BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

Philippa shares what the Leicester agreement said about taking Richard's remains to a place of "sanctity and rest" before re-burial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26041192

--
None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain-pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try - Mark Twain

Sandra wrote:
How strange, Weds, I read that article and didn't think they were actually speaking about Philippa (although they quoted her), just an anonymous 'historian', with whom she agreed. I imagined it was a reference to JAH, who has said these things and is, as we know, often not named. He has recently had his remarks removed and 'adjusted', with Leicester uni's defence of its position. Now I look at it your way, and think you're right, Philippa is the 'historian' and the only one referred to. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Wednesday writes:
I'm sorry... I should have been more clear. It may be that the article you read did not direct its readers to the original video with Philippa?

The link I included (included again below) goes to a BBC news page featuring a video of the Midlands interview with Philippa. She doesn't mention JAH: her focus is on what Leicester agreed before the dig would be done with Richard's remains should they find them -- that Leicester specifically agreed his remains would be taken to a place of "sanctity and rest" before he was reinterred.

The video briefly shows the door of the "vault" where the remains are now being stored and features university personnel saying only two people have access to the room beyond -- so it's made clear that he's not by any stretch of the imagination in a place of sanctity; he's stuck in a cardboard box on a shelf dictated by the Uni, not where the agreement directed. (My comment: the Uni seems to be arguing and getting round the Leicester agreement by claiming their DNA, osteological and archaeological research isn't finished on him. But if they have their way, it will never be finished, will it?)

Relative to nothing Philippa brought up, the video also has Buckley mentioning "criticism" (he doesn't get specific) that Leicester Uni has been subjected to regarding how they *disinterred* the bones. Buckley does not address Leicester's failure to comply with their agreement to move the bones to a location affording "sanctity and rest" previous to their being reinterred.

-----
From: Wednesday McKenna
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 4:27 PM
To:
Subject: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

Philippa shares what the Leicester agreement said about taking Richard's remains to a place of "sanctity and rest" before re-burial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26041192

Well PL has indeed been stitched up by the Uni...I'm glad that it is all becoming made more public now about the truly appalling way the Uni has behaved. Perhaps they may be shamed into doing the right thing however I doubt it.

I managed to locate the article in a Ricardian bulletin regarding reburial of Anne Mowbrays's remains..September 2009 Bill White...seems it was a more caring society in 1964/65..."in the House of Lords the recently ennobled Baron Mowbray, Seagrave and Stourton enquired 'as a member of Anne Mowbray's family (albeit at a considerable remove, as other peers remarked) as to when the body would be reburied. The duke of Norfolk, the Earl Marshall, who said that he had found a photograph in a newspaper account upsetting, sent Sir Anthony Wagner, garter king of arms, to lobby the Cabinet Office regarding the investigation to cease and for Anne's body to be reburied in "the shortest possible time and accepts that the maximum time should be three months". In fact she was reburied in Westminster Abbey on 15th May 1965 I.e. rather more hastily than had been demanded".

Ah those were the days....when the hierarchy got involved in such things instead of leaving it up to some upstart archaeologist from a uni archaeology department who clearly hasn't got a clue about the correct way of honouring an annointed King who fell in battle defending his country. What have we come to that this is allowed to happen...you really couldn't make it up....! Eileen

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> No, there was no video in the thing I read, just a couple of paragraphs that seemed hardly worth bothering with. I was puzzled at the time. All is now explained. Iâ¬"m glad there was actually more to it. So, nothing to do with you not being clear, just with me not seeing the video. I recognised the link you provided, and thought it must be the same as before. Clearly not. It had been updated/put right. My husband is always telling me not to leap to conclusions. How right.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Wednesday McKenna
> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 6:54 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
>
>
>
> Sandra wrote:
> How strange, Weds, I read that article and didn't think they were actually speaking about Philippa (although they quoted her), just an anonymous 'historian', with whom she agreed. I imagined it was a reference to JAH, who has said these things and is, as we know, often not named. He has recently had his remarks removed and 'adjusted', with Leicester uni's defence of its position. Now I look at it your way, and think you're right, Philippa is the 'historian' and the only one referred to. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
>
>
> Wednesday writes:
>
> I'm sorry... I should have been more clear. It may be that the article you read did not direct its readers to the original video with Philippa?
>
> The link I included (included again below) goes to a BBC news page featuring a video of the Midlands interview with Philippa. She doesn't mention JAH: her focus is on what Leicester agreed before the dig would be done with Richard's remains should they find them -- that Leicester specifically agreed his remains would be taken to a place of "sanctity and rest" before he was reinterred.
>
>
> The video briefly shows the door of the "vault" where the remains are now being stored and features university personnel saying only two people have access to the room beyond -- so it's made clear that he's not by any stretch of the imagination in a place of sanctity; he's stuck in a cardboard box on a shelf dictated by the Uni, not where the agreement directed. (My comment: the Uni seems to be arguing and getting round the Leicester agreement by claiming their DNA, osteological and archaeological research isn't finished on him. But if they have their way, it will never be finished, will it?)
>
>
> Relative to nothing Philippa brought up, the video also has Buckley mentioning "criticism" (he doesn't get specific) that Leicester Uni has been subjected to regarding how they *disinterred* the bones. Buckley does not address Leicester's failure to comply with their agreement to move the bones to a location affording "sanctity and rest" previous to their being reinterred.
>
>
>
> -----
>
> From: Wednesday McKenna
> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 4:27 PM
> To:
> Subject: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
>
> Philippa shares what the Leicester agreement said about taking Richard's remains to a place of "sanctity and rest" before re-burial.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26041192
>

Well PL has indeed been stitched up by the Uni...I'm glad that it is all becoming made more public now about the truly appalling way the Uni has behaved. Perhaps they may be shamed into doing the right thing however I doubt it.

I managed to locate the article in a Ricardian bulletin regarding reburial of Anne Mowbrays's remains..September 2009 Bill White...seems it was a more caring society in 1964/65..."in the House of Lords the recently ennobled Baron Mowbray, Seagrave and Stourton enquired 'as a member of Anne Mowbray's family (albeit at a considerable remove, as other peers remarked) as to when the body would be reburied. The duke of Norfolk, the Earl Marshall, who said that he had found a photograph in a newspaper account upsetting, sent Sir Anthony Wagner, garter king of arms, to lobby the Cabinet Office regarding the investigation to cease and for Anne's body to be reburied in "the shortest possible time and accepts that the maximum time should be three months". In fact she was reburied in Westminster Abbey on 15th May 1965 I.e. rather more hastily than had been demanded".

Ah those were the days....when the hierarchy got involved in such things instead of leaving it up to some upstart archaeologist from a uni archaeology department who clearly hasn't got a clue about the correct way of honouring an annointed King who fell in battle defending his country. What have we come to that this is allowed to happen...you really couldn't make it up....! Eileen

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> No, there was no video in the thing I read, just a couple of paragraphs that seemed hardly worth bothering with. I was puzzled at the time. All is now explained. I’m glad there was actually more to it. So, nothing to do with you not being clear, just with me not seeing the video. I recognised the link you provided, and thought it must be the same as before. Clearly not. It had been updated/put right. My husband is always telling me not to leap to conclusions. How right.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Wednesday McKenna
> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 6:54 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
>
>
>
> Sandra wrote:
> How strange, Weds, I read that article and didn't think they were actually speaking about Philippa (although they quoted her), just an anonymous 'historian', with whom she agreed. I imagined it was a reference to JAH, who has said these things and is, as we know, often not named. He has recently had his remarks removed and 'adjusted', with Leicester uni's defence of its position. Now I look at it your way, and think you're right, Philippa is the 'historian' and the only one referred to. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
>
>
> Wednesday writes:
>
> I'm sorry... I should have been more clear. It may be that the article you read did not direct its readers to the original video with Philippa?
>
> The link I included (included again below) goes to a BBC news page featuring a video of the Midlands interview with Philippa. She doesn't mention JAH: her focus is on what Leicester agreed before the dig would be done with Richard's remains should they find them -- that Leicester specifically agreed his remains would be taken to a place of "sanctity and rest" before he was reinterred.
>
>
> The video briefly shows the door of the "vault" where the remains are now being stored and features university personnel saying only two people have access to the room beyond -- so it's made clear that he's not by any stretch of the imagination in a place of sanctity; he's stuck in a cardboard box on a shelf dictated by the Uni, not where the agreement directed. (My comment: the Uni seems to be arguing and getting round the Leicester agreement by claiming their DNA, osteological and archaeological research isn't finished on him. But if they have their way, it will never be finished, will it?)
>
>
> Relative to nothing Philippa brought up, the video also has Buckley mentioning "criticism" (he doesn't get specific) that Leicester Uni has been subjected to regarding how they *disinterred* the bones. Buckley does not address Leicester's failure to comply with their agreement to move the bones to a location affording "sanctity and rest" previous to their being reinterred.
>
>
>
> -----
>
> From: Wednesday McKenna
> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 4:27 PM
> To:
> Subject: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
>
> Philippa shares what the Leicester agreement said about taking Richard's remains to a place of "sanctity and rest" before re-burial.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26041192
>

I know this is not actually relevant, but it gives me some hope... In America they had to give back the bones of Native Americans after some years, because of continued pressure from them for their return. They were not relatives as such, they just believed it was sacrilege. So I am hoping that if the pressure keeps up on the Uni, eventually they will have conducted all the tests worthwhile conducting (have they already?) and will have no reason to give why he should not be finally interred with the respect due him.

I can see everyone in the Uni. being delighted at such a unique opportunity, but that's where I get annoyed. They seem to forget that is the remains of a man - A human being, not some ancient artifact.

I try to think of good things in order that Richard's current situation is not too upsetting. I keep hoping that there is Philippa's flag or something like that on the box at least. I am also trying to think that he is at least somewhere secure (?) while the final resting place for him is prepared. The arguments over where he is to be finally interred could take years to resolve and I cannot see him being released from the University's grasp until there is somewhere prepared for him? So with a terrible irony, the debates over where he should be buried is making things worse in so many ways.

Does anyone know where current Kings and Queens are buried? Is it where the family wants, or are they considered to be belonging to the nation, so get buried in Westminster Abbey or wherever, whether it is what the family wants or not?

Tony

I know this is not actually relevant, but it gives me some hope... In America they had to give back the bones of Native Americans after some years, because of continued pressure from them for their return. They were not relatives as such, they just believed it was sacrilege. So I am hoping that if the pressure keeps up on the Uni, eventually they will have conducted all the tests worthwhile conducting (have they already?) and will have no reason to give why he should not be finally interred with the respect due him.

I can see everyone in the Uni. being delighted at such a unique opportunity, but that's where I get annoyed. They seem to forget that is the remains of a man - A human being, not some ancient artifact.

I try to think of good things in order that Richard's current situation is not too upsetting. I keep hoping that there is Philippa's flag or something like that on the box at least. I am also trying to think that he is at least somewhere secure (?) while the final resting place for him is prepared. The arguments over where he is to be finally interred could take years to resolve and I cannot see him being released from the University's grasp until there is somewhere prepared for him? So with a terrible irony, the debates over where he should be buried is making things worse in so many ways.

Does anyone know where current Kings and Queens are buried? Is it where the family wants, or are they considered to be belonging to the nation, so get buried in Westminster Abbey or wherever, whether it is what the family wants or not?

Tony

Hello Kathryn,

You raise some excellent points. I suppose being parked on by cars is pretty awful, so perhaps Richard would indeed be alright with the current hiatus, knowing that something much more dignified and fitting will be at the end of it.

Members of the Royal family being laid to rest in St. George's Chapel at Windsor Castle sounds really hopeful to me. That means that Royal remains are not "state property" or some such thing, but are still under control of the family. That gives me hope that he will be reinterred where is best for him, and not somewhere where he will attract the most visitors, or some other equally repulsive arrangement.

Tony

Hello Sandra,

I don't know if anyone has tried a direct approach to the present Duke of Gloucester? That certainly is an idea, but I would be concerned that it would put him in a difficult position? Being our Patron, he might simply be dismissed as "having a vested interest" and ignored because of it?

You know one of the most wonderful things about this group is how everyone seems to really care about Richard as a person. I see some organisations seeing him as a boost for tourism, others as an interesting archeological artifact. I was feeling I seemed to be the only one other than Philippa's reaction in the documentary who was remembering that those "bones" are a human being and where was the respect they should be being given. Then I found this group by accident while searching for information about Richard and found there were others who felt the same thankfully!

Tony

Hello Sandra,

I don't know if anyone has tried a direct approach to the present Duke of Gloucester? That certainly is an idea, but I would be concerned that it would put him in a difficult position? Being our Patron, he might simply be dismissed as "having a vested interest" and ignored because of it?

You know one of the most wonderful things about this group is how everyone seems to really care about Richard as a person. I see some organisations seeing him as a boost for tourism, others as an interesting archeological artifact. I was feeling I seemed to be the only one other than Philippa's reaction in the documentary who was remembering that those "bones" are a human being and where was the respect they should be being given. Then I found this group by accident while searching for information about Richard and found there were others who felt the same thankfully!

