"Translation" of the Repeal of Tituls Regius

Mortimer, yes.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: 04 February 2014 18:09
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] "Translation" of the Repeal of Tituls Regius

Mary wrote:

"Abolutely agree Carol. The country would be a much better place if Richard had won Bosworth. Recently some archaeologists found the remains Blanche Mortimer in Much Marcle. Shw was, I think, the daughter of Roger Mortimer who overthrew Edward II. All the articles described Roger as a traitor, which he most definitely was, however, Tudor is never referred to as a traitor despite the fact he caused an anointed King to die i battle and visited 119 years of misery on this country."

Doug here:

The major difference between Mortimer and Tudor is that Mortimer never claimed the throne and thus had no need to try and justify his sitting on it.

Another point is that too many modern historians; ie, almost any after 1500, have tried to give the history of the last Plantagenets and their immediate succesors a thematic unity the events simply don't possess. The only "unity" I con find in the WoTR is that those at the top were trying to maintain, intact, the method of personal rule developed from William the Conqueror on; IOW, *who* was going to exercise the power that had accrued to the King? Lancastrian or York? Henry VI or Richard, Duke of York ?

As political parties hadn't developed, people fell back on "right"; *who* had the "right" to be King? Geneaologically speaking, it was neither York nor Lancaster, it was I believe (Stephen please correct me if I'm mistaken) actually a Mortimer/Neville? *Why* they never tried for the throne, I don't know, possibly their connections, while undoubtedly fairly widespread, simply weren't on the same level as Bolingbroke's and York's? Or perhaps it was the tinge of Mortimer in the line that prevented a greater role.

At any rate, what *has* happened with, especially, HT was *political* need to justify his actions, thus the denigration of his predecessor and the paid-for "Hallelujahs!" in what passes for Tudor-era "histories."

While I personally believe that Richard would have been a *better* King than HT, I also think that the improvement would *not* have been because Richard had some "Grand Design" for his reign, but rather because Richard was, simply put, a *better* person; intelligene allied with empathy, a desire to live up to his Coronation Oath and proven ability, as when given time as in the North, to rule with a sense of justice and humanity. There's no doubt Richard would *still* have been limited by his times and his upbringing, but even within *those* limitations (shared by HT) I can't but see him as the King his older brother *could* have been.

Thus endeth today's lecture. I hope you've all taken notes, as there *will* be a test...

Doug

(who composed this as an original msg to see if it goes through)

Excellent Doug.

Doug, As usual you express things much more eloquently than me. It's what I've also been banging on about. The WOTR were not civil wars in the way that historians ever since have tried to classify them. Civil Wars (and I've purposely put the capitals) are about ideology. So, as a countryman, I might support Cromwell, Lincoln, Lenin because of their beliefs, not because I necessarily stand to gain. Civil Wars are not about a group of aristocrats spatting about what they believe to be their hereditary rights. Where's Edward's or HT's Manifesto? Did the Vannes group really gather round HT because they shared his ideology? If they did I've yet to discover what it was. What is ironic though is that the one person in this period to whom you could attribute an ideology is Richard. It's there in his books; it's there in his first and only Parliament. That puts him as a very unusual person for his times. How ironic that the man who vilified him most was also the man who wrote Utopia. H.

On Tuesday, 4 February 2014, 20:27, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:
Excellent Doug.