agree with your summary, but I want to point out that Mancini says next to nothing about the younger boy, Richard."
> //snip//
>
> Doug here:
> Darn! Now I've got try and remember where I got that particular idea from! Most likely it was from one of our discussions about More? After all, imputing motinces and concocting dialogue out of thin air seem to have been a specialty of his.
> Doug
>

Cathy asked:

" I was recently very surprised to read in Argentine's DNB entry that, after being dismissed as young Edward's physician, Argentine seems to have continued in the service of Richard III and Henry VII &. I had never before seen anything suggesting that Argentine stayed on with Richard; I'd always thought he went off to stew somewhere (like France) until Tudor made him physician to Prince Arthur.

Is this just a mistake in DNB, or do you know of any documentation (credible or otherwise) for Argentine continuing as one of Richard's physicians? I didn't see anything about him in the Calendar of Patent Rolls (by contrast, Hobbys's salary as physician is in there for December 1483). The DNB lists a number of archival sources at the end of Argentine's entry, but I can't tell which of them is supposed to be the source for this"

Marie replies:

First I've heard of it too. Who wrote the ODNB article, by the way? I've read Dennis Rhodes' paper on Argentine, which skips from Mancini's reference straight to his service under Henry VII. I've been inclined to suppose that he took up with Henry Tudor in France, but now I'm questioning whether Mancini is really clear about whether he met Argentine in France or in England. I've certainly not noticed any references to him during Richard's reign. When I get a minute I'll have another look at Mancini, and also look to see whether those ODNB sources are referenced in Rhodes' article and if so what they seem to be about.

Marie wrote:

<<First I've heard of it too. Who wrote the ODNB article, by the way? I've read Dennis Rhodes' paper on Argentine, which skips from Mancini's reference straight to his service under Henry VII. I've been inclined to suppose that he took up with Henry Tudor in France, but now I'm questioning whether Mancini is really clear about whether he met Argentine in France or in England. I've certainly not noticed any references to him during Richard's reign. When I get a minute I'll have another look at Mancini, and also look to see whether those ODNB sources are referenced in Rhodes' article and if so what they seem to be about. >>

Hi Marie,

Thanks very much for checking. Argentine's DNB entry was written by Peter Murray Jones. And, ah, I'm happy to say that I was wrong and there is indeed a free version of the article available:

http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/642

It also lists a bunch of secondary references, including several by Rhodes among which is "The Princes in the Tower and Their Doctor," English Historical Review 77 (1962), 3046. Is this the paper you mentioned?

Having nosed around some more, I found another claim of Argentine's continued service to Richard in a book only just published in 2013: The Transformations of Magic: Illicit Learned Magic in the Later Middle Ages and Renaissance (Magic in History) by Frank Klaassen (University of Pennsylvania Press). In Chapter 2, page 48, it says:

He was physician to Edward V and his brother, Richard, Duke of York, until they were murdered in 1483, and he maintained his association with the court through the reign of Richard III (43).

Note 43 lists two sources: C. A. J. Armstrong, An Italian Astrologer at the Court of Henry VII (which appears to be about some other guy) and & Rhodes, The Princes in the Tower and Their Doctor. So it seems to be the Rhodes 1962 article that is the basis for this idea (or maybe a misinterpretation of the 1962 article?).

Thanks again,

Cathy

Marie wrote:

<<First I've heard of it too. Who wrote the ODNB article, by the way? I've read Dennis Rhodes' paper on Argentine, which skips from Mancini's reference straight to his service under Henry VII. I've been inclined to suppose that he took up with Henry Tudor in France, but now I'm questioning whether Mancini is really clear about whether he met Argentine in France or in England. I've certainly not noticed any references to him during Richard's reign. When I get a minute I'll have another look at Mancini, and also look to see whether those ODNB sources are referenced in Rhodes' article and if so what they seem to be about. >>

Hi Marie,

Thanks very much for checking. Argentine's DNB entry was written by Peter Murray Jones. And, ah, I'm happy to say that I was wrong and there is indeed a free version of the article available:

http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/642

It also lists a bunch of secondary references, including several by Rhodes among which is "The Princes in the Tower and Their Doctor," English Historical Review 77 (1962), 3046. Is this the paper you mentioned?

Having nosed around some more, I found another claim of Argentine's continued service to Richard in a book only just published in 2013: The Transformations of Magic: Illicit Learned Magic in the Later Middle Ages and Renaissance (Magic in History) by Frank Klaassen (University of Pennsylvania Press). In Chapter 2, page 48, it says:

He was physician to Edward V and his brother, Richard, Duke of York, until they were murdered in 1483, and he maintained his association with the court through the reign of Richard III (43).

Note 43 lists two sources: C. A. J. Armstrong, An Italian Astrologer at the Court of Henry VII (which appears to be about some other guy) and & Rhodes, The Princes in the Tower and Their Doctor. So it seems to be the Rhodes 1962 article that is the basis for this idea (or maybe a misinterpretation of the 1962 article?).