Tony

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014, 9:58
Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

> I would like to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the urn is to be treated with such reverence, then so should
> Richard be. I think the Queen would argue that she *is* being consistent. Once laid to rest on consecrated ground, remains are sacrosanct. What's happening to Richard is probably only serving to entrench that view. The last thing she wants is to set a precedent where any passing academic can apply to exhume Elizabeth I or Edward IV to prove their latest theory... Jonathan
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014, 9:58
Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
Tony, I was thinking maybe the present Duke of Gloucester has contacts' where it matters and could have a discreet word? After all, the present situation is doing no one any good, and whether they like it or not, the Royal Family is coming in for criticism. Richard was royal too, and he and the present family' have shared blood. And I don't mean in the same way claimed by the PA. The line back through the British Royal Family to Richard can be traced, unless a lover's child ascended the throne somewhere along the line. The Royal Family of now is the senior line, by anyone's reckoning, so they have the right to say what happens. I really do think it is up to the present queen to claim him as one of mine' and then hand responsibility to the usual authorities/departments/offices who deal efficiently and respectfully with royal funerals. That would solve it all, IMHO. If she says York, then it's York. If she says Leicester, then it's Leicester. If she says St. George's, then it's St. George's. No one would dream of arguing with her about any other royal, so why this one? If she had wanted Princess Margaret laid to rest on Glastonbury Tor, I am sure the tomb would now be there. (Only joking!) She surely cannot be all that proud of a number of her ancestors, and maybe she does think Richard did all the wicked things, but a lot of the others were far wickeder, so why single Richard out for this disgracefully shoddy treatment? It's very unbecoming, and shamefully partisan. The royal finger should be pulled out, or I'm a republican! And lastly, perhaps she doubts (after everything) that the remains actually are Richard's. Hmm. But then how sure can she be that the darned urn contains the sons of Edward IV? She can't be, but she won't let anyone test the bones to see if it's true. But she will allow Leicester Uni to prod, carve, cut, grind and everything else as far as Richard's bones are concerned. I would like to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the urn is to be treated with such reverence, then so should Richard be. Especially Richard, because if nothing else, he was the anointed king. Edward's sons were not. Oh, but everyone here knows all this stuff, I'm just up on my pesky hind legs braying again. Sandra =^..^= From: group_mail_address@... Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 8:37 PM To: Subject: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa Hello Sandra, I don't know if anyone has tried a direct approach to the present Duke of Gloucester? That certainly is an idea, but I would be concerned that it would put him in a difficult position? Being our Patron, he might simply be dismissed as "having a vested interest" and ignored because of it? You know one of the most wonderful things about this group is how everyone seems to really care about Richard as a person. I see some organisations seeing him as a boost for tourism, others as an interesting archeological artifact. I was feeling I seemed to be the only one other than Philippa's reaction in the documentary who was remembering that those "bones" are a human being and where was the respect they should be being given. Then I found this group by accident while searching for information about Richard and found there were others who felt the same thankfully! Tony

---In , <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

Philippa shares what the Leicester agreement said about taking Richard's remains to a place of "sanctity and rest" before re-burial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26041192

--
None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain-pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try - Mark Twain

All of us, I am sure. But we, obviously, make not one whit of influence, as it has been over a year, and he is still unburied.

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 7:19 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

But Richard was taken out of consecrated ground, and is now being examined and tampered with, apparently without an end in sight, before he can be put back in consecrated ground. Leicester University appear to want to have access to him in perpetuity, or so it seems to me, and nothing is being done to prevent this abomination. The Queen is the head of the church in England, she is the descendant of the Plantagenets, and she is concerned enough to guard the urn. I'm sorry, but she should also be concerned enough about Richard as well.

I know and understand what you are saying Jonathan, and please don't think I am arguing with you. It's the House of Windsor I have the gripe with. I do not see the Queen as being consistent in this, only as having made a decision that is to Richard's detriment in more ways than one. She---yes, she---has by her silence consigned his remains to academic perdition, and in so doing has made it appear she believes he is expendable, presumably because he was guilty of the crimes attributed to him. She may as well come out with it and say I prefer the Tudor version, to heck with Richard III.

How she can live with Henry VIII's legacy I do not know, but she manages, it seems. If the side of his tomb collapsed and he rolled out, on consecrated ground, of course, would she permit Leicester University to conduct a close examination of the site and then cart him off to the slab for a good old Tudor banquet of bone-crunching that might last until Prince George's 21st? I apologise, everyone, but this particular aspect of the whole sorry business rankles with me.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: Jonathan Evans

Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 12:39 PM

To:

Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014, 9:58
Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

> I would like to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the urn is to be treated with such reverence, then so should

> Richard be.

I think the Queen would argue that she *is* being consistent. Once laid to rest on consecrated ground, remains are sacrosanct. What's happening to Richard is probably only serving to entrench that view. The last thing she wants is to set a precedent where any passing academic can apply to exhume Elizabeth I or Edward IV to prove their latest theory...

Jonathan

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014, 9:58
Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

Tony, I was thinking maybe the present Duke of Gloucester has contacts' where it matters and could have a discreet word? After all, the present situation is doing no one any good, and whether they like it or not, the Royal Family is coming in for criticism. Richard was royal too, and he and the present family' have shared blood. And I don't mean in the same way claimed by the PA. The line back through the British Royal Family to Richard can be traced, unless a lover's child ascended the throne somewhere along the line. The Royal Family of now is the senior line, by anyone's reckoning, so they have the right to say what happens. I really do think it is up to the present queen to claim him as one of mine' and then hand responsibility to the usual authorities/departments/offices who deal efficiently and respectfully with royal funerals. That would solve it all, IMHO. If she says York, then it's York. If she says Leicester, then it's Leicester. If she says St. George's, then it's St. George's. No one would dream of arguing with her about any other royal, so why this one? If she had wanted Princess Margaret laid to rest on Glastonbury Tor, I am sure the tomb would now be there. (Only joking!) She surely cannot be all that proud of a number of her ancestors, and maybe she does think Richard did all the wicked things, but a lot of the others were far wickeder, so why single Richard out for this disgracefully shoddy treatment? It's very unbecoming, and shamefully partisan. The royal finger should be pulled out, or I'm a republican!

And lastly, perhaps she doubts (after everything) that the remains actually are Richard's. Hmm. But then how sure can she be that the darned urn contains the sons of Edward IV? She can't be, but she won't let anyone test the bones to see if it's true. But she will allow Leicester Uni to prod, carve, cut, grind and everything else as far as Richard's bones are concerned. I would like to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the urn is to be treated with such reverence, then so should Richard be. Especially Richard, because if nothing else, he was the anointed king. Edward's sons were not. Oh, but everyone here knows all this stuff, I'm just up on my pesky hind legs braying again.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: group_mail_address@...

Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 8:37 PM

To:

Subject: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

Hello Sandra,

I don't know if anyone has tried a direct approach to the present Duke of Gloucester? That certainly is an idea, but I would be concerned that it would put him in a difficult position? Being our Patron, he might simply be dismissed as "having a vested interest" and ignored because of it?

You know one of the most wonderful things about this group is how everyone seems to really care about Richard as a person. I see some organisations seeing him as a boost for tourism, others as an interesting archeological artifact. I was feeling I seemed to be the only one other than Philippa's reaction in the documentary who was remembering that those "bones" are a human being and where was the respect they should be being given. Then I found this group by accident while searching for information about Richard and found there were others who felt the same thankfully!

Tony

---In , <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

Philippa shares what the Leicester agreement said about taking Richard's remains to a place of "sanctity and rest" before re-burial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26041192

--
None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain-pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try - Mark Twain

That is such a good point, regarding Edward VIII, and don't forget the Diana time, as well as the shenanigans of Prince Charles, and then Prince Harry. She has lived that stiff upper lip for a lifetime, and in unlikely to change! Also, Prince Phillip and his family had many troubles, so I can imagine she does not want to touch a five hundred year old problem with a barge pole!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:24 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

I do agree Sandra. Of course one of the Queen's earliest influencers was Winston Churchill and we know his version of History! And then there was the whole Edward VIII thing which I guess she can never forget - there must never be scandal at any cost! She comes from a very different generation and we do owe a lot to them. So difficult, very difficult and poor Richard is yet again a 'victim' , as the guy implied before referring it all to the JR. H

On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:19, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:

But Richard was taken out of consecrated ground, and is now being examined and tampered with, apparently without an end in sight, before he can be put back in consecrated ground. Leicester University appear to want to have access to him in perpetuity, or so it seems to me, and nothing is being done to prevent this abomination. The Queen is the head of the church in England, she is the descendant of the Plantagenets, and she is concerned enough to guard the urn. I'm sorry, but she should also be concerned enough about Richard as well.

I know and understand what you are saying Jonathan, and please don't think I am arguing with you. It's the House of Windsor I have the gripe with. I do not see the Queen as being consistent in this, only as having made a decision that is to Richard's detriment in more ways than one. She---yes, she---has by her silence consigned his remains to academic perdition, and in so doing has made it appear she believes he is expendable, presumably because he was guilty of the crimes attributed to him. She may as well come out with it and say I prefer the Tudor version, to heck with Richard III.

How she can live with Henry VIII's legacy I do not know, but she manages, it seems. If the side of his tomb collapsed and he rolled out, on consecrated ground, of course, would she permit Leicester University to conduct a close examination of the site and then cart him off to the slab for a good old Tudor banquet of bone-crunching that might last until Prince George's 21st? I apologise, everyone, but this particular aspect of the whole sorry business rankles with me.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: Jonathan Evans

Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 12:39 PM

To:

Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014, 9:58
Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

> I would like to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the urn is to be treated with such reverence, then so should

> Richard be.

I think the Queen would argue that she *is* being consistent. Once laid to rest on consecrated ground, remains are sacrosanct. What's happening to Richard is probably only serving to entrench that view. The last thing she wants is to set a precedent where any passing academic can apply to exhume Elizabeth I or Edward IV to prove their latest theory...

Jonathan

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014, 9:58
Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

Tony, I was thinking maybe the present Duke of Gloucester has contacts' where it matters and could have a discreet word? After all, the present situation is doing no one any good, and whether they like it or not, the Royal Family is coming in for criticism. Richard was royal too, and he and the present family' have shared blood. And I don't mean in the same way claimed by the PA. The line back through the British Royal Family to Richard can be traced, unless a lover's child ascended the throne somewhere along the line. The Royal Family of now is the senior line, by anyone's reckoning, so they have the right to say what happens. I really do think it is up to the present queen to claim him as one of mine' and then hand responsibility to the usual authorities/departments/offices who deal efficiently and respectfully with royal funerals. That would solve it all, IMHO. If she says York, then it's York. If she says Leicester, then it's Leicester. If she says St. George's, then it's St. George's. No one would dream of arguing with her about any other royal, so why this one? If she had wanted Princess Margaret laid to rest on Glastonbury Tor, I am sure the tomb would now be there. (Only joking!) She surely cannot be all that proud of a number of her ancestors, and maybe she does think Richard did all the wicked things, but a lot of the others were far wickeder, so why single Richard out for this disgracefully shoddy treatment? It's very unbecoming, and shamefully partisan. The royal finger should be pulled out, or I'm a republican!

And lastly, perhaps she doubts (after everything) that the remains actually are Richard's. Hmm. But then how sure can she be that the darned urn contains the sons of Edward IV? She can't be, but she won't let anyone test the bones to see if it's true. But she will allow Leicester Uni to prod, carve, cut, grind and everything else as far as Richard's bones are concerned. I would like to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the urn is to be treated with such reverence, then so should Richard be. Especially Richard, because if nothing else, he was the anointed king. Edward's sons were not. Oh, but everyone here knows all this stuff, I'm just up on my pesky hind legs braying again.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: group_mail_address@...

Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 8:37 PM

To:

Subject: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

Hello Sandra,

I don't know if anyone has tried a direct approach to the present Duke of Gloucester? That certainly is an idea, but I would be concerned that it would put him in a difficult position? Being our Patron, he might simply be dismissed as "having a vested interest" and ignored because of it?

You know one of the most wonderful things about this group is how everyone seems to really care about Richard as a person. I see some organisations seeing him as a boost for tourism, others as an interesting archeological artifact. I was feeling I seemed to be the only one other than Philippa's reaction in the documentary who was remembering that those "bones" are a human being and where was the respect they should be being given. Then I found this group by accident while searching for information about Richard and found there were others who felt the same thankfully!

Tony

---In , <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

Philippa shares what the Leicester agreement said about taking Richard's remains to a place of "sanctity and rest" before re-burial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26041192

--
None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain-pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try - Mark Twain

Weds, you are not disremembering&&

The name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha came to the British Royal Family in 1840 with the marriage of Queen Victoria to Prince Albert, son of Ernst, Duke of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. Queen Victoria herself remained a member of the House of Hanover.

The only British monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was King Edward VII, who reigned for nine years at the beginning of the modern age in the early years of the twentieth century.

King George V replaced the German-sounding title with that of Windsor during the First World War. The name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha survived in other European monarchies, including the current Belgian Royal Family and the former monarchies of Portugal and Bulgaria.

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday.mac@...
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 11:05 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

The ground he was buried in *was* consecrated, sacrosanct. Unfortunately, the surface changed to a car park.

If the queen claims him, she legitimizes his reign (and his deeds, whatever she thinks they were), which might be used to cast aspersions on the legitimacy of the Tudor line and on down to the Windsor line. (Didn't they change their name from something German to Windsor, concurrent to WWII, or am I misremembering?)

I think the current royal family would be very happy to have Richard remain the historically evil king and let his burial happen where the court wills. The Duke of Gloucester may feel otherwise, but I'd imagine he takes orders from Her Majesty, same as everyone else who makes appearances for the royal family...and these days, they may also be also taking orders from the Prince of Wales.

Anything that increases Richard's reputation may be seen as decreasing the Windsor reputation? That makes no logical sense, but what about Richard and his fate has ever been logical?

Well...whatever way you slice the cake the ongoing refusal (PLUS reneging on the deal with PL) ..of the Uni to let Richard's remains lie somewhere suitable until his reburial is on so many levels just simply wrong. Regarding security surely it is not beyond the wit of one of their number to come up with a workable solution to this? Give-Me-Strength!

Let us not forget either it is the Uni's intention of being able to get access to Richard's remains in the future too. How lovely of them...Quite honestly this is beyond belief....it really is.

