"My lord of Salysbury"

Hilary wrote:
"So to ask yet another question, were Henry and
Isabel Burgh related to Alice Burgh who is the reputed mother of John of
Pomfret/Gloucester? Weir has her as having a sister Isabel, but of course this
could be another wrong conclusion from her as Isabel's surname prior to marriage
would not have been Burgh.
As for burial, is it not odd that there does not
seem to have much ceremonial? Think of the deaths of Arthur and even Edward of
Lancaster. Why no pomp - I don't think you can just give an impending Bosworth
as the excuse. and the parents did not have to be there."
Doug here:
If the mistake about Isabel's surname was the
*only* error Weir makes...
Regarding the, apparent, low-key burial of Edward -
there was no need for any political posturing/statements on the part his
parents. Arthur, while undoubtedly mourned by his family, was to have been the
inheritor of his father and I view the ceremonies that accompanied his funeral
as more a statement on Henry's part about what the *Tudor* dynasty had lost,
than what *England* had. Edward of Lancaster's funeral would, to me anyway, have
been more in the same category as showing the he (Edward( *was*
dead.
Obviously, neither of the above would apply to
Richard and Anne, so they could have a low-key, non-conspicuous (?) funerla for
*their* son.
Doug

I don't quite follow you, Doug. Was not Edward of Middleham the heir as
well, and had not the Ricardian dynasty lost as much as Henry had with Arthur?
And Edward of Middleham's death was as important as that of Henry VI's
Lancastrian son. I'm clearly misunderstanding the point you are making. Even
without his parents' presence, which I know would have been the case, Edward was
the Prince of Wales and the king's only legitimate son, so surely there should
have been an at least fairly grand funeral?
I'm missing a point here, and I know you're about to tell me what it
is.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:22 PM
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate
Subject: "My lord of
Salysbury"

Hilary wrote:
"So to ask yet another question, were Henry and
Isabel Burgh related to Alice Burgh who is the reputed mother of John of
Pomfret/Gloucester? Weir has her as having a sister Isabel, but of course this
could be another wrong conclusion from her as Isabel's surname prior to marriage
would not have been Burgh.
As for burial, is it not odd that there does not
seem to have much ceremonial? Think of the deaths of Arthur and even Edward of
Lancaster. Why no pomp - I don't think you can just give an impending Bosworth
as the excuse. and the parents did not have to be there."
Doug here:
If the mistake about Isabel's surname was the
*only* error Weir makes...
Regarding the, apparent, low-key burial of Edward -
there was no need for any political posturing/statements on the part his
parents. Arthur, while undoubtedly mourned by his family, was to have been the
inheritor of his father and I view the ceremonies that accompanied his funeral
as more a statement on Henry's part about what the *Tudor* dynasty had lost,
than what *England* had. Edward of Lancaster's funeral would, to me anyway, have
been more in the same category as showing the he (Edward( *was*
dead.
Obviously, neither of the above would apply to
Richard and Anne, so they could have a low-key, non-conspicuous (?) funerla for
*their* son.
Doug

Find it hard to agree with the second point Doug. We have lost lots of heirs to the throne (in fact it's not a good place to be!) from the White Ship, through the Black Prince to later Prince Henry (brother of Charles I) and all those children of Queen Anne and Eddie of Clarence (brother of George V) and it has always been treated with significant ceremony and magnificent tombs. Given the ceremony of his investiture just a few months' before, one would have expected a really big ceremony for the burial of a Prince of Wales. H On Thursday, 13 February 2014, 15:22, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Hilary wrote:
"So to ask yet another question, were Henry and
Isabel Burgh related to Alice Burgh who is the reputed mother of John of
Pomfret/Gloucester? Weir has her as having a sister Isabel, but of course this
could be another wrong conclusion from her as Isabel's surname prior to marriage
would not have been Burgh.
As for burial, is it not odd that there does not
seem to have much ceremonial? Think of the deaths of Arthur and even Edward of
Lancaster. Why no pomp - I don't think you can just give an impending Bosworth
as the excuse. and the parents did not have to be there."
Doug here:
If the mistake about Isabel's surname was the
*only* error Weir makes...
Regarding the, apparent, low-key burial of Edward -
there was no need for any political posturing/statements on the part his
parents. Arthur, while undoubtedly mourned by his family, was to have been the
inheritor of his father and I view the ceremonies that accompanied his funeral
as more a statement on Henry's part about what the *Tudor* dynasty had lost,
than what *England* had. Edward of Lancaster's funeral would, to me anyway, have
been more in the same category as showing the he (Edward( *was*
dead.
Obviously, neither of the above would apply to
Richard and Anne, so they could have a low-key, non-conspicuous (?) funerla for
*their* son.
Doug

Our minds are in harmony Sandra - though you are still alas in my trash :) H On Thursday, 13 February 2014, 15:33, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
I don't quite follow you, Doug. Was not Edward of Middleham the heir as
well, and had not the Ricardian dynasty lost as much as Henry had with Arthur?
And Edward of Middleham's death was as important as that of Henry VI's
Lancastrian son. I'm clearly misunderstanding the point you are making. Even
without his parents' presence, which I know would have been the case, Edward was
the Prince of Wales and the king's only legitimate son, so surely there should
have been an at least fairly grand funeral?
I'm missing a point here, and I know you're about to tell me what it
is.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:22 PM
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate
Subject: "My lord of
Salysbury"
Hilary wrote:
"So to ask yet another question, were Henry and
Isabel Burgh related to Alice Burgh who is the reputed mother of John of
Pomfret/Gloucester? Weir has her as having a sister Isabel, but of course this
could be another wrong conclusion from her as Isabel's surname prior to marriage
would not have been Burgh.
As for burial, is it not odd that there does not
seem to have much ceremonial? Think of the deaths of Arthur and even Edward of
Lancaster. Why no pomp - I don't think you can just give an impending Bosworth
as the excuse. and the parents did not have to be there."
Doug here:
If the mistake about Isabel's surname was the
*only* error Weir makes...
Regarding the, apparent, low-key burial of Edward -
there was no need for any political posturing/statements on the part his
parents. Arthur, while undoubtedly mourned by his family, was to have been the
inheritor of his father and I view the ceremonies that accompanied his funeral
as more a statement on Henry's part about what the *Tudor* dynasty had lost,
than what *England* had. Edward of Lancaster's funeral would, to me anyway, have
been more in the same category as showing the he (Edward( *was*
dead.
Obviously, neither of the above would apply to
Richard and Anne, so they could have a low-key, non-conspicuous (?) funerla for
*their* son.
Doug

If I remember correctly, he died in April and his parents didn't get to Middleham from Nottingham until...something like two weeks later? It's not as if they dropped everything and left the day after receiving the message/messenger. So I'm thinking Richard and Anne may not have been there for the actual burial. How long could a body -- even a small boy's -- be kept above ground without the living needing to bury it? If Richard and Anne were that upset (especially Anne?), perhaps it was better not to be there to see him buried. Or to see him lying in the chapel, so still, surrounded by candles and constant prayers. Perhaps they chose to remember him as he was in life and not have their last memory of him be an image of death. I wonder if Anne's mother, the countess of Warwick, was there when he died. I hope someone was with him who loved him, beyond his nurse.~Weds ---In , <destama@...> wrote:