Thanks again,

Cathy

Thanks, Cathy. The Rhodes article I am familiar with is 'John Argentine, Provost of King's: His Life and His Library', which is *later* than 'The Princes in the Tower and their Doctor' and therefore more likely to be correct.

As it happens, just last week someone offered me a copy of 'The Princes in the Tower and their Doctor' for the Papers Library, so as soon as it arrives I shall be able to check what it says.

Having looked up Mancini, it does look to me as though he must have met Argentine in France, because:-

1) He tells us that he left England straight after Richard was crowned (which was of course 6th July), and so had had no chance to see him in action as King, viz:

"The fulfulment of this [prophecy of three kings in 3 months] was at last recognized when Richard was crowned the third king after Edward.... but how he may afterwards have ruled, and yet rules, I have not sufficiently learnt because directly after these triumphs I left England for France, as you Angelo Cato recalled me." (p. 105)

As I mentioned in previous post, Argentine would have been attending the ex king Edward V until some unspecified time after 18th July, which is when Edward's other servants were paid off. This would seem to rule out the possibility of Mancini's conversation with Argentine -, concerning Edward V's state when he last saw him -, having taken place in England.

Now I check Mancini, I see that he predates the replacement of Edward V's servants, and the removal of 'the Princes' from sight far more drastically than I had remembered, viz:

"But after Hastings was removed, all the attendants who had waited upon the king were debarred access to him. He and his brothers were withdrawn into the inner apartments of the Tower proper, and day by day began to be seen more rarely behind the bars and windows, till at length they ceased to appear altogether." (p. 93)

Mancini is totally viewing Hasting's execution with the "benefit" of hindsight as Richard's removal of the one remaining obstacle to his sweeping aside of Edward IV's issue and seizure of the throne. Mancini is also, of course, the first to transpose the order of Hastings' death and the removal of Richard Duke of York from sanctuary. According to Mancini, as soon as Hastings is dead, Richard strikes. But other sources (in the case of the dismissal of Edward's servants, the relevant gov. record) contradict this timing. In fact, it was a few days *after* Hastings' execution before R DoY even got to the Tower, and we know both boys were seen playing there together for some time.

Anyway, must stop rambling on. I'll let you know what 'The Princes and their Doctor' says when it arrives.

Marie

Marie wrote:

<<As it happens, just last week someone offered me a copy of 'The Princes in the Tower and their Doctor' for the Papers Library, so as soon as it arrives I shall be able to check what it says.>>

There's a happy coincidence! I really appreciate your looking into this. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, is in the article that addresses this, or if the two later writers misinterpreted something in it. It shouldn't astonish me anymore to see how misinformation gets blithely repeated, but I also recently saw a general reference book about the Wars of the Roses that casually claimed Clarence's son was imprisoned by Richard III & Arghhh.

<<As I mentioned in previous post, Argentine would have been attending the ex king Edward V until some unspecified time after 18th July, which is when Edward's other servants were paid off. This would seem to rule out the possibility of Mancini's conversation with Argentine -, concerning Edward V's state when he last saw him -, having taken place in England.>>

Yes, that makes perfect sense. We're fortunate in the unintentional evidence (like the payment records) that survives to check against the literary sources, though unfortunate in what has been lost or deliberately destroyed. And yes, trying to follow Mancini's chronology makes my brain hurt! :)

Cathy

Hi Cathy,

The earlier Rhodes article has just arrived. It is just a short piece identifying Mancin's "Argentinus medicus" as Dr. Argentine (Armstrong had translated it as 'a doctor of Strasbourg' because the Latin for Strasbourg is Argentoratum). All Rhodes says about Dr. A's activities 1483-5 is:-

"Argentine became physician to Prince Arthur, Henry VII's baby son who was born on 19 September 1486. In 1483, while the princes were in the Tower, he would have been forty-one years of age. It is therefore quite feasible that he had already in 1483 been appointed physician to the two sons of Edward IV, for his connections to the court seem to have been quite strong for many years."

So he doesn't claim that Argentine went on serving Richard III, but you can sort of see how that impression might be gained on a careless reading.

Marie

Marie, thanks for letting me know. Yes, that does sound like the two later writers made a leap from the original statement. Yet another cautionary tale!

Hi Cathy,

The earlier Rhodes article has just arrived. It is just a short piece identifying Mancin's "Argentinus medicus" as Dr. Argentine (Armstrong had translated it as 'a doctor of Strasbourg' because the Latin for Strasbourg is Argentoratum). All Rhodes says about Dr. A's activities 1483-5 is:-

"Argentine became physician to Prince Arthur, Henry VII's baby son who was born on 19 September 1486. In 1483, while the princes were in the Tower, he would have been forty-one years of age. It is therefore quite feasible that he had already in 1483 been appointed physician to the two sons of Edward IV, for his connections to the court seem to have been quite strong for many years."