As to how Richard the man himself would feel about this ongoing ill treatment of his remains well look no further that his wonderful plans for Towton chapel which because of his death was never reached fruition....Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> But to be fair it's surely much more complex that that. The Hanoverian line got there almost by default; it wasn't their fault that the Stuarts produced no heirs! And the Hanoverians are descended from the Stuarts, who are descended from Margaret Tudor, who is descended from her grandfather Edward IV, so I wouldn't really have thought it a big issue, apart from the traditionalist (Shakespeare/Churchill) view of Richard. But I'd have thought the younger members of the family including Charles are educated enought to realise that much of that is propeganda.
> Â
> Â And yes, they changed their name to Windsor during WWIÂ from Saxe-Coburg Gotha (can't blame Prince Albert) just as the Battenburgs changed to Mountbatten because of anit-German feeling. H
>
>
>
> On Monday, 10 February 2014, 17:05, "wednesday.mac@..." <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> The ground he was buried in *was* consecrated, sacrosanct. Unfortunately, the surface changed to a car park.
>
> If the queen claims him, she legitimizes his reign (and his deeds, whatever she thinks they were), which might be used to cast aspersions on the legitimacy of the Tudor line and on down to the Windsor line. (Didn't they change their name from something German to Windsor, concurrent to WWII, or am I misremembering?)
>
> I think the current royal family would be very happy to have Richard remain the historically evil king and let his burial happen where the court wills. The Duke of Gloucester may feel otherwise, but I'd imagine he takes orders from Her Majesty, same as everyone else who makes appearances for the royal family...and these days, they may also be also taking orders from the Prince of Wales.
>
> Anything that increases Richard's reputation may be seen as decreasing the Windsor reputation? That makes no logical sense, but what about Richard and his fate has ever been logical?
>

So many valid points, each pulling me one way then another.

My own feelings are that if the Queen was to intervene, then it would become even more of a political hot potato. It might awaken old debates on current legitimacy being based on "winning a big fight in the past" sort of attitude? I really can't see anything good coming out of such an intervention for the Royal family and a great deal of negative things, including having to educate most people on why the Queen has any claim to Richard's remains at all. I can imagine the Royals considering no response to be the best response then? They do seem to be very sensitive to anything that might increase anti-monarchy feelings amongst some people.

As for pictures of Richard's remains being everywhere, yes it is distasteful. But I don't think the public's fascination with gruesome things should ever be underestimated - Otherwise how can you explain the popularity of rotten.com for example? People are not just fascinated in the same way some rubber-neck at accident sites, but because this IS A KING! Not just a nobody, but an actual, real king of England, and one who died a gruesome death fighting for his very kingdom from the usurpers. Most people probably see that as fascinating and loose sight of those remains being having once been a real, living person. Also I don't think a lot of people even know that any Royal remains have ever been lost? Kings and Queens are usually treated with deference, that the idea that any of them have been lost in the last 1,000 years or so seems odd to most people. Then, to have the remains actually found in our lifetime of the most famous one of all, seems to blind people to the fact that we are talking about a real person.

Alternatively, I suppose many might take the view that these are only the remains and that Richard's soul/consciousness or whatever is now safe somewhere and the remains will not bother him. These are the only reasons I can think of why people seem fascinated by his remains and loose sight of them being human?

At least the public do seem fascinated at all. In a time when interest in things "intellectual" like history and archeology isn't cool, I am very pleased that he is able to inspire such interest. If only it was not making things worse in finding a final resting place for him.

Tony

Absolutely. Isn't this a lovely example though of how, despite having the media and a living person, it's difficult to attribute motives to people, or even to ascertain if they have a motive at all? Yet everyone who dabbles in history (not just us in this Forum) spends ages trying to attribute high flying motives to people who died over 500 years' ago as though there was some great Master Plan. I suppose we forget we know the outcome, and they didn't. I reckon the truth is much more like George and Buckingham's wine trip - a lot of staggering from place to place and plenty of flailing when you trip over. H

On Monday, 10 February 2014, 20:37, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
Apparently the QM used to take to her bed with "diplomatic illnesses" if something unpleasant occurred. She was a huge influence on the Queen who, while perhaps not going quite that far, does seem to do her best to avoid anything remotely unpleasant. I am referring to privately - I appreciate that publicly she doesn't "have" opinions (unlike her son who is perhaps a bit more like his father than we thought.) Liz From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014, 19:36
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa


Absolutely - much influenced by the Queen Mother. It's all about duty with her; nothing must upset the applecart, however remote the problem. H

On Monday, 10 February 2014, 18:58, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
That is such a good point, regarding Edward VIII, and don't forget the Diana time, as well as the shenanigans of Prince Charles, and then Prince Harry. She has lived that stiff upper lip for a lifetime, and in unlikely to change! Also, Prince Phillip and his family had many troubles, so I can imagine she does not want to touch a five hundred year old problem with a barge pole! From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:24 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa I do agree Sandra. Of course one of the Queen's earliest influencers was Winston Churchill and we know his version of History! And then there was the whole Edward VIII thing which I guess she can never forget - there must never be scandal at any cost! She comes from a very different generation and we do owe a lot to them. So difficult, very difficult and poor Richard is yet again a 'victim' , as the guy implied before referring it all to the JR. H On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:19, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote: But Richard was taken out of consecrated ground, and is now being examined and tampered with, apparently without an end in sight, before he can be put back in consecrated ground. Leicester University appear to want to have access to him in perpetuity, or so it seems to me, and nothing is being done to prevent this abomination. The Queen is the head of the church in England, she is the descendant of the Plantagenets, and she is concerned enough to guard the urn. I'm sorry, but she should also be concerned enough about Richard as well. I know and understand what you are saying Jonathan, and please don't think I am arguing with you. It's the House of Windsor I have the gripe with. I do not see the Queen as being consistent in this, only as having made a decision that is to Richard's detriment in more ways than one. She---yes, she---has by her silence consigned his remains to academic perdition, and in so doing has made it appear she believes he is expendable, presumably because he was guilty of the crimes attributed to him. She may as well come out with it and say I prefer the Tudor version, to heck with Richard III. How she can live with Henry VIII's legacy I do not know, but she manages, it seems. If the side of his tomb collapsed and he rolled out, on consecrated ground, of course, would she permit Leicester University to conduct a close examination of the site and then cart him off to the slab for a good old Tudor banquet of bone-crunching that might last until Prince George's 21st? I apologise, everyone, but this particular aspect of the whole sorry business rankles with me. Sandra =^..^= From: Jonathan Evans Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 12:39 PM To: Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014, 9:58
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa > I would like to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the urn is to be treated with such reverence, then so should > Richard be. I think the Queen would argue that she *is* being consistent. Once laid to rest on consecrated ground, remains are sacrosanct. What's happening to Richard is probably only serving to entrench that view. The last thing she wants is to set a precedent where any passing academic can apply to exhume Elizabeth I or Edward IV to prove their latest theory... Jonathan From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014, 9:58
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa Tony, I was thinking maybe the present Duke of Gloucester has contacts' where it matters and could have a discreet word? After all, the present situation is doing no one any good, and whether they like it or not, the Royal Family is coming in for criticism. Richard was royal too, and he and the present family' have shared blood. And I don't mean in the same way claimed by the PA. The line back through the British Royal Family to Richard can be traced, unless a lover's child ascended the throne somewhere along the line. The Royal Family of now is the senior line, by anyone's reckoning, so they have the right to say what happens. I really do think it is up to the present queen to claim him as one of mine' and then hand responsibility to the usual authorities/departments/offices who deal efficiently and respectfully with royal funerals. That would solve it all, IMHO. If she says York, then it's York. If she says Leicester, then it's Leicester. If she says St. George's, then it's St. George's. No one would dream of arguing with her about any other royal, so why this one? If she had wanted Princess Margaret laid to rest on Glastonbury Tor, I am sure the tomb would now be there. (Only joking!) She surely cannot be all that proud of a number of her ancestors, and maybe she does think Richard did all the wicked things, but a lot of the others were far wickeder, so why single Richard out for this disgracefully shoddy treatment? It's very unbecoming, and shamefully partisan. The royal finger should be pulled out, or I'm a republican! And lastly, perhaps she doubts (after everything) that the remains actually are Richard's. Hmm. But then how sure can she be that the darned urn contains the sons of Edward IV? She can't be, but she won't let anyone test the bones to see if it's true. But she will allow Leicester Uni to prod, carve, cut, grind and everything else as far as Richard's bones are concerned. I would like to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the urn is to be treated with such reverence, then so should Richard be. Especially Richard, because if nothing else, he was the anointed king. Edward's sons were not. Oh, but everyone here knows all this stuff, I'm just up on my pesky hind legs braying again. Sandra =^..^= From: group_mail_address@... Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 8:37 PM To: Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa Hello Sandra, I don't know if anyone has tried a direct approach to the present Duke of Gloucester? That certainly is an idea, but I would be concerned that it would put him in a difficult position? Being our Patron, he might simply be dismissed as "having a vested interest" and ignored because of it? You know one of the most wonderful things about this group is how everyone seems to really care about Richard as a person. I see some organisations seeing him as a boost for tourism, others as an interesting archeological artifact. I was feeling I seemed to be the only one other than Philippa's reaction in the documentary who was remembering that those "bones" are a human being and where was the respect they should be being given. Then I found this group by accident while searching for information about Richard and found there were others who felt the same thankfully! Tony

---In , <wednesday.mac@...> wrote: Philippa shares what the Leicester agreement said about taking Richard's remains to a place of "sanctity and rest" before re-burial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26041192

--
None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain-pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try - Mark Twain

And I always want to shriek 'why did you charge down that hillside?' Because, as long as you lived Henry Tudor would have been the traitor. Look how many times Henry VI, Charles I and even Edward himself lived to fight another day. As you say Jonathan, some like MB understood networking, noble, honourable Richard didn't. H

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 11:09, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 10:37
Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

All we can do is construct scenarios. What annoys me about some traditionalist historians is the certainty with which they state their versions of event, regardless of how little documentary evidence there is.
> If Richard could have seen what was coming, I think even he might have been moved to a few timely executions.
> Make the right choices and there wouldn't have been a Bosworth, or any Tudors. That's interesting. Have you read the psychological profiling commissioned by the Society? It admits it's flawed at a remove of over 500 years, but I seem to remember it suggested that even if Bosworth had been averted or Richard had won, another Bosworth would probably have happened somewhere along the line. The conclusion was reached because of Richard's disinclination to build client networks among the higher nobility (outside a few families such as the Howards and de la Poles), coupled with no indication that he would have actively suppressed them in the way that Henry VII did. Good governance for ordinary people wasn't sufficient to make a medieval ruler secure if the likes of the Stanleys felt they were missing out on their due... Jonathan From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 10:37
Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
Indeed so, Hilary. A timely reminder that hindsight is a great thing. It's all very well to make judgements from our time, about the way events unfolded 500 years ago, but when it was actually happening, the people involved had no idea how things would eventually turn out. They could hope, and plan towards something, but it didn't always come off, and we're left wondering ...why did he decide that and not the other instead? If Richard could have seen what was coming, I think even he might have been moved to a few timely executions. Make the right choices and there wouldn't have been a Bosworth, or any Tudors. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:32 AM To: Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa Absolutely. Isn't this a lovely example though of how, despite having the media and a living person, it's difficult to attribute motives to people, or even to ascertain if they have a motive at all? Yet everyone who dabbles in history (not just us in this Forum) spends ages trying to attribute high flying motives to people who died over 500 years' ago as though there was some great Master Plan. I suppose we forget we know the outcome, and they didn't. I reckon the truth is much more like George and Buckingham's wine trip - a lot of staggering from place to place and plenty of flailing when you trip over. H

On Monday, 10 February 2014, 20:37, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
Apparently the QM used to take to her bed with "diplomatic illnesses" if something unpleasant occurred. She was a huge influence on the Queen who, while perhaps not going quite that far, does seem to do her best to avoid anything remotely unpleasant. I am referring to privately - I appreciate that publicly she doesn't "have" opinions (unlike her son who is perhaps a bit more like his father than we thought.) Liz From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014, 19:36
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa


Absolutely - much influenced by the Queen Mother. It's all about duty with her; nothing must upset the applecart, however remote the problem. H

On Monday, 10 February 2014, 18:58, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
That is such a good point, regarding Edward VIII, and don't forget the Diana time, as well as the shenanigans of Prince Charles, and then Prince Harry. She has lived that stiff upper lip for a lifetime, and in unlikely to change! Also, Prince Phillip and his family had many troubles, so I can imagine she does not want to touch a five hundred year old problem with a barge pole! From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:24 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa I do agree Sandra. Of course one of the Queen's earliest influencers was Winston Churchill and we know his version of History! And then there was the whole Edward VIII thing which I guess she can never forget - there must never be scandal at any cost! She comes from a very different generation and we do owe a lot to them. So difficult, very difficult and poor Richard is yet again a 'victim' , as the guy implied before referring it all to the JR. H On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:19, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote: But Richard was taken out of consecrated ground, and is now being examined and tampered with, apparently without an end in sight, before he can be put back in consecrated ground. Leicester University appear to want to have access to him in perpetuity, or so it seems to me, and nothing is being done to prevent this abomination. The Queen is the head of the church in England, she is the descendant of the Plantagenets, and she is concerned enough to guard the urn. I'm sorry, but she should also be concerned enough about Richard as well. I know and understand what you are saying Jonathan, and please don't think I am arguing with you. It's the House of Windsor I have the gripe with. I do not see the Queen as being consistent in this, only as having made a decision that is to Richard's detriment in more ways than one. She---yes, she---has by her silence consigned his remains to academic perdition, and in so doing has made it appear she believes he is expendable, presumably because he was guilty of the crimes attributed to him. She may as well come out with it and say I prefer the Tudor version, to heck with Richard III. How she can live with Henry VIII's legacy I do not know, but she manages, it seems. If the side of his tomb collapsed and he rolled out, on consecrated ground, of course, would she permit Leicester University to conduct a close examination of the site and then cart him off to the slab for a good old Tudor banquet of bone-crunching that might last until Prince George's 21st? I apologise, everyone, but this particular aspect of the whole sorry business rankles with me. Sandra =^..^= From: Jonathan Evans Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 12:39 PM To: Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014, 9:58
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa > I would like to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the urn is to be treated with such reverence, then so should > Richard be. I think the Queen would argue that she *is* being consistent. Once laid to rest on consecrated ground, remains are sacrosanct. What's happening to Richard is probably only serving to entrench that view. The last thing she wants is to set a precedent where any passing academic can apply to exhume Elizabeth I or Edward IV to prove their latest theory... Jonathan From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014, 9:58
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa Tony, I was thinking maybe the present Duke of Gloucester has contacts' where it matters and could have a discreet word? After all, the present situation is doing no one any good, and whether they like it or not, the Royal Family is coming in for criticism. Richard was royal too, and he and the present family' have shared blood. And I don't mean in the same way claimed by the PA. The line back through the British Royal Family to Richard can be traced, unless a lover's child ascended the throne somewhere along the line. The Royal Family of now is the senior line, by anyone's reckoning, so they have the right to say what happens. I really do think it is up to the present queen to claim him as one of mine' and then hand responsibility to the usual authorities/departments/offices who deal efficiently and respectfully with royal funerals. That would solve it all, IMHO. If she says York, then it's York. If she says Leicester, then it's Leicester. If she says St. George's, then it's St. George's. No one would dream of arguing with her about any other royal, so why this one? If she had wanted Princess Margaret laid to rest on Glastonbury Tor, I am sure the tomb would now be there. (Only joking!) She surely cannot be all that proud of a number of her ancestors, and maybe she does think Richard did all the wicked things, but a lot of the others were far wickeder, so why single Richard out for this disgracefully shoddy treatment? It's very unbecoming, and shamefully partisan. The royal finger should be pulled out, or I'm a republican! And lastly, perhaps she doubts (after everything) that the remains actually are Richard's. Hmm. But then how sure can she be that the darned urn contains the sons of Edward IV? She can't be, but she won't let anyone test the bones to see if it's true. But she will allow Leicester Uni to prod, carve, cut, grind and everything else as far as Richard's bones are concerned. I would like to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the urn is to be treated with such reverence, then so should Richard be. Especially Richard, because if nothing else, he was the anointed king. Edward's sons were not. Oh, but everyone here knows all this stuff, I'm just up on my pesky hind legs braying again. Sandra =^..^= From: group_mail_address@... Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 8:37 PM To: Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa Hello Sandra, I don't know if anyone has tried a direct approach to the present Duke of Gloucester? That certainly is an idea, but I would be concerned that it would put him in a difficult position? Being our Patron, he might simply be dismissed as "having a vested interest" and ignored because of it? You know one of the most wonderful things about this group is how everyone seems to really care about Richard as a person. I see some organisations seeing him as a boost for tourism, others as an interesting archeological artifact. I was feeling I seemed to be the only one other than Philippa's reaction in the documentary who was remembering that those "bones" are a human being and where was the respect they should be being given. Then I found this group by accident while searching for information about Richard and found there were others who felt the same thankfully! Tony

---In , <wednesday.mac@...> wrote: Philippa shares what the Leicester agreement said about taking Richard's remains to a place of "sanctity and rest" before re-burial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26041192

--
None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain-pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try - Mark Twain

Jonathan,

Possibly or that might account for why he was extremely scared.Why was he wandering around for nearly two hours?(He was up to something.) I don't know. It was just a suggestion and probably wrong.MB wouldn't have allowed it if she had known.Henry was very lucky that Richard had ridden so fast and that he Henry was surrounded so quickly and the way he was.

John Ashdown-Hill says that if Richard had left the field it would have been regarded as an abdication and he would have lost the right to rule.So there would be no going back.The most important thing is that Richard gave his all and the country lost a person who could have been a great king and beneficial to all.

Kathryn
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> From: "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 15:51
> Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
>
> > The rebels may have even concocoted a plan to use Henry as bait
>
> If they did, you can be sure Henry would have been the last to know about it. Otherwise, you'd have seen him scampering to the nearest Channel port faster than Usain Bolt. :-)
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 15:51
> Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
>
>
>
> Â
> Jonathan,
>
> Surely Richard had contacts through the Yorkist families etc? A lot of his contacts would be in the North whom he could trust.He seemed to be bringing them down to London to put his rule in place.The fact that Hastings was executed showed that he could act quickly if and when was necessary.He probably just thought the Stanley(s) would stay out of things as far as Bosworth was concerned.The rebels may have even concocoted a plan to use Henry as bait with which to snare Richard if Stanley knew Richard was going to actively seek out Henry.Richard couldn't have forseen thatand what did happen had never been seen in this country before.Political rather than valiant.Richard's plan was to kill Henry,the right of rule would be fastened up,plus the saving of lives and then on with sorting the country out and hopefully getting his personal life back on track as soon as possible for a heir and continuity.There must have been a lot of decent nobility who would have
> welcomed a more serious King with strong Christian beliefs and sound morals,who wanted a stable and prosperous country and people.The Stanleys would have gone with the flow and towed the line and status quo would have been maintained.But Henry seemed a better bet to the opposition and he repaid them by taxing everyone to the hilt to leave a strong treasury for Arthur to inherit.Only Henry VIII was the one to get his hands on it.
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 10:37
> > Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> >
> >
> > All we can do is construct scenarios. What annoys me about some traditionalist historians is the certainty with which they state their versions of event, regardless of how little documentary evidence there is.
> >
> > > If Richard could have seen what was
> > coming, I think even he might have been moved to a few timely executions.
> >
> > > Make
> > the right choices and there wouldn’t have been a Bosworth, or any Tudors.
> >
> > That's interesting. Have you read the psychological profiling commissioned by the Society? It admits it's flawed at a remove of over 500 years, but I seem to remember it suggested that even if Bosworth had been averted or Richard had won, another Bosworth would probably have happened somewhere along the line. The conclusion was reached because of Richard's disinclination to build client networks among the higher nobility (outside a few families such as the Howards and de la Poles), coupled with no indication that he would have actively suppressed them in the way that Henry VII did. Good governance for ordinary people wasn't sufficient to make a medieval ruler secure if the likes of the Stanleys felt they were missing out on their due...
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 10:37
> > Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> >
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> > Indeed so, Hilary. A timely reminder that hindsight is a great thing. It’s
> > all very well to make judgements from our time, about the way events unfolded
> > 500 years ago, but when it was actually happening, the people involved had no
> > idea how things would eventually turn out. They could hope, and plan towards
> > something, but it didn’t always come off, and we’re left wondering ...why did he
> > decide that and not the other instead? If Richard could have seen what was
> > coming, I think even he might have been moved to a few timely executions. Make
> > the right choices and there wouldn’t have been a Bosworth, or any Tudors.
> > ÂÂ
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> > ÂÂ
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:32 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video
> > interview with Philippa
> > ÂÂ
> > ÂÂ
> > Absolutely.
> > ÂÂ
> > Isn't this a lovely example though of how, despite having the media
> > and a living person, it's difficult to attribute motives to people, or even to
> > ascertain if they have a motive at all? Yet everyone who dabbles in history (not
> > just us in this Forum) spends ages trying to attribute high flying motives to
> > people who died over 500 years' ago as though there was some great Master Plan.
> > I suppose we forget we know the outcome, and they didn't. I reckon the truth is
> > much more like George and Buckingham's wine trip - a lot of staggering from
> > place to place and plenty of flailing when you trip over. H
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 20:37, liz
> > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > ÂÂ
> > Apparently the QM used to take to her bed with "diplomatic illnesses"
> > if something unpleasant occurred.   She was a huge
> > influence on the Queen who, while perhaps not going quite that far, does seem to
> > do her best to avoid anything remotely unpleasant. I am referring to
> > privately - I appreciate that publicly she doesn't "have" opinions (unlike her
> > son who is perhaps a bit more like his father than we thought.)
> > ÂÂ
> > Liz
> > ÂÂ
> > From: Hilary
> > Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014, 19:36
> > Subject: Re: [Richard
> > III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > Absolutely - much influenced by the Queen Mother. It's all about duty
> > with her; nothing must upset the applecart, however remote the problem. H
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 18:58, Pamela
> > Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > ÂÂ
> > That is such a good point,
> > regarding Edward VIII, and don’t forget the Diana time, as well as the
> > shenanigans of Prince Charles, and then Prince Harry. She has lived that â€Å"stiff
> > upper lip†for a lifetime, and in unlikely to change! Also, Prince Phillip
> > and his family had many troubles, so I can imagine she does not want to touch a
> > five hundred year old problem with a barge pole!
> > ÂÂ
> > ÂÂ
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary
> > Jones
> > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:24 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands
> > video interview with Philippa
> > ÂÂ
> > I do agree Sandra. Of course one of the
> > Queen's earliest influencers was Winston Churchill and we know his version of
> > History! And then there was the whole Edward VIII thing which I guess she can
> > never forget - there must never be scandal at any cost! She comes from a very
> > different generation and we do owe a lot to them. So difficult, very difficult
> > and poor Richard is yet again a 'victim' , as the guy implied before referring
> > it all to the JR. H
> > ÂÂ
> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:19,
> > SandraMachin <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > ÂÂ
> > But Richard was taken out of consecrated ground, and is now
> > being examined and tampered with, apparently without an end in sight, before he
> > can be put back in consecrated ground. Leicester University appear to want to
> > have access to him in perpetuity, or so it seems to me, and nothing is being
> > done to prevent this abomination. The Queen is the head of the church in
> > England, she is the descendant of the Plantagenets, and she is concerned enough
> > to guard the urn. I’m sorry, but she should also be concerned enough about
> > Richard as well.
> > ÂÂ
> > I know and understand what you are saying Jonathan, and
> > please don’t think I am arguing with you. It’s the House of Windsor I have the
> > gripe with. I do not see the Queen as being consistent in this, only as having
> > made a decision that is to Richard’s detriment in more ways than one. She---yes,
> > she---has by her silence consigned his remains to academic perdition, and in so
> > doing has made it appear she believes he is expendable, presumably because he
> > was guilty of the crimes attributed to him. She may as well come out with it and
> > say â€Å"I prefer the Tudor version, to heck with Richard IIIâ€.
> > ÂÂ
> > How she can live with Henry VIII’s legacy I do not know,
> > but she manages, it seems. If the side of his tomb collapsed and he rolled out,
> > on consecrated ground, of course, would she permit Leicester University to
> > conduct a close examination of the site and then cart him off to the slab for a
> > good old Tudor banquet of bone-crunching that might last until Prince George’s
> > 21st? I apologise, everyone, but this particular aspect of the whole sorry
> > business rankles with me.
> > ÂÂ
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> > ÂÂ
> > From:Jonathan
> > Evans
> > Sent:Monday,
> > February 10, 2014 12:39 PM
> > To:
> > Subject:Re: [Richard
> > III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with
> > Philippa
> > ÂÂ
> > ÂÂ
> > From:SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 10
> > February 2014, 9:58
> > Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
> > Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> > ÂÂ
> > > I would like
> > to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the urn is to be treated
> > with such reverence, then so should
> > > Richard
> > be.
> > ÂÂ
> > I think the Queen
> > would argue that she *is* being consistent. Once laid to rest on
> > consecrated ground, remains are sacrosanct. What's happening to Richard is
> > probably only serving to entrench that view. The last thing she wants is
> > to set a precedent where any passing academic can apply to exhume Elizabeth I or
> > Edward IV to prove their latest theory...
> > ÂÂ
> > Jonathan
> > ÂÂ
> > From:SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 10
> > February 2014, 9:58
> > Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
> > Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> > ÂÂ
> > ÂÂ
> > Tony, I was thinking maybe the present Duke of Gloucester
> > has ‘contacts’ where it matters and could have a discreet word? After all, the
> > present situation is doing no one any good, and whether they like it or not, the
> > Royal Family is coming in for criticism. Richard was royal too, and he and the
> > present ‘family’ have shared blood. And I don’t mean in the same way claimed by
> > the PA. The line back through the British Royal Family to Richard can be
> > traced, unless a lover’s child ascended the throne somewhere along the line. The
> > Royal Family of now is the senior line, by anyone’s reckoning, so they have the
> > right to say what happens. I really do think it is up to the present queen to
> > claim him as ‘one of mine’ and then hand responsibility to the usual
> > authorities/departments/offices who deal efficiently and respectfully with royal funerals. That would solve it all, IMHO. If she says York, then
> > it’s York. If she says Leicester, then it’s Leicester. If she says St. George’s,
> > then it’s St. George’s. No one would dream of arguing with her about any other
> > royal, so why this one? If she had wanted Princess Margaret laid to rest on
> > Glastonbury Tor, I am sure the tomb would now be there. (Only joking!) She
> > surely cannot be all that proud of a number of her ancestors, and maybe she does
> > think Richard did all the wicked things, but a lot of the others were far
> > wickeder, so why single Richard out for this disgracefully shoddy treatment?
> > It’s very unbecoming, and shamefully partisan. The royal finger should be pulled
> > out, or I’m a republican!
> > ÂÂ
> > And lastly, perhaps she doubts (after everything) that the
> > remains actually are Richard’s. Hmm. But then how sure can she be that the
> > darned urn contains the sons of Edward IV? She can’t be, but she won’t let
> > anyone test the bones to see if it’s true. But she will allow Leicester Uni to
> > prod, carve, cut, grind and everything else as far as Richard’s bones are
> > concerned. I would like to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the
> > urn is to be treated with such reverence, then so should Richard be. Especially
> > Richard, because if nothing else, he was the anointed king. Edward’s sons were
> > not. Oh, but everyone here knows all this stuff, I’m just up on my pesky hind
> > legs braying again.
> > ÂÂ
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> > ÂÂ
> > From:group_mail_address@
> > Sent:Sunday,
> > February 09, 2014 8:37 PM
> > To:
> > Subject:[Richard III
> > Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with
> > Philippa
> > ÂÂ
> > ÂÂ
> > Hello Sandra,
> > ÂÂ
> > I don't know if anyone has tried a direct approach to the
> > present Duke of Gloucester? That certainly is an idea, but I would be
> > concerned that it would put him in a difficult position? Being our Patron,
> > he might simply be dismissed as "having a vested interest" and ignored because
> > of it?
> > ÂÂ
> > You know one of the most wonderful things about this group
> > is how everyone seems to really care about Richard as a person. I see some
> > organisations seeing him as a boost for tourism, others as an interesting
> > archeological artifact. I was feeling I seemed to be the only one other
> > than Philippa's reaction in the documentary who was remembering that those
> > "bones" are a human being and where was the respect they should be being
> > given. Then I found this group by accident while searching for information
> > about Richard and found there were others who felt the same
> > thankfully!
> > ÂÂ
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > ---In , <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > Philippa shares what the Leicester agreement said about
> > taking Richard's remains to a place of "sanctity and rest" before re-burial.
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26041192
> >
> >
> > --
> > â€Å"None of us can have as
> > many virtues as the fountain-pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try†- Mark
> > Twain
> > ÂÂ
> > ÂÂ
> >
>