So he doesn't claim that Argentine went on serving Richard III, but you can sort of see how that impression might be gained on a careless reading.

Marie

"Is it possible, I know it sounds far fetched, that neither Richard III or Henry VII knew what happened to the Princes?
Could they have left, escaped, been "rescued" etc without Richard's knowledge. He can't produce them either alive or dead, and neither can HT. Richard would have felt great guilt and shame if this had occurred I would have thought at his inability to protect them.
A strange kite to fly, I know."

Makes perfect sense to me! Do we know when Argentine left England and reached France?

Carol, hoping that Marie's post about Mancini's sources doesn't disappear but not wanting to quote the whole thing

Jessie wrote:

"Is it possible, I know it sounds far fetched, that neither Richard III or Henry VII knew what happened to the Princes?
Could they have left, escaped, been "rescued" etc without Richard's knowledge. He can't produce them either alive or dead, and neither can HT. Richard would have felt great guilt and shame if this had occurred I would have thought at his inability to protect them.
A strange kite to fly, I know."

Dear Carol,

Thank you for your reply, my thoughts more or less mirror yours, and I am also intrigued by the £3000 paid to Sir James Tyrell in Burgundy, which in those days would have been literally a kings ransom.
However, I do see the vaguest possibility that Margaret Beaufort or another person could have made a "rescue" attempt.
There is do much we just don't know.
As far as the bones in the urn are concerned, I strongly suspect that your two Roman girls are much nearer to the truth than any speculation about the Princes.
Have a wonderful Christmas or midwinter festival , whichever is to your taste

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Jessie wrote:

"Is it possible, I know it sounds far fetched, that neither Richard III or Henry VII knew what happened to the Princes?
Could they have left, escaped, been "rescued" etc without Richard's knowledge. He can't produce them either alive or dead, and neither can HT. Richard would have felt great guilt and shame if this had occurred I would have thought at his inability to protect them.
A strange kite to fly, I know."

He was physician to Edward V and his brother, Richard, Duke of York, until they were murdered in 1483, and he maintained his association with the court through the reign of Richard III (43). [snip]"

Carol responds:

Oh, dear. More repetition of generally known facts--i.e., assumptions repeated so often that they become "facts" in the public mind, with a new "fact" (possibly from the DNB article) added to the mix. First, Dr. Argentine was never the physician for Richard of York. He came with Edward from Ludlow. No one, including Mancini, mentions that he ever attended Edward's brother. And, of course, the murder is legend, not fact. And now we add Argentine, evidently believing Richard to be the boys' murderer (by proxy) continuing to serve him? We know he was Mancini's informant at some point after Mancini's departure from England and after the other attendants were dismissed in mid-July but before December, so how he could be serving Richard? Nor is there, so far as I know, any evidence that he returned to England while Richard was king.

I wish scholars would stop repeating what they read in secondary sources, whether it's "common knowledge" or a new "fact"!

Carol

Jessie wrote:

"Is it possible, I know it sounds far fetched, that neither Richard III or Henry VII knew what happened to the Princes?
Could they have left, escaped, been "rescued" etc without Richard's knowledge. He can't produce them either alive or dead, and neither can HT. Richard would have felt great guilt and shame if this had occurred I would have thought at his inability to protect them.
A strange kite to fly, I know."

David thank you for asking the question what happened to the “Princes”. And, Carol, thank you for the wonderful and detailed answer to the question. It certainly sounds well reasoned and researched. I simply cannot see Richard knowingly kill the “princes” for any reason.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of justcarol67@...
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 12:47 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re : Re: RE: Any maltreatment of the Princes?

David Durose wrote:

"Hi Carol,
I am interested in the suggestion that the 'Princes' were smuggled out to Burgundy - probably more specifically to Flanders . It seems to me that this region was in a state of war at the time with various factions fighting for power until the treaty of Senlis. I think it was a much more dangerous place for the general population than England during the WOTR. It just seems to me that this would be an odd place to send someone for their own safety. It might also provide an alternative purpose for the money sent there by Richard, namely to enable his sister or her friends to pay troops.
I would be interested in your thoughts."

Carol responds:

We don't know the nature of the secret correspondence between Richard and his sister, Margaret, but there is certainly no evidence that he sent her money or soldiers at this time. He was concerned about the defense of his own country by the Tudors and their foreign allies. But if (and I know we have no proof either way) Richard had his nephews smuggled out of the country, Burgundy would be the natural destination. It was easily accessible from the port of Guisnes where Tyrell (who received that mysterious large payment for "matters greatly concerning our weal" was captain. His sister Margaret, the dowager duchess, was a fervent Yorkist, and both she and her son-in-law, Maximillian, were Richard's allies. Richard himself, with his brother George , had been sent to Burgundy as a child. It was a natural choice.