Sandra,I can't answer that one.Kathryn x

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Imagine a scenario where Richard AND Henry were killed simultaneously. Who would then be the king?
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
>
> From: kathryng56@...
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:27 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
>
>
> Jonathan,
>
> Possibly or that might account for why he was extremely scared.Why was he wandering around for nearly two hours?(He was up to something.) I don't know. It was just a suggestion and probably wrong.MB wouldn't have allowed it if she had known.Henry was very lucky that Richard had ridden so fast and that he Henry was surrounded so quickly and the way he was.
>
> John Ashdown-Hill says that if Richard had left the field it would have been regarded as an abdication and he would have lost the right to rule.So there would be no going back.The most important thing is that Richard gave his all and the country lost a person who could have been a great king and beneficial to all.
>
> Kathryn
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > From: "kathryng56@" <kathryng56@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 15:51
> > Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> >
> > > The rebels may have even concocoted a plan to use Henry as bait
> >
> > If they did, you can be sure Henry would have been the last to know about it. Otherwise, you'd have seen him scampering to the nearest Channel port faster than Usain Bolt. :-)
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: "kathryng56@" <kathryng56@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 15:51
> > Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Jonathan,
> >
> > Surely Richard had contacts through the Yorkist families etc? A lot of his contacts would be in the North whom he could trust.He seemed to be bringing them down to London to put his rule in place.The fact that Hastings was executed showed that he could act quickly if and when was necessary.He probably just thought the Stanley(s) would stay out of things as far as Bosworth was concerned.The rebels may have even concocoted a plan to use Henry as bait with which to snare Richard if Stanley knew Richard was going to actively seek out Henry.Richard couldn't have forseen thatand what did happen had never been seen in this country before.Political rather than valiant.Richard's plan was to kill Henry,the right of rule would be fastened up,plus the saving of lives and then on with sorting the country out and hopefully getting his personal life back on track as soon as possible for a heir and continuity.There must have been a lot of decent nobility who would have
> > welcomed a more serious King with strong Christian beliefs and sound morals,who wanted a stable and prosperous country and people.The Stanleys would have gone with the flow and towed the line and status quo would have been maintained.But Henry seemed a better bet to the opposition and he repaid them by taxing everyone to the hilt to leave a strong treasury for Arthur to inherit.Only Henry VIII was the one to get his hands on it.
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 10:37
> > > Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> > >
> > >
> > > All we can do is construct scenarios. What annoys me about some traditionalist historians is the certainty with which they state their versions of event, regardless of how little documentary evidence there is.
> > >
> > > > If Richard could have seen what was
> > > coming, I think even he might have been moved to a few timely executions.
> > >
> > > > Make
> > > the right choices and there wouldn’t have been a Bosworth, or any Tudors.
> > >
> > > That's interesting. Have you read the psychological profiling commissioned by the Society? It admits it's flawed at a remove of over 500 years, but I seem to remember it suggested that even if Bosworth had been averted or Richard had won, another Bosworth would probably have happened somewhere along the line. The conclusion was reached because of Richard's disinclination to build client networks among the higher nobility (outside a few families such as the Howards and de la Poles), coupled with no indication that he would have actively suppressed them in the way that Henry VII did. Good governance for ordinary people wasn't sufficient to make a medieval ruler secure if the likes of the Stanleys felt they were missing out on their due...
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 10:37
> > > Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Indeed so, Hilary. A timely reminder that hindsight is a great thing. It’s
> > > all very well to make judgements from our time, about the way events unfolded
> > > 500 years ago, but when it was actually happening, the people involved had no
> > > idea how things would eventually turn out. They could hope, and plan towards
> > > something, but it didn’t always come off, and we’re left wondering ...why did he
> > > decide that and not the other instead? If Richard could have seen what was
> > > coming, I think even he might have been moved to a few timely executions. Make
> > > the right choices and there wouldn’t have been a Bosworth, or any Tudors.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > > ÂÂ
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:32 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video
> > > interview with Philippa
> > > ÂÂ
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Absolutely.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Isn't this a lovely example though of how, despite having the media
> > > and a living person, it's difficult to attribute motives to people, or even to
> > > ascertain if they have a motive at all? Yet everyone who dabbles in history (not
> > > just us in this Forum) spends ages trying to attribute high flying motives to
> > > people who died over 500 years' ago as though there was some great Master Plan.
> > > I suppose we forget we know the outcome, and they didn't. I reckon the truth is
> > > much more like George and Buckingham's wine trip - a lot of staggering from
> > > place to place and plenty of flailing when you trip over. H
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 20:37, liz
> > > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Apparently the QM used to take to her bed with "diplomatic illnesses"
> > > if something unpleasant occurred.   She was a huge
> > > influence on the Queen who, while perhaps not going quite that far, does seem to
> > > do her best to avoid anything remotely unpleasant. I am referring to
> > > privately - I appreciate that publicly she doesn't "have" opinions (unlike her
> > > son who is perhaps a bit more like his father than we thought.)
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Liz
> > > ÂÂ
> > > From: Hilary
> > > Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > To: ""
> > > <>
> > > Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014, 19:36
> > > Subject: Re: [Richard
> > > III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Absolutely - much influenced by the Queen Mother. It's all about duty
> > > with her; nothing must upset the applecart, however remote the problem. H
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 18:58, Pamela
> > > Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > > That is such a good point,
> > > regarding Edward VIII, and don’t forget the Diana time, as well as the
> > > shenanigans of Prince Charles, and then Prince Harry. She has lived that â€Å"stiff
> > > upper lip†for a lifetime, and in unlikely to change! Also, Prince Phillip
> > > and his family had many troubles, so I can imagine she does not want to touch a
> > > five hundred year old problem with a barge pole!
> > > ÂÂ
> > > ÂÂ
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary
> > > Jones
> > > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:24 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands
> > > video interview with Philippa
> > > ÂÂ
> > > I do agree Sandra. Of course one of the
> > > Queen's earliest influencers was Winston Churchill and we know his version of
> > > History! And then there was the whole Edward VIII thing which I guess she can
> > > never forget - there must never be scandal at any cost! She comes from a very
> > > different generation and we do owe a lot to them. So difficult, very difficult
> > > and poor Richard is yet again a 'victim' , as the guy implied before referring
> > > it all to the JR. H
> > > ÂÂ
> > > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:19,
> > > SandraMachin <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > ÂÂ
> > > But Richard was taken out of consecrated ground, and is now
> > > being examined and tampered with, apparently without an end in sight, before he
> > > can be put back in consecrated ground. Leicester University appear to want to
> > > have access to him in perpetuity, or so it seems to me, and nothing is being
> > > done to prevent this abomination. The Queen is the head of the church in
> > > England, she is the descendant of the Plantagenets, and she is concerned enough
> > > to guard the urn. I’m sorry, but she should also be concerned enough about
> > > Richard as well.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > I know and understand what you are saying Jonathan, and
> > > please don’t think I am arguing with you. It’s the House of Windsor I have the
> > > gripe with. I do not see the Queen as being consistent in this, only as having
> > > made a decision that is to Richard’s detriment in more ways than one. She---yes,
> > > she---has by her silence consigned his remains to academic perdition, and in so
> > > doing has made it appear she believes he is expendable, presumably because he
> > > was guilty of the crimes attributed to him. She may as well come out with it and
> > > say â€Å"I prefer the Tudor version, to heck with Richard IIIâ€.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > How she can live with Henry VIII’s legacy I do not know,
> > > but she manages, it seems. If the side of his tomb collapsed and he rolled out,
> > > on consecrated ground, of course, would she permit Leicester University to
> > > conduct a close examination of the site and then cart him off to the slab for a
> > > good old Tudor banquet of bone-crunching that might last until Prince George’s
> > > 21st? I apologise, everyone, but this particular aspect of the whole sorry
> > > business rankles with me.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > > ÂÂ
> > > From:Jonathan
> > > Evans
> > > Sent:Monday,
> > > February 10, 2014 12:39 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject:Re: [Richard
> > > III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with
> > > Philippa
> > > ÂÂ
> > > ÂÂ
> > > From:SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, 10
> > > February 2014, 9:58
> > > Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
> > > Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> > > ÂÂ
> > > > I would like
> > > to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the urn is to be treated
> > > with such reverence, then so should
> > > > Richard
> > > be.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > I think the Queen
> > > would argue that she *is* being consistent. Once laid to rest on
> > > consecrated ground, remains are sacrosanct. What's happening to Richard is
> > > probably only serving to entrench that view. The last thing she wants is
> > > to set a precedent where any passing academic can apply to exhume Elizabeth I or
> > > Edward IV to prove their latest theory...
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Jonathan
> > > ÂÂ
> > > From:SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, 10
> > > February 2014, 9:58
> > > Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
> > > Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> > > ÂÂ
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Tony, I was thinking maybe the present Duke of Gloucester
> > > has ‘contacts’ where it matters and could have a discreet word? After all, the
> > > present situation is doing no one any good, and whether they like it or not, the
> > > Royal Family is coming in for criticism. Richard was royal too, and he and the
> > > present ‘family’ have shared blood. And I don’t mean in the same way claimed by
> > > the PA. The line back through the British Royal Family to Richard can be
> > > traced, unless a lover’s child ascended the throne somewhere along the line. The
> > > Royal Family of now is the senior line, by anyone’s reckoning, so they have the
> > > right to say what happens. I really do think it is up to the present queen to
> > > claim him as ‘one of mine’ and then hand responsibility to the usual
> > > authorities/departments/offices who deal efficiently and respectfully with royal funerals. That would solve it all, IMHO. If she says York, then
> > > it’s York. If she says Leicester, then it’s Leicester. If she says St. George’s,
> > > then it’s St. George’s. No one would dream of arguing with her about any other
> > > royal, so why this one? If she had wanted Princess Margaret laid to rest on
> > > Glastonbury Tor, I am sure the tomb would now be there. (Only joking!) She
> > > surely cannot be all that proud of a number of her ancestors, and maybe she does
> > > think Richard did all the wicked things, but a lot of the others were far
> > > wickeder, so why single Richard out for this disgracefully shoddy treatment?
> > > It’s very unbecoming, and shamefully partisan. The royal finger should be pulled
> > > out, or I’m a republican!
> > > ÂÂ
> > > And lastly, perhaps she doubts (after everything) that the
> > > remains actually are Richard’s. Hmm. But then how sure can she be that the
> > > darned urn contains the sons of Edward IV? She can’t be, but she won’t let
> > > anyone test the bones to see if it’s true. But she will allow Leicester Uni to
> > > prod, carve, cut, grind and everything else as far as Richard’s bones are
> > > concerned. I would like to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the
> > > urn is to be treated with such reverence, then so should Richard be. Especially
> > > Richard, because if nothing else, he was the anointed king. Edward’s sons were
> > > not. Oh, but everyone here knows all this stuff, I’m just up on my pesky hind
> > > legs braying again.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Sandra
> > > =^..^=
> > > ÂÂ
> > > From:group_mail_address@
> > > Sent:Sunday,
> > > February 09, 2014 8:37 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject:[Richard III
> > > Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with
> > > Philippa
> > > ÂÂ
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Hello Sandra,
> > > ÂÂ
> > > I don't know if anyone has tried a direct approach to the
> > > present Duke of Gloucester? That certainly is an idea, but I would be
> > > concerned that it would put him in a difficult position? Being our Patron,
> > > he might simply be dismissed as "having a vested interest" and ignored because
> > > of it?
> > > ÂÂ
> > > You know one of the most wonderful things about this group
> > > is how everyone seems to really care about Richard as a person. I see some
> > > organisations seeing him as a boost for tourism, others as an interesting
> > > archeological artifact. I was feeling I seemed to be the only one other
> > > than Philippa's reaction in the documentary who was remembering that those
> > > "bones" are a human being and where was the respect they should be being
> > > given. Then I found this group by accident while searching for information
> > > about Richard and found there were others who felt the same
> > > thankfully!
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Tony
> > >
> > >
> > > ---In , <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > > Philippa shares what the Leicester agreement said about
> > > taking Richard's remains to a place of "sanctity and rest" before re-burial.
> > >
> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26041192
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > â€Å"None of us can have as
> > > many virtues as the fountain-pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try†- Mark
> > > Twain
> > > ÂÂ
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> >
>

Personally I think they would have disbanded once it became known their respective leaders had been killed. Why get yourself killed when even if you win, there is no one to rule - Or to reward you come to that.

England would have been leaderless, so like most times, the crown would have been up for grabs to whomever could beat up everyone else. A terrible way to decide who would be king, but historically the ruler of most nations was simply who could persuade the largest number of people to support them and then win battles over anyone who disagreed.

Fascinating idea though, who of the noblemen left, would have "fancied their chances"...?

Tony

Lincoln v the Stanley's...? Eileen

--- In , <group_mail_address@...> wrote:
>
> Personally I think they would have disbanded once it became known their respective leaders had been killed. Why get yourself killed when even if you win, there is no one to rule - Or to reward you come to that.
>
>
> England would have been leaderless, so like most times, the crown would have been up for grabs to whomever could beat up everyone else. A terrible way to decide who would be king, but historically the ruler of most nations was simply who could persuade the largest number of people to support them and then win battles over anyone who disagreed.
>
>
> Fascinating idea though, who of the noblemen left, would have "fancied their chances"...?
>
>
> Tony
>

Me too Eileen.

Mary

That is quite possible! In the heat of a battle, I imagine it would take some time for the word to pass around that your leader had been killed and for you to believe it (I'm sure rumours were rife in every battle back then). To be honest, if you were fighting the enemy and someone told you your leader was dead, would you believe them? I doubt I would, I think I would need something more certain before I would have risked withdrawing (great risk, firstly that someone who had not heard the opposing leader had been killed as well, might have killed me thinking the battle could still be won, or secondly that it was a rumour and if my leader had won, he might have executed me for leaving the battle!).

However, Sandra had the fascinating idea that what if Richard and Henry had both been killed? I think that if I heard (and believed) that, then the battle would be over for me. I don't think the knights (who lead the lower orders) would see any reason to risk getting killed, or risk getting any more or your people killed either. There is actually a risk that one of the knights might have seized the chance and tried to grab the throne for themselves at that moment - Imagine the confusion?

I often think what it must have been like to be an ordinary person back then. I would not be able to read or write, when someone on a horse would nail some parchment on to something, or someone travelling from village to village would tell me that King Richard had been killed and now there was a King Henry who was my King? I think my first thought would be "Who?", my second would be to wonder if it was true and my third to realise that it made no difference to my life - Until proclamations about tax or whatever started to reach me anyway.

I think the quiet times must have been what ordinary people wanted? Stability, lower taxes as you are not having to pay for some battle or war overseas, and best of all, you get to get on with your own life and not be forced in to fighting others with whatever sharp thing you could find, for someone you might never even have heard of before, because if you didn't, someone like the Lord of the manor you worked for said you had to?

Tony

I would think that as well&&..In our world of instant communication, it is hard to realize how slowly new traveled, and the written word was for a precious few. Can you imagine what changes any news went through as it was whispered from ear-to-ear???

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of group_mail_address@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:15 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

That is quite possible! In the heat of a battle, I imagine it would take some time for the word to pass around that your leader had been killed and for you to believe it (I'm sure rumours were rife in every battle back then). To be honest, if you were fighting the enemy and someone told you your leader was dead, would you believe them? I doubt I would, I think I would need something more certain before I would have risked withdrawing (great risk, firstly that someone who had not heard the opposing leader had been killed as well, might have killed me thinking the battle could still be won, or secondly that it was a rumour and if my leader had won, he might have executed me for leaving the battle!).

However, Sandra had the fascinating idea that what if Richard and Henry had both been killed? I think that if I heard (and believed) that, then the battle would be over for me. I don't think the knights (who lead the lower orders) would see any reason to risk getting killed, or risk getting any more or your people killed either. There is actually a risk that one of the knights might have seized the chance and tried to grab the throne for themselves at that moment - Imagine the confusion?

I often think what it must have been like to be an ordinary person back then. I would not be able to read or write, when someone on a horse would nail some parchment on to something, or someone travelling from village to village would tell me that King Richard had been killed and now there was a King Henry who was my King? I think my first thought would be "Who?", my second would be to wonder if it was true and my third to realise that it made no difference to my life - Until proclamations about tax or whatever started to reach me anyway.

I think the quiet times must have been what ordinary people wanted? Stability, lower taxes as you are not having to pay for some battle or war overseas, and best of all, you get to get on with your own life and not be forced in to fighting others with whatever sharp thing you could find, for someone you might never even have heard of before, because if you didn't, someone like the Lord of the manor you worked for said you had to?

Tony

Kathryn wrote:
"John Ashdown -Hill thinks Richard was killed before John Howard and that Howard and the troops carried on with the fight until Howard was killed by an arrow.The Yorkists were then pursued and hacked down.So I guess it would be last leader standing."

Carol responds:
To me that seems like a most unlikely scenario. I've always thought that Norfolk's death was the spur for Richard's seemingly rash charge. I suspect that his household knights kept on fighting, knowing that the alternative to death in battle would be attainder and possibly execution, but the forces under Surrey (who took over after his father's death) would surely have surrendered to the Earl of Oxford the moment they realized that there was no longer a king to fight for. Surrey was, of course, attainted and imprisoned in the Tower, but he clearly didn't continue to fight. (The Tudor sources say that Richard's soldiers fled the moment he died in battle. That may be true for the common soldiers under Surrey, fearing a murderous rout like the one after Tewkesbury, but I can't see Richard's household knights, most of whom fell in battle, doing anything so disloyal or cowardly. The soldiers recruited by a nobleman are, of course, a different matter.)

Carol

Surrey was badly wounded at Bosworth. I do agree that John Howard was killed before Richard and this was probably the reason for Richard's charge, he took a calculated risk as men do in battle even today and he was so close to succeeding. I think John Ashdown-Hill is wrong in saying Richard was dead before Howard.

Surely all this is mad - Henry was an invader. Richard, the King, had named his heir as Lincoln. So, as in the US when a President dies unexpectedly, the heir/deputy succeeds. Traitors and invaders don't have heirs. Heirs in those days were named by the King (as Edward VI unfortunately named Lady Jane Grey who was open to challenge by a much stronger opponent) . H

On Wednesday, 12 February 2014, 18:45, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
It all makes me wonder---purely for the sake of argument---just how strong, determined, shrewd and clever MB might have been if she lost Henry at Bosworth. I do not think grief would have clouded her mind. Not our MB. It was from her that Henry got his royal (illegitimate Beaufort) blood and the Lancastrian claim, and she had the might of the Stanleys at her disposal. They did not have royal blood, but they had everything else. And there were quite a few others who'd hitch to her waggon, I imagine. All those connections she spent her life building? All those families attached by marriage, who would see the advantage of her claim. She wouldn't just have a finger in the pie, she'd be twiddling all of them, thumbs and all. Like a court stenographer. She was always there, at every twist and turn, ready, poised, with an answer for whatever circumstances cropped up. So, might we have seen her make a bid for the crown? Queen Margaret? Before the dust had settled and the opposition had time to pick itself up off the turf? Just a passing thought... Sandra =^..^= From: justcarol67@... Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:50 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa Kathryn wrote:
"John Ashdown -Hill thinks Richard was killed before John Howard and that Howard and the troops carried on with the fight until Howard was killed by an arrow.The Yorkists were then pursued and hacked down.So I guess it would be last leader standing."

Carol responds:
To me that seems like a most unlikely scenario. I've always thought that Norfolk's death was the spur for Richard's seemingly rash charge. I suspect that his household knights kept on fighting, knowing that the alternative to death in battle would be attainder and possibly execution, but the forces under Surrey (who took over after his father's death) would surely have surrendered to the Earl of Oxford the moment they realized that there was no longer a king to fight for. Surrey was, of course, attainted and imprisoned in the Tower, but he clearly didn't continue to fight. (The Tudor sources say that Richard's soldiers fled the moment he died in battle. That may be true for the common soldiers under Surrey, fearing a murderous rout like the one after Tewkesbury, but I can't see Richard's household knights, most of whom fell in battle, doing anything so disloyal or cowardly. The soldiers recruited by a nobleman are, of course, a different matter.)

Carol

Hi Sandra, Wasn't having a go at you, only at any thought that Henry could have been rightful king - so apologies. But the speculation is fun, is it not? I don't think Henry for a moment but I can't really think who else, which is interestng in itself. You see I reckon for all the others to be eligible you'd have to reverse primogeniture, and who could do that but the reigning king? Now if you did that, then you've potentially got people going right back to Henry II. What a mess. I agree about Lincoln, I don't think he'd have been accepted for a moment. In fact surely the sensible clamour would have been to reverse Warwick's attainder - after all he'd personally done nothing wrong. The de la Poles are interesting, though, because they have a very Lancastrian background through the Chaucers and Philippa Roet, aunt of the Beauforts. Margaret of Anjou was actually released into the custody of Dowager Duchess Alice (Chaucer) before her return to France in 1475. So I could see a few staunch northern Yorkists not particularly loving Lincoln. In fact it all smacks very much of being an interim measure until either Richard had another heir or decided to reverse Warwick's attainder when he grew old enough. The reason I can't see anyone going for Henry Tudor (and that's what I've been trying to say to David) is that he lacked the certain je ne sais quoi to be a candidate for king. He'd never fought a battle, he didn't have a father who was a hero, he wasn't virtous or religious and he certainly didn't have a charismatic personality. Who would have flocked to Henry unless they were desperate? Not at all like Bolingbroke, who had all the above qualities but whom again Shakespeare has tainted with his 'uneasy lies the head'. I hope the length of my answer as attoned! Cheers H.

On Thursday, 13 February 2014, 7:57, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Well, I was only speculating, Hilary. Grey cells with nothing better to do for a few minutes. I would like to think that it would all have fizzled out and Lincoln became king, end of story. It was the problem of who the Lancastrians might regard as their candidate if Henry turned up his scrawny toes. If they weren't satisfied with Richard, they certainly wouldn't be satisfied with Lincoln. Maybe they would have shut up and gone home, but maybe they'd conjure someone else out of thin air. So it occurred to me that the one really strong, manipulative, clever, determined and crafty Lancastrian was MB. Mad, yes, but it occupied me while I enjoyed a cup of tea and gazed into nowhere. Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:28 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa Surely all this is mad - Henry was an invader. Richard, the King, had named his heir as Lincoln. So, as in the US when a President dies unexpectedly, the heir/deputy succeeds. Traitors and invaders don't have heirs. Heirs in those days were named by the King (as Edward VI unfortunately named Lady Jane Grey who was open to challenge by a much stronger opponent) . H

On Wednesday, 12 February 2014, 18:45, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
It all makes me wonder---purely for the sake of argument---just how strong, determined, shrewd and clever MB might have been if she lost Henry at Bosworth. I do not think grief would have clouded her mind. Not our MB. It was from her that Henry got his royal (illegitimate Beaufort) blood and the Lancastrian claim, and she had the might of the Stanleys at her disposal. They did not have royal blood, but they had everything else. And there were quite a few others who'd hitch to her waggon, I imagine. All those connections she spent her life building? All those families attached by marriage, who would see the advantage of her claim. She wouldn't just have a finger in the pie, she'd be twiddling all of them, thumbs and all. Like a court stenographer. She was always there, at every twist and turn, ready, poised, with an answer for whatever circumstances cropped up. So, might we have seen her make a bid for the crown? Queen Margaret? Before the dust had settled and the opposition had time to pick itself up off the turf? Just a passing thought... Sandra =^..^= From: justcarol67@... Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:50 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa Kathryn wrote:
"John Ashdown -Hill thinks Richard was killed before John Howard and that Howard and the troops carried on with the fight until Howard was killed by an arrow.The Yorkists were then pursued and hacked down.So I guess it would be last leader standing."

Carol responds:
To me that seems like a most unlikely scenario. I've always thought that Norfolk's death was the spur for Richard's seemingly rash charge. I suspect that his household knights kept on fighting, knowing that the alternative to death in battle would be attainder and possibly execution, but the forces under Surrey (who took over after his father's death) would surely have surrendered to the Earl of Oxford the moment they realized that there was no longer a king to fight for. Surrey was, of course, attainted and imprisoned in the Tower, but he clearly didn't continue to fight. (The Tudor sources say that Richard's soldiers fled the moment he died in battle. That may be true for the common soldiers under Surrey, fearing a murderous rout like the one after Tewkesbury, but I can't see Richard's household knights, most of whom fell in battle, doing anything so disloyal or cowardly. The soldiers recruited by a nobleman are, of course, a different matter.)

Carol

"That is quite possible! In the heat of a battle, I imagine it would take some time for the word to pass around that your leader had been killed and for you to believe it (I'm sure rumours were rife in every battle back then). To be honest, if you were fighting the enemy and someone told you your leader was dead, would you believe them?" I

Carol, I hope you find this message - Yahoo is making a right mess of messages for me and I apologise profusely for anyone I've not answered, but I can't seem to "get" to some messages, even though I can see the headline of the message on the group. Not only that, but Yahell seems to have lost at least two of my messages this week.

I am sorry if you were mocked, it seems reasonable that the heralds could be used for communication. Certainly modern armies use them, like sounding "reveille", or "charge" in cavalry for example. My only concern is that I don't know what the heralds would have sounded for a fallen leader? Would I have known which side was playing the signal and would I trust the other side not to sound a false signal to try and give them a dirty advantage?

My understanding is the military standard was the "gold standard" of military communication. As long as you could see your flag held aloft, you knew you were still in with a chance and so you fought on. The standard that fell and was not raised again had lost. I believe that once one side stopped, the battle stopped, it was over, one side had lost and there was no "unnecessary" killing then.

Tony

Carol, I hope you find this message - Yahoo is making a right mess of messages for me and I apologise profusely for anyone I've not answered, but I can't seem to "get" to some messages, even though I can see the headline of the message on the group. Not only that, but Yahell seems to have lost at least two of my messages this week.

I am sorry if you were mocked, it seems reasonable that the heralds could be used for communication. Certainly modern armies use them, like sounding "reveille", or "charge" in cavalry for example. My only concern is that I don't know what the heralds would have sounded for a fallen leader? Would I have known which side was playing the signal and would I trust the other side not to sound a false signal to try and give them a dirty advantage?

My understanding is the military standard was the "gold standard" of military communication. As long as you could see your flag held aloft, you knew you were still in with a chance and so you fought on. The standard that fell and was not raised again had lost. I believe that once one side stopped, the battle stopped, it was over, one side had lost and there was no "unnecessary" killing then.

Tony

"My understanding is the military standard was the "gold standard" of military communication. As long as you could see your flag held aloft, you knew you were still in with a chance and so you fought on. The standard that fell and was not raised again had lost. I believe that once one side stopped, the battle stopped, it was over, one side had lost and there was no "unnecessary" killing then."

Carol responds:

Hi, Tony. Yes, Yahoo has been hiding my messages. The only way I can find them is to click Reply and then click "Show message history." (And here I thought I knew how to beat the Yahooligans!)

I don't know how much a soldier could see of the battlefield. Bosworth doesn't seem to have been divided into "battles" (vanguard, center, and rear) like Tewkesbury or Barnet. I do know that there were heralds at Bosworth. One of Richard's was attainted. Another (a pursuivant, I think) was forced to lead the horse carrying his dead king, one of Henry Tudor's less admirable deeds.