There is a family tradition among Tyrells' descendants that he kept the boys (and their mother) for a time at his manor (Gipping). As Richard's Master of the Henchmen (pages), he could easily have disguised the boys as pages and moved them to Gipping and from there to Guisnes. At that point, another of Richard's loyal men, Sir Edward Brampton, whom Richard had knighted (the first converted Jew to be knighted in England ), could have transported them to Burgundy (he was the commander of one of Richard's ships and, IIRC, had family connections in Burgundy though he was originally Portuguese). Richard also rewarded him handsomely, giving him an annuity of 100 pounds a year for twenty years and a manor that had belonged to the duchess of Somerset . http://www.jhse.org/book/export/article/15735

Perkin Warbeck, who later claimed to be Richard III's nephew, Richard, Duke of York, became a member of Brampton 's household when he was fourteen. Perkin was ostensibly Flemish (Richard of York would have had four years to learn the language before becoming Lady Brampton's page). Why this honor would go to an obscure Flemish boy with no Yorkist connections is difficult to explain unless Brampton knew full well who he really was. Though Brampton seems never to have claimed that Perkin Warbeck was Richard, Duke of York, he did say that Warbeck himself claimed it as he stepped onto the shore of Ireland .

Margaret, of course, did refer to him as her nephew and support his claim. (She only did so, however, after another nephew, John Earl of Lincoln , was killed at the Battle of Stoke. Before that, she had supported yet another nephew, Edward Earl of Warwick , with Lambert Simnel apparently filling that role until Lincoln could rescue the real Edward. That Margaret would prefer to support Warwick over the nephew whom her brother Richard deposed or his younger brother makes perfect sense to me, as does her choice of the younger brother, Richard, over the presumably embittered Edward ex-V, even if he was still alive, once the Simnel plot had failed. (How Warbeck could know what he knew about Edward's court, from which Margaret had long been severed, or spoken perfect, unaccented English, has never been explained--unless, of course, he was who he claimed to be.)

At any rate, the secret correspondence with Margaret, Richard's rich rewards to two men associated in some way with his nephew Richard (or Perkin Warbeck), Richard's own exile in Burgundy as a child even younger tthan Richard, ex-Duke of York, Perkin Warbeck's supposed Flemish ancestry, his remarkable command of English and knowledge of Edward's court up until 1483, his princely manners, and Margaret's support of him once it became clear that few people outside Ireland would rise up in support of little Warwick all indicate the *possibility* that Sir James Tyrrell, on Richard's orders, smuggled the ex-prince and ex-king to safety and that the younger brother, at least, grew up in Burgundy. Perkin's later association with Richard's loyal supporter, Sir Edward Brampton, is unquestionable.

Sorry that this post is so long and contains asides not directly related to the argument. It's almost impossible to edit a post when I can see only seven lines of it at a time!

I've probably forgotten something, but I'm sure that my fellow posters will point out any errors or omissions. Meanwhile, please see Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson on the Tyrrell connection.

Carol

Exactly Carol. If I remember rightly in Audrey Williamson's book she was told of a tradition in the Tyrrell family that the boys were " at Gipping with their mother with the permission of their Uncle" or words to that effect. The Tyrrell family never spoke about it because they always assumed that the Tudor story about James Tyrrell having confessed was true. They assumed that the boys having been at Gipping proved that James had murdered them not realising that it could also be proof that they had spent time at Gipping with their mother while waiting to sail to Burgundy. Gipping, being in the East of England, is relatively close to ports where they could get a ship to Burgundy. Some years ago I looked at a map of the area ( I think it was when we discussed this before Carol) and Framlingham, John Howard's Castle is not too far away too. Who knows he may have been involved in their flight to Burgundy too. It always amazes me that people can say categorically that Richard definitely murdered the Princes when there is no evidence to support this, however, the same people take absolutely no account of the evidence as set out by Carol above.

David thank you for asking the question what happened to the Princes. And, Carol, thank you for the wonderful and detailed answer to the question. It certainly sounds well reasoned and researched. I simply cannot see Richard knowingly kill the princes for any reason.

Carol responds:

Thank you very much. By the way, I meant that Richard was concerned about the defense of his own country *against* the Tudors and their foreign allies, not defense of England *by* Tudor et al. I think I must have mixed up "invasion by" with "defense against." Why do I always see my errors *after* I hit Send?