Your comment on standard bearers explains why Richard killed William Brandon, Henry's standard bearer, presumably leaving the dragon in the dust. But his own standard bearer, usually identified as Sir Percival Thirwall (sp?), had his legs cut from under him but still held up Richard's banner. That's loyalty!

Anyway, I hope that some of our Bosworth authorities will comment on how the commanders communicated on the battlefield, specifically on the role of heralds

.

Carol

Do you know I can't even edit the previous message(s) now? - Like you did a "snip" on mine. Yahoo just include everything and won't let me cut it down because I reply via the website rather than email.

My understanding of the way it worked was that the standard was protected by some of the best knights. If they saw it fall and it could not be raised again, they would withdraw from the fight. The others who saw them withdrawing but could not see the standard themselves, would also then withdraw figuring that knights didn't "back out" unless the battle was lost. So even if you couldn't see the standard yourself, the word would spread amongst the battle when one side had lost. What would you call it, "battle dynamics"??? A battle is a very odd thing with it's own rules (which does seem odd when you are doing your best to kill people before they kill you). Not the least is the wearing of distinctive insignia, so you don't get killed by your own side of course!

Tony

Would depend on whether either army was able to withdraw in some semblance of order. If the royal army held, you might expect Lincoln. Can't think of any non-York candidate. If both armies broke, it would probably come down to the first noble able to secure the Earl of Warwick, proclaim him king and rule in his name.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Jonathan,

Possibly or that might account for why he was extremely scared.Why was he wandering around for nearly two hours?(He was up to something.) I don't know. It was just a suggestion and probably wrong.MB wouldn't have allowed it if she had known.Henry was very lucky that Richard had ridden so fast and that he Henry was surrounded so quickly and the way he was.

John Ashdown-Hill says that if Richard had left the field it would have been regarded as an abdication and he would have lost the right to rule.So there would be no going back.The most important thing is that Richard gave his all and the country lost a person who could have been a great king and beneficial to all.

Kathryn
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> From: "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 15:51
> Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
>
> > The rebels may have even concocoted a plan to use Henry as bait
>
> If they did, you can be sure Henry would have been the last to know about it.  Otherwise, you'd have seen him scampering to the nearest Channel port faster than Usain Bolt.  :-)
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 15:51
> Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
>
>
>
>  
> Jonathan,
>
> Surely Richard had contacts through the Yorkist families etc? A lot of his contacts would be in the North whom he could trust.He seemed to be bringing them down to London to put his rule in place.The fact that Hastings was executed showed that he could act quickly if and when was necessary.He probably just thought the Stanley(s) would stay out of things as far as Bosworth was concerned.The rebels may have even concocoted a plan to use Henry as bait with which to snare Richard if Stanley knew Richard was going to actively seek out Henry.Richard couldn't have forseen thatand what did happen had never been seen in this country before.Political rather than valiant.Richard's plan was to kill Henry,the right of rule would be fastened up,plus the saving of lives and then on with sorting the country out and hopefully getting his personal life back on track as soon as possible for a heir and continuity.There must have been a lot of decent nobility who would have
> welcomed a more serious King with strong Christian beliefs and sound morals,who wanted a stable and prosperous country and people.The Stanleys would have gone with the flow and towed the line and status quo would have been maintained.But Henry seemed a better bet to the opposition and he repaid them by taxing everyone to the hilt to leave a strong treasury for Arthur to inherit.Only Henry VIII was the one to get his hands on it.
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 10:37
> > Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> >
> >
> > All we can do is construct scenarios.à What annoys me about some traditionalist historians is the certainty with which they state their versions of event, regardless of how little documentary evidence there is.
> >
> > > If Richard could have seen what was
> > coming, I think even he might have been moved to a few timely executions.
> >
> > > Make
> > the right choices and there wouldnââ¬â¢t have been a Bosworth, or any Tudors.
> >
> > That's interesting.à Have you read the psychological profiling commissioned by the Society?à It admits it's flawed at a remove of over 500 years, but I seem to remember it suggested that even if Bosworth had been averted or Richard had won, another Bosworth would probably have happened somewhere along the line.à The conclusion was reached because of Richard's disinclination to build client networks among the higher nobility (outside a few families such as the Howards and de la Poles), coupled with no indication that he would have actively suppressed them in the way that Henry VII did.à Good governance for ordinary people wasn't sufficient to make a medieval ruler secure if the likes of the Stanleys felt they were missing out on their due...
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 10:37
> > Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> >
> >
> >
> > à
> > Indeed so, Hilary. A timely reminder that hindsight is a great thing. Itââ¬â¢s
> > all very well to make judgements from our time, about the way events unfolded
> > 500 years ago, but when it was actually happening, the people involved had no
> > idea how things would eventually turn out. They could hope, and plan towards
> > something, but it didnââ¬â¢t always come off, and weââ¬â¢re left wondering ...why did he
> > decide that and not the other instead? If Richard could have seen what was
> > coming, I think even he might have been moved to a few timely executions. Make
> > the right choices and there wouldnââ¬â¢t have been a Bosworth, or any Tudors.
> > ÃÂ
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> > ÃÂ
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:32 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video
> > interview with Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > à
> > Absolutely.
> > ÃÂ
> > Isn't this a lovely example though of how, despite having the media
> > and a living person, it's difficult to attribute motives to people, or even to
> > ascertain if they have a motive at all? Yet everyone who dabbles in history (not
> > just us in this Forum) spends ages trying to attribute high flying motives to
> > people who died over 500 years' ago as though there was some great Master Plan.
> > I suppose we forget we know the outcome, and they didn't. I reckon the truth is
> > much more like George and Buckingham's wine trip - a lot of staggering from
> > place to place and plenty of flailing when you trip over. H
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 20:37, liz
> > williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > à
> > Apparently the QM used to take to her bed with "diplomatic illnesses"
> > if somethingà unpleasant occurred.ààà She was a huge
> > influence on the Queen who, while perhaps not going quite that far, does seem to
> > do her best to avoid anything remotely unpleasant.à I am referring to
> > privately - I appreciate that publicly she doesn't "have" opinions (unlike her
> > son who is perhaps a bit more like his father than we thought.)
> > ÃÂ
> > Liz
> > ÃÂ
> > From: Hilary
> > Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Sent: Monday, 10 February 2014, 19:36
> > Subject: Re: [Richard
> > III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > Absolutely - much influenced by the Queen Mother. It's all about duty
> > with her; nothing must upset the applecart, however remote the problem. H
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 18:58, Pamela
> > Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > à
> > That is such a good point,
> > regarding Edward VIII, and donââ¬â¢t forget the Diana time, as well as the
> > shenanigans of Prince Charles, and then Prince Harry. She has lived that ââ¬Å"stiff
> > upper lipâ⬠for a lifetime, and in unlikely to change!à Also, Prince Phillip
> > and his family had many troubles, so I can imagine she does not want to touch a
> > five hundred year old problem with a barge pole!
> > ÃÂ
> > ÃÂ
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary
> > Jones
> > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:24 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands
> > video interview with Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > I do agree Sandra. Of course one of the
> > Queen's earliest influencers was Winston Churchill and we know his version of
> > History! And then there was the whole Edward VIII thing which I guess she can
> > never forget - there must never be scandal at any cost! She comes from a very
> > different generation and we do owe a lot to them. So difficult, very difficult
> > and poor Richard is yet again a 'victim' , as the guy implied before referring
> > it all to the JR. H
> > ÃÂ
> > On Monday, 10 February 2014, 13:19,
> > SandraMachin <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > à
> > But Richard was taken out of consecrated ground, and is now
> > being examined and tampered with, apparently without an end in sight, before he
> > can be put back in consecrated ground. Leicester University appear to want to
> > have access to him in perpetuity, or so it seems to me, and nothing is being
> > done to prevent this abomination. The Queen is the head of the church in
> > England, she is the descendant of the Plantagenets, and she is concerned enough
> > to guard the urn. Iââ¬â¢m sorry, but she should also be concerned enough about
> > Richard as well.
> > ÃÂ
> > I know and understand what you are saying Jonathan, and
> > please donââ¬â¢t think I am arguing with you. Itââ¬â¢s the House of Windsor I have the
> > gripe with. I do not see the Queen as being consistent in this, only as having
> > made a decision that is to Richardââ¬â¢s detriment in more ways than one. She---yes,
> > she---has by her silence consigned his remains to academic perdition, and in so
> > doing has made it appear she believes he is expendable, presumably because he
> > was guilty of the crimes attributed to him. She may as well come out with it and
> > say ââ¬Å"I prefer the Tudor version, to heck with Richard IIIââ¬.
> > ÃÂ
> > How she can live with Henry VIIIââ¬â¢s legacy I do not know,
> > but she manages, it seems. If the side of his tomb collapsed and he rolled out,
> > on consecrated ground, of course, would she permit Leicester University to
> > conduct a close examination of the site and then cart him off to the slab for a
> > good old Tudor banquet of bone-crunching that might last until Prince Georgeââ¬â¢s
> > 21st? I apologise, everyone, but this particular aspect of the whole sorry
> > business rankles with me.
> > ÃÂ
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> > ÃÂ
> > From:Jonathan
> > Evans
> > Sent:Monday,
> > February 10, 2014 12:39 PM
> > To:
> > Subject:Re: [Richard
> > III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with
> > Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > à
> > From:SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 10
> > February 2014, 9:58
> > Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
> > Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > > I would like
> > to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the urn is to be treated
> > with such reverence, then so should
> > > Richard
> > be.
> > ÃÂ
> > I think the Queen
> > would argue that she *is* being consistent.à Once laid to rest on
> > consecrated ground, remains are sacrosanct.à What's happening to Richard is
> > probably only serving to entrench that view.à The last thing she wants is
> > to set a precedent where any passing academic can apply to exhume Elizabeth I or
> > Edward IV to prove their latest theory...
> > ÃÂ
> > Jonathan
> > ÃÂ
> > From:SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 10
> > February 2014, 9:58
> > Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
> > Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > à
> > Tony, I was thinking maybe the present Duke of Gloucester
> > has ââ¬Ëcontactsââ¬â¢ where it matters and could have a discreet word? After all, the
> > present situation is doing no one any good, and whether they like it or not, the
> > Royal Family is coming in for criticism. Richard was royal too, and he and the
> > present ââ¬Ëfamilyââ¬â¢ have shared blood. And I donââ¬â¢t mean in the same way claimed by
> > the PA. The line back through the British Royal Familyà to Richard can be
> > traced, unless a loverââ¬â¢s child ascended the throne somewhere along the line. The
> > Royal Family of now is the senior line, by anyoneââ¬â¢s reckoning, so they have the
> > right to say what happens. I really do think it is up to the present queen to
> > claim him as ââ¬Ëone of mineââ¬â¢ and then hand responsibility to the usual
> > authorities/departments/offices who deal efficiently and respectfully with royal funerals. That would solve it all, IMHO. If she says York, then
> > itââ¬â¢s York. If she says Leicester, then itââ¬â¢s Leicester. If she says St. Georgeââ¬â¢s,
> > then itââ¬â¢s St. Georgeââ¬â¢s. No one would dream of arguing with her about any other
> > royal, so why this one? If she had wanted Princess Margaret laid to rest on
> > Glastonbury Tor, I am sure the tomb would now be there. (Only joking!) She
> > surely cannot be all that proud of a number of her ancestors, and maybe she does
> > think Richard did all the wicked things, but a lot of the others were far
> > wickeder, so why single Richard out for this disgracefully shoddy treatment?
> > Itââ¬â¢s very unbecoming, and shamefully partisan. The royal finger should be pulled
> > out, or Iââ¬â¢m a republican!
> > ÃÂ
> > And lastly, perhaps she doubts (after everything) that the
> > remains actually are Richardââ¬â¢s. Hmm. But then how sure can she be that the
> > darned urn contains the sons of Edward IV? She canââ¬â¢t be, but she wonââ¬â¢t let
> > anyone test the bones to see if itââ¬â¢s true. But she will allow Leicester Uni to
> > prod, carve, cut, grind and everything else as far as Richardââ¬â¢s bones are
> > concerned. I would like to see a little queenly consistency in all this. If the
> > urn is to be treated with such reverence, then so should Richard be. Especially
> > Richard, because if nothing else, he was the anointed king. Edwardââ¬â¢s sons were
> > not. Oh, but everyone here knows all this stuff, Iââ¬â¢m just up on my pesky hind
> > legs braying again.
> > ÃÂ
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> > ÃÂ
> > From:group_mail_address@
> > Sent:Sunday,
> > February 09, 2014 8:37 PM
> > To:
> > Subject:[Richard III
> > Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with
> > Philippa
> > ÃÂ
> > à
> > Hello Sandra,
> > ÃÂ
> > I don't know if anyone has tried a direct approach to the
> > present Duke of Gloucester?à That certainly is an idea, but I would be
> > concerned that it would put him in a difficult position?à Being our Patron,
> > he might simply be dismissed as "having a vested interest" and ignored because
> > of it?
> > ÃÂ
> > You know one of the most wonderful things about this group
> > is how everyone seems to really care about Richard as a person.à I see some
> > organisations seeing him as a boost for tourism, others as an interesting
> > archeological artifact.à I was feeling I seemed to be the only one other
> > than Philippa's reaction in the documentary who was remembering that those
> > "bones" are a human being and where was the respect they should be being
> > given.à Then I found this group by accident while searching for information
> > about Richard and found there were others who felt the same
> > thankfully!
> > ÃÂ
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > ---In , <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > Philippa shares what the Leicester agreement said about
> > taking Richard's remains to a place of "sanctity and rest" before re-burial.
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26041192
> >
> >
> > --
> > ââ¬Å"None of us can have as
> > many virtues as the fountain-pen, or half its cussedness; but we can tryâ⬠- Mark
> > Twain
> > ÃÂ
> > ÃÂ
> >
>

From: "group_mail_address@..." <group_mail_address@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2014, 23:10
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