Carol

Yes, thank you Carol. I have been thinking along those lines myself since I started reading around the subject, and it all hangs together very well. I have just ordered a second hand copy of Audrey Williamson's book to try and find out a bit more.
I live on the east coast of England too, slipping across to the continent from here would be very easy, and there are many places to set sail from locally too.
The as yet unanswered question of why Sir James Tyrell was paid £3,000, which in those days was the equivalent of the GDP of the country for a year is also explained. This vast sum is no small matter and there has to be an explanation for it. This is a good one.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Thank you Pamela,(David and Carol) I totally agree with you.Kathryn
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> David thank you for asking the question what happened to the "Princes". And, Carol, thank you for the wonderful and detailed answer to the question. It certainly sounds well reasoned and researched. I simply cannot see Richard knowingly kill the "princes" for any reason.
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67@...
> Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 12:47 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Re : Re: RE: Any maltreatment of the Princes?
>
>
> David Durose wrote:
>
> "Hi Carol,
> I am interested in the suggestion that the 'Princes' were smuggled out to Burgundy - probably more specifically to Flanders. It seems to me that this region was in a state of war at the time with various factions fighting for power until the treaty of Senlis. I think it was a much more dangerous place for the general population than England during the WOTR. It just seems to me that this would be an odd place to send someone for their own safety. It might also provide an alternative purpose for the money sent there by Richard, namely to enable his sister or her friends to pay troops.
> I would be interested in your thoughts."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> We don't know the nature of the secret correspondence between Richard and his sister, Margaret, but there is certainly no evidence that he sent her money or soldiers at this time. He was concerned about the defense of his own country by the Tudors and their foreign allies. But if (and I know we have no proof either way) Richard had his nephews smuggled out of the country, Burgundy would be the natural destination. It was easily accessible from the port of Guisnes where Tyrell (who received that mysterious large payment for "matters greatly concerning our weal" was captain. His sister Margaret, the dowager duchess, was a fervent Yorkist, and both she and her son-in-law, Maximillian, were Richard's allies. Richard himself, with his brother George, had been sent to Burgundy as a child. It was a natural choice.
>
> There is a family tradition among Tyrells' descendants that he kept the boys (and their mother) for a time at his manor (Gipping). As Richard's Master of the Henchmen (pages), he could easily have disguised the boys as pages and moved them to Gipping and from there to Guisnes. At that point, another of Richard's loyal men, Sir Edward Brampton, whom Richard had knighted (the first converted Jew to be knighted in England), could have transported them to Burgundy (he was the commander of one of Richard's ships and, IIRC, had family connections in Burgundy though he was originally Portuguese). Richard also rewarded him handsomely, giving him an annuity of 100 pounds a year for twenty years and a manor that had belonged to the duchess of Somerset. http://www.jhse.org/book/export/article/15735
>
> Perkin Warbeck, who later claimed to be Richard III's nephew, Richard, Duke of York, became a member of Brampton's household when he was fourteen. Perkin was ostensibly Flemish (Richard of York would have had four years to learn the language before becoming Lady Brampton's page). Why this honor would go to an obscure Flemish boy with no Yorkist connections is difficult to explain unless Brampton knew full well who he really was. Though Brampton seems never to have claimed that Perkin Warbeck was Richard, Duke of York, he did say that Warbeck himself claimed it as he stepped onto the shore of Ireland.
>
> Margaret, of course, did refer to him as her nephew and support his claim. (She only did so, however, after another nephew, John Earl of Lincoln, was killed at the Battle of Stoke. Before that, she had supported yet another nephew, Edward Earl of Warwick, with Lambert Simnel apparently filling that role until Lincoln could rescue the real Edward. That Margaret would prefer to support Warwick over the nephew whom her brother Richard deposed or his younger brother makes perfect sense to me, as does her choice of the younger brother, Richard, over the presumably embittered Edward ex-V, even if he was still alive, once the Simnel plot had failed. (How Warbeck could know what he knew about Edward's court, from which Margaret had long been severed, or spoken perfect, unaccented English, has never been explained--unless, of course, he was who he claimed to be.)
>
> At any rate, the secret correspondence with Margaret, Richard's rich rewards to two men associated in some way with his nephew Richard (or Perkin Warbeck), Richard's own exile in Burgundy as a child even younger tthan Richard, ex-Duke of York, Perkin Warbeck's supposed Flemish ancestry, his remarkable command of English and knowledge of Edward's court up until 1483, his princely manners, and Margaret's support of him once it became clear that few people outside Ireland would rise up in support of little Warwick all indicate the *possibility* that Sir James Tyrrell, on Richard's orders, smuggled the ex-prince and ex-king to safety and that the younger brother, at least, grew up in Burgundy. Perkin's later association with Richard's loyal supporter, Sir Edward Brampton, is unquestionable.
>
> Sorry that this post is so long and contains asides not directly related to the argument. It's almost impossible to edit a post when I can see only seven lines of it at a time!
>
> I've probably forgotten something, but I'm sure that my fellow posters will point out any errors or omissions. Meanwhile, please see Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson on the Tyrrell connection.
>
> Carol
>

Yes, thank you Carol. I have been thinking along those lines myself since I started reoading around the subject, and it all hangs together very well. I have just ordered a second hand copy of Audrey Williamson's book to try and find out a bit more.
I live on the east coast of England too, slipping across to the continent from here would be very easy, and there are many places to set sail from locally too.
The as yet unanswered question of why Sir James Tyrell was paid £3,000, which in those days was the equivalent of the GDP of the country for a year is also explained. This vast sum is no small matter and there has to be an explanation for it. This is a good one.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Thank you Pamela,(David and Carol) I totally agree with you.Kathryn
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> David thank you for asking the question what happened to the "Princes". And, Carol, thank you for the wonderful and detailed answer to the question. It certainly sounds well reasoned and researched. I simply cannot see Richard knowingly kill the "princes" for any reason.
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67@...
> Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 12:47 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Re : Re: RE: Any maltreatment of the Princes?
>
>
> David Durose wrote:
>
> "Hi Carol,
> I am interested in the suggestion that the 'Princes' were smuggled out to Burgundy - probably more specifically to Flanders. It seems to me that this region was in a state of war at the time with various factions fighting for power until the treaty of Senlis. I think it was a much more dangerous place for the general population than England during the WOTR. It just seems to me that this would be an odd place to send someone for their own safety. It might also provide an alternative purpose for the money sent there by Richard, namely to enable his sister or her friends to pay troops.
> I would be interested in your thoughts."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> We don't know the nature of the secret correspondence between Richard and his sister, Margaret, but there is certainly no evidence that he sent her money or soldiers at this time. He was concerned about the defense of his own country by the Tudors and their foreign allies. But if (and I know we have no proof either way) Richard had his nephews smuggled out of the country, Burgundy would be the natural destination. It was easily accessible from the port of Guisnes where Tyrell (who received that mysterious large payment for "matters greatly concerning our weal" was captain. His sister Margaret, the dowager duchess, was a fervent Yorkist, and both she and her son-in-law, Maximillian, were Richard's allies. Richard himself, with his brother George, had been sent to Burgundy as a child. It was a natural choice.
>
> There is a family tradition among Tyrells' descendants that he kept the boys (and their mother) for a time at his manor (Gipping). As Richard's Master of the Henchmen (pages), he could easily have disguised the boys as pages and moved them to Gipping and from there to Guisnes. At that point, another of Richard's loyal men, Sir Edward Brampton, whom Richard had knighted (the first converted Jew to be knighted in England), could have transported them to Burgundy (he was the commander of one of Richard's ships and, IIRC, had family connections in Burgundy though he was originally Portuguese). Richard also rewarded him handsomely, giving him an annuity of 100 pounds a year for twenty years and a manor that had belonged to the duchess of Somerset. http://www.jhse.org/book/export/article/15735
>
> Perkin Warbeck, who later claimed to be Richard III's nephew, Richard, Duke of York, became a member of Brampton's household when he was fourteen. Perkin was ostensibly Flemish (Richard of York would have had four years to learn the language before becoming Lady Brampton's page). Why this honor would go to an obscure Flemish boy with no Yorkist connections is difficult to explain unless Brampton knew full well who he really was. Though Brampton seems never to have claimed that Perkin Warbeck was Richard, Duke of York, he did say that Warbeck himself claimed it as he stepped onto the shore of Ireland.
>
> Margaret, of course, did refer to him as her nephew and support his claim. (She only did so, however, after another nephew, John Earl of Lincoln, was killed at the Battle of Stoke. Before that, she had supported yet another nephew, Edward Earl of Warwick, with Lambert Simnel apparently filling that role until Lincoln could rescue the real Edward. That Margaret would prefer to support Warwick over the nephew whom her brother Richard deposed or his younger brother makes perfect sense to me, as does her choice of the younger brother, Richard, over the presumably embittered Edward ex-V, even if he was still alive, once the Simnel plot had failed. (How Warbeck could know what he knew about Edward's court, from which Margaret had long been severed, or spoken perfect, unaccented English, has never been explained--unless, of course, he was who he claimed to be.)
>
> At any rate, the secret correspondence with Margaret, Richard's rich rewards to two men associated in some way with his nephew Richard (or Perkin Warbeck), Richard's own exile in Burgundy as a child even younger tthan Richard, ex-Duke of York, Perkin Warbeck's supposed Flemish ancestry, his remarkable command of English and knowledge of Edward's court up until 1483, his princely manners, and Margaret's support of him once it became clear that few people outside Ireland would rise up in support of little Warwick all indicate the *possibility* that Sir James Tyrrell, on Richard's orders, smuggled the ex-prince and ex-king to safety and that the younger brother, at least, grew up in Burgundy. Perkin's later association with Richard's loyal supporter, Sir Edward Brampton, is unquestionable.
>
> Sorry that this post is so long and contains asides not directly related to the argument. It's almost impossible to edit a post when I can see only seven lines of it at a time!
>
> I've probably forgotten something, but I'm sure that my fellow posters will point out any errors or omissions. Meanwhile, please see Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson on the Tyrrell connection.
>
> Carol
>

Pamela,

This is the information I have, although I am only working from secondary sources here, having not yet had access to the Harleian documents themselves:

"Towards the end of 1484, according to Harleian MSS 433, the docket book of Richard's Privy Seal, this "right trusty knight for our body and counsaillour" was sent "over the See into the parties of Flaundres for diverse maters concernying gretely oure wele". No further explanation is offered about this mission."

Having referred back to my source on the finances, which in this case was Bertram Fields, I find I have misinformed you regarding GDP. The actual amount was said to be equivalent to the "annual royal budget" which may well be almost the same thing. It is an enormous sum however you look at it.

It seems to me that there is further research to be done here, and if anyone knows any more, I for one would be most interested.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Yes, thank you Carol. I have been thinking along those lines myself since I started reoading around the subject, and it all hangs together very well. I have just ordered a second hand copy of Audrey Williamson's book to try and find out a bit more.
I live on the east coast of England too, slipping across to the continent from here would be very easy, and there are many places to set sail from locally too.
The as yet unanswered question of why Sir James Tyrell was paid £3,000, which in those days was the equivalent of the GDP of the country for a year is also explained. This vast sum is no small matter and there has to be an explanation for it. This is a good one.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Thank you Pamela,(David and Carol) I totally agree with you.Kathryn
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> David thank you for asking the question what happened to the "Princes". And, Carol, thank you for the wonderful and detailed answer to the question. It certainly sounds well reasoned and researched. I simply cannot see Richard knowingly kill the "princes" for any reason.
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67@...
> Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 12:47 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Re : Re: RE: Any maltreatment of the Princes?
>
>
> David Durose wrote:
>
> "Hi Carol,
> I am interested in the suggestion that the 'Princes' were smuggled out to Burgundy - probably more specifically to Flanders. It seems to me that this region was in a state of war at the time with various factions fighting for power until the treaty of Senlis. I think it was a much more dangerous place for the general population than England during the WOTR. It just seems to me that this would be an odd place to send someone for their own safety. It might also provide an alternative purpose for the money sent there by Richard, namely to enable his sister or her friends to pay troops.
> I would be interested in your thoughts."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> We don't know the nature of the secret correspondence between Richard and his sister, Margaret, but there is certainly no evidence that he sent her money or soldiers at this time. He was concerned about the defense of his own country by the Tudors and their foreign allies. But if (and I know we have no proof either way) Richard had his nephews smuggled out of the country, Burgundy would be the natural destination. It was easily accessible from the port of Guisnes where Tyrell (who received that mysterious large payment for "matters greatly concerning our weal" was captain. His sister Margaret, the dowager duchess, was a fervent Yorkist, and both she and her son-in-law, Maximillian, were Richard's allies. Richard himself, with his brother George, had been sent to Burgundy as a child. It was a natural choice.
>
> There is a family tradition among Tyrells' descendants that he kept the boys (and their mother) for a time at his manor (Gipping). As Richard's Master of the Henchmen (pages), he could easily have disguised the boys as pages and moved them to Gipping and from there to Guisnes. At that point, another of Richard's loyal men, Sir Edward Brampton, whom Richard had knighted (the first converted Jew to be knighted in England), could have transported them to Burgundy (he was the commander of one of Richard's ships and, IIRC, had family connections in Burgundy though he was originally Portuguese). Richard also rewarded him handsomely, giving him an annuity of 100 pounds a year for twenty years and a manor that had belonged to the duchess of Somerset. http://www.jhse.org/book/export/article/15735
>
> Perkin Warbeck, who later claimed to be Richard III's nephew, Richard, Duke of York, became a member of Brampton's household when he was fourteen. Perkin was ostensibly Flemish (Richard of York would have had four years to learn the language before becoming Lady Brampton's page). Why this honor would go to an obscure Flemish boy with no Yorkist connections is difficult to explain unless Brampton knew full well who he really was. Though Brampton seems never to have claimed that Perkin Warbeck was Richard, Duke of York, he did say that Warbeck himself claimed it as he stepped onto the shore of Ireland.
>
> Margaret, of course, did refer to him as her nephew and support his claim. (She only did so, however, after another nephew, John Earl of Lincoln, was killed at the Battle of Stoke. Before that, she had supported yet another nephew, Edward Earl of Warwick, with Lambert Simnel apparently filling that role until Lincoln could rescue the real Edward. That Margaret would prefer to support Warwick over the nephew whom her brother Richard deposed or his younger brother makes perfect sense to me, as does her choice of the younger brother, Richard, over the presumably embittered Edward ex-V, even if he was still alive, once the Simnel plot had failed. (How Warbeck could know what he knew about Edward's court, from which Margaret had long been severed, or spoken perfect, unaccented English, has never been explained--unless, of course, he was who he claimed to be.)
>
> At any rate, the secret correspondence with Margaret, Richard's rich rewards to two men associated in some way with his nephew Richard (or Perkin Warbeck), Richard's own exile in Burgundy as a child even younger tthan Richard, ex-Duke of York, Perkin Warbeck's supposed Flemish ancestry, his remarkable command of English and knowledge of Edward's court up until 1483, his princely manners, and Margaret's support of him once it became clear that few people outside Ireland would rise up in support of little Warwick all indicate the *possibility* that Sir James Tyrrell, on Richard's orders, smuggled the ex-prince and ex-king to safety and that the younger brother, at least, grew up in Burgundy. Perkin's later association with Richard's loyal supporter, Sir Edward Brampton, is unquestionable.
>
> Sorry that this post is so long and contains asides not directly related to the argument. It's almost impossible to edit a post when I can see only seven lines of it at a time!
>
> I've probably forgotten something, but I'm sure that my fellow posters will point out any errors or omissions. Meanwhile, please see Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson on the Tyrrell connection.
>
> Carol
>

David Durose wrote:

"Hi Carol,
I am interested in the suggestion that the 'Princes' were smuggled out to Burgundy - probably more specifically to Flanders. It seems to me that this region was in a state of war at the time with various factions fighting for power until the treaty of Senlis. I think it was a much more dangerous place for the general population than England during the WOTR. It just seems to me that this would be an odd place to send someone for their own safety. It might also provide an alternative purpose for the money sent there by Richard, namely to enable his sister or her friends to pay troops.
I would be interested in your thoughts."

Carol responds:

We don't know the nature of the secret correspondence between Richard and his sister, Margaret, but there is certainly no evidence that he sent her money or soldiers at this time. He was concerned about the defense of his own country by the Tudors and their foreign allies. But if (and I know we have no proof either way) Richard had his nephews smuggled out of the country, Burgundy would be the natural destination. It was easily accessible from the port of Guisnes where Tyrell (who received that mysterious large payment for "matters greatly concerning our weal" was captain. His sister Margaret, the dowager duchess, was a fervent Yorkist, and both she and her son-in-law, Maximillian, were Richard's allies. Richard himself, with his brother George, had been sent to Burgundy as a child. It was a natural choice.

There is a family tradition among Tyrells' descendants that he kept the boys (and their mother) for a time at his manor (Gipping). As Richard's Master of the Henchmen (pages), he could easily have disguised the boys as pages and moved them to Gipping and from there to Guisnes. At that point, another of Richard's loyal men, Sir Edward Brampton, whom Richard had knighted (the first converted Jew to be knighted in England), could have transported them to Burgundy (he was the commander of one of Richard's ships and, IIRC, had family connections in Burgundy though he was originally Portuguese). Richard also rewarded him handsomely, giving him an annuity of 100 pounds a year for twenty years and a manor that had belonged to the duchess of Somerset. http://www.jhse.org/book/export/article/15735

Perkin Warbeck, who later claimed to be Richard III's nephew, Richard, Duke of York, became a member of Brampton's household when he was fourteen. Perkin was ostensibly Flemish (Richard of York would have had four years to learn the language before becoming Lady Brampton's page). Why this honor would go to an obscure Flemish boy with no Yorkist connections is difficult to explain unless Brampton knew full well who he really was. Though Brampton seems never to have claimed that Perkin Warbeck was Richard, Duke of York, he did say that Warbeck himself claimed it as he stepped onto the shore of Ireland.

Margaret, of course, did refer to him as her nephew and support his claim. (She only did so, however, after another nephew, John Earl of Lincoln, was killed at the Battle of Stoke. Before that, she had supported yet another nephew, Edward Earl of Warwick, with Lambert Simnel apparently filling that role until Lincoln could rescue the real Edward. That Margaret would prefer to support Warwick over the nephew whom her brother Richard deposed or his younger brother makes perfect sense to me, as does her choice of the younger brother, Richard, over the presumably embittered Edward ex-V, even if he was still alive, once the Simnel plot had failed. (How Warbeck could know what he knew about Edward's court, from which Margaret had long been severed, or spoken perfect, unaccented English, has never been explained--unless, of course, he was who he claimed to be.)

At any rate, the secret correspondence with Margaret, Richard's rich rewards to two men associated in some way with his nephew Richard (or Perkin Warbeck), Richard's own exile in Burgundy as a child even younger tthan Richard, ex-Duke of York, Perkin Warbeck's supposed Flemish ancestry, his remarkable command of English and knowledge of Edward's court up until 1483, his princely manners, and Margaret's support of him once it became clear that few people outside Ireland would rise up in support of little Warwick all indicate the *possibility* that Sir James Tyrrell, on Richard's orders, smuggled the ex-prince and ex-king to safety and that the younger brother, at least, grew up in Burgundy. Perkin's later association with Richard's loyal supporter, Sir Edward Brampton, is unquestionable.

Sorry that this post is so long and contains asides not directly related to the argument. It's almost impossible to edit a post when I can see only seven lines of it at a time!

I've probably forgotten something, but I'm sure that my fellow posters will point out any errors or omissions. Meanwhile, please see Audrey Williamson and Annette Carson on the Tyrrell connection.

Carol