> I believe that once one side stopped, the battle stopped, it was over, one side had lost and there was no > "unnecessary" killing then. Sadly not. The worst killing often happened in the rout, when one army had broken and was in full retreat, throwing away armour and even weapons to try and outrun those pursuing them. Towton's the most notorious example of this. As for the more general question about communication on a battlefield, it was exceptionally difficult - hence the many examples of commanders being unable to intervene when things went wrong, e.g. the chaos in the Lancastrian ranks at Barnet. You could perhaps apply the same causation to the French riding down their own men at Agincourt, or the English inability to manoeuvre themselves out of a trap at Bannockburn... Aside from messages carried by horsemen (Doug mentioned Marlborough, but gallopers were in use for as long as horses played a part on the field of battle), there was little a commander could do to change previously agreed tactics once conflict had begun. I have difficulty believing that there was significant use of trumpet signals. We''re not talking about professional Napoleonic armies (and for a glaring example of how even a highly trained Victorian division couldn't be diverted once it had misinterpreted an order to engage, you only have to look at the Light Brigade) but levies drawn from farms and villages at the command of their lord. Tangentially to this, these communications problems add weight to Michael Jones's belief (and Toby Capwell's) that Richard's charge at Bosworth wasn't a spontaneous decision but one that had been - and *had* to have been - carefully planned. Jonathan
From: "group_mail_address@..." <group_mail_address@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2014, 23:10
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa
Carol, I hope you find this message - Yahoo is making a right mess of messages for me and I apologise profusely for anyone I've not answered, but I can't seem to "get" to some messages, even though I can see the headline of the message on the group. Not only that, but Yahell seems to have lost at least two of my messages this week. I am sorry if you were mocked, it seems reasonable that the heralds could be used for communication. Certainly modern armies use them, like sounding "reveille", or "charge" in cavalry for example. My only concern is that I don't know what the heralds would have sounded for a fallen leader? Would I have known which side was playing the signal and would I trust the other side not to sound a false signal to try and give them a dirty advantage? My understanding is the military standard was the "gold standard" of military communication. As long as you could see your flag held aloft, you knew you were still in with a chance and so you fought on. The standard that fell and was not raised again had lost. I believe that once one side stopped, the battle stopped, it was over, one side had lost and there was no "unnecessary" killing then. Tony

Don't know, is the short answer, Sandra. :-)

But as I say, I'm sceptical about the use of trumpet signals because a medieval army simply couldn't change formation on command like the Brigade of Guards. Napoleonic style signals only worked because every soldier understood them. And that requires at least a degree of training that a farm-hand bill-man would never have.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

What you say is true, but I did say that once one side had stopped...

My understanding of what you say is that those battles never stopped. One side was in rout as you said and so the other side pursued as the battle was still on. They could be simply retreating, or gathering elsewhere to attack again in a few days for example, so they remained a threat. This is what I mean about the complexities about communication in battle. It is bizarrely a consensus between the sides and if enough people on one side consider the battle is still going, then it is. You are faced with either running or continuing to fight. The chivalry of knighthood dictated that once your opponent was disarmed and defenceless, you stopped. In real life it was much more complex (and dirty) of course, just because you have beaten someone for example it does not mean they will not attack you again in the future and so they remain your enemy and you might indeed kill them because of that. Ending a battle is as much a consensus between the sides as starting it was. They psychology of it is quite fascinating - What if one of your knights has a personal hatred and fights on after everyone else was willing to stop? Do the other side attack him, do you defend him, try to pull him back somehow?

You make good points, but a rout is not necessarily a loss, and if we are honest, there is often so much bad feeling that chivalry often went out the window and so bad things were done sometimes.

Tony

"Do you know I can't even edit the previous message(s) now? - Like you did a "snip" on mine. Yahoo just include everything and won't let me cut it down because I reply via the website rather than email."

Carol responds:

Although Yahoo has its quirks and editing messages sent from, say, Androids is difficult, you should still be able to cut and paste the message you're responding to. If it doesn't show up when you hit Reply, click on Show Message History. Of course, sometimes even that doesn't work and Yahoo thinks you're quoting yourself, in which case, your own message as well as the quoted post can only be viewed by hitting Reply and Show Message History (which, I suppose, is a step up from three mysterious dots!) Yahoo must be run by descendants of Henry Tudor--no other explanation for the sinister mysteries behind it! (Just joking, Tudor fans.)

Carol

Aha!!!

You're absolutely right! I had to reply to this to follow your instructions, but THANK YOU! I used to know how to work Yahoo...!

Tony

Carol responds:

Although Yahoo has its quirks and editing messages sent from, say, Androids is difficult, you should still be able to cut and paste the message you're responding to. If it doesn't show up when you hit Reply, click on Show Message History. Of course, sometimes even that doesn't work and Yahoo thinks you're quoting yourself, in which case, your own message as well as the quoted post can only be viewed by hitting Reply and Show Message History (which, I suppose, is a step up from three mysterious dots!) Yahoo must be run by descendants of Henry Tudor--no other explanation for the sinister mysteries behind it! (Just joking, Tudor fans.)

Carol

Jonathan,
Do you have any more information regarding Richard and his companions last charge being planned please?
Kathryn x

Hi Sandra,
John Ashdown-Hill says in his book The Last Days of Richard III that Richard and his companions stayed in Nottinghamshire prior to Bosworth and went hunting in preparation for the battle.They had already spent time together before this.Stanley excused himself from the hunting party stating that he hans affairs to sort out back home and he would be able to muster more men from the surrounding areas.Richard let him go quite willingly either because he trusted him or thought Stanley would play his usual game and remain on the sidelines in the battle.
If the charge had been planned and disclosed Stanley would have ample opportunity to pass this on via MB ? to the Lancastrians and for them to come up with a plan. Having Henry surrounded with french? mercenary pikemen? in a formation never seen in England before this and also the fact that Henry was wandering around and him being situated near marshy ground.Richard and his companions were defeated by the treachery of Stanley who charged sides ward into Richard's charging nobles and thus obliterating their threat and Richard's support.Yes indeed the Lancastrians must have been aghast at how close Richard came to succeeding.What a pity he did not.
Kathryn x
This was a change in history. No longer did the King lead into battle.Politics rather than valiance took over.

That was usually the fate of the youngest son. I wonder how happy he would have been if that had, indeed, happened. Gilda On Feb 19, 2014, at 4:45 AM, Hilary Jones wrote:


Wilkinson has Richard destined for the Church had they lived and to me that sounds quite probable. Always useful to have an archbishop in the family! H

On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 17:40, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Kathryn wrote:
"Sorry I forgot about Stanley's son.Thanks for this and his title, I didn't know that. Yes Stanley did didn't he.What a way to treat his own son.Stanley obviously thought his priorities right in his mind.Makes you think about how good the Yorks were with their families.Richard and his siblings must have grown up in a good enviroment otherwise they wouldn't have valued their own family life.It's a pity their father wasn't around when they were older, because he possibly would have been able to keep Edward and George in check.And then things would have turned out very differently indeed."

Carol responds:

Lord Stanley may have counted on Richard's mercy, or he may have known that his son (a full-grown man, not the boy often depicted) was actually guilty of treason against Richard. In any case, he sat out the battle (or was not even present, legends of him placing Richard's crown on Tudor's head to the contrary). It's clear from his actions throughout his life that his only loyalty was to his own interests.

Regarding Richard's family, if the Duke of York had survived, so, probably, would Edmund, in which case, George would be kept in check by having an unquestionably legitimate brother ahead of him in the succession. Edward himself might have behaved more circumspectly--no secret marriages, for one, and the Protectorship, assuming that Edward died at forty, might have gone to Edmund. Richard's place in history would have been much less important. He might never have been made a duke, and he certainly would never have become king. But I suspect that Edward would have discovered and rewarded his talents in any case.

Carol

Not very, I feel, Gilda. I think he was a born soldier. Small, delicate, regal, with an almost beautiful face. . . but like Beelzebub on a bad day when he put on armour and mounted a warhorse. But that's just my opinion. No doubt others will disagree. And I think that when fate made him king, it was really meant to be, and he would have been a great king if he'd had the chance. Somehow, although he was pious, I just cannot see him as an archbishop. But, another what-if...what if Richard HAD been in the Church, and Edward IV died suddenly, as happened. Richard, as an archbishop, could presumably still become Lord Protector, but what would/could he have done when the pre-contract information was put before him? Does anyone know? I know nothing of such situations. He would still be the last remaining, legitimate brother, but presumably the succession would have gone to the next-in-line legitimate, secular Yorkist lord who was not barred by an attainder, i.e. John de la Pole? Or would there have been an immediate free-for-all? Or would he have reversed the attainder on Warwick, who was definitely legitimate and of a senior branch than Richard? Certainly I can't imagine he'd have kept quiet and let Edward V (and the hordes of Woodvilles) take over. If he wouldn't do that in life, I cannot imagine he'd do it in a hypothetical situation either. Sandra =^..^= From: Gilda Felt Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:12 AM To: Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

That was usually the fate of the youngest son. I wonder how happy he would have been if that had, indeed, happened.

He might have been a bit upset when he discovered one or two didn't share his values. I shan't name them of course. H

On Wednesday, 19 February 2014, 12:23, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
That is a deliciously stated scenario? I will be interested in the answers!
On Feb 19, 2014, at 6:09 AM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

Not very, I feel, Gilda. I think he was a born soldier. Small, delicate, regal, with an almost beautiful face. . . but like Beelzebub on a bad day when he put on armour and mounted a warhorse. But that's just my opinion. No doubt others will disagree. And I think that when fate made him king, it was really meant to be, and he would have been a great king if he'd had the chance. Somehow, although he was pious, I just cannot see him as an archbishop. But, another what-if...what if Richard HAD been in the Church, and Edward IV died suddenly, as happened. Richard, as an archbishop, could presumably still become Lord Protector, but what would/could he have done when the pre-contract information was put before him? Does anyone know? I know nothing of such situations. He would still be the last remaining, legitimate brother, but presumably the succession would have gone to the next-in-line legitimate, secular Yorkist lord who was not barred by an attainder, i.e. John de la Pole? Or would there have been an immediate free-for-all? Or would he have reversed the attainder on Warwick, who was definitely legitimate and of a senior branch than Richard? Certainly I can't imagine he'd have kept quiet and let Edward V (and the hordes of Woodvilles) take over. If he wouldn't do that in life, I cannot imagine he'd do it in a hypothetical situation either. Sandra =^..^= From: Gilda Felt Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:12 AM To: Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa That was usually the fate of the youngest son. I wonder how happy he would have been if that had, indeed, happened. Gilda On Feb 19, 2014, at 4:45 AM, Hilary Jones wrote:


Wilkinson has Richard destined for the Church had they lived and to me that sounds quite probable. Always useful to have an archbishop in the family! H

On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 17:40, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Kathryn wrote:
"Sorry I forgot about Stanley's son.Thanks for this and his title, I didn't know that. Yes Stanley did didn't he.What a way to treat his own son.Stanley obviously thought his priorities right in his mind.Makes you think about how good the Yorks were with their families.Richard and his siblings must have grown up in a good enviroment otherwise they wouldn't have valued their own family life.It's a pity their father wasn't around when they were older, because he possibly would have been able to keep Edward and George in check.And then things would have turned out very differently indeed."

Carol responds:

Lord Stanley may have counted on Richard's mercy, or he may have known that his son (a full-grown man, not the boy often depicted) was actually guilty of treason against Richard. In any case, he sat out the battle (or was not even present, legends of him placing Richard's crown on Tudor's head to the contrary). It's clear from his actions throughout his life that his only loyalty was to his own interests.

Regarding Richard's family, if the Duke of York had survived, so, probably, would Edmund, in which case, George would be kept in check by having an unquestionably legitimate brother ahead of him in the succession. Edward himself might have behaved more circumspectly--no secret marriages, for one, and the Protectorship, assuming that Edward died at forty, might have gone to Edmund. Richard's place in history would have been much less important. He might never have been made a duke, and he certainly would never have become king. But I suspect that Edward would have discovered and rewarded his talents in any case.

Carol

That was usually the fate of the youngest son. I wonder how happy he would have been if that had, indeed, happened.

Hmm... Richelieu was a soldier who became a cardinal...but I doubt our Richard could have gone from archbishop to soldier. He wouldn't have had any battle training if he'd entered the church and hence couldn't call up men to support him if he wanted to claim the throne?

Sooo, I'd say free-for-all, but what do I know?

To spin this out as a further what-if, what if Stillington or someone else had told him about the pre-contract while Edward was still alive, and Richard had taken that knowledge to Edward?

I like the thought of Richard finding out what a nasty little man Morton was and influencing Rome to demote him to village priest. Though I pity a politically thwarted Morton's parishioners.

~Weds
---In , <sandramachin@...> wrote:

Not very, I feel, Gilda. I think he was a born soldier. Small, delicate, regal, with an almost beautiful face. . . but like Beelzebub on a bad day when he put on armour and mounted a warhorse. But that's just my opinion. No doubt others will disagree. And I think that when fate made him king, it was really meant to be, and he would have been a great king if he'd had the chance. Somehow, although he was pious, I just cannot see him as an archbishop. But, another what-if...what if Richard HAD been in the Church, and Edward IV died suddenly, as happened. Richard, as an archbishop, could presumably still become Lord Protector, but what would/could he have done when the pre-contract information was put before him? Does anyone know? I know nothing of such situations. He would still be the last remaining, legitimate brother, but presumably the succession would have gone to the next-in-line legitimate, secular Yorkist lord who was not barred by an attainder, i.e. John de la Pole? Or would there have been an immediate free-for-all? Or would he have reversed the attainder on Warwick, who was definitely legitimate and of a senior branch than Richard? Certainly I can't imagine he'd have kept quiet and let Edward V (and the hordes of Woodvilles) take over. If he wouldn't do that in life, I cannot imagine he'd do it in a hypothetical situation either. Sandra =^..^= From: Gilda Felt Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:12 AM To: Subject: Re: RE: BBC Midlands video interview with Philippa

That was usually the fate of the youngest son. I wonder how happy he would have been if that had, indeed, happened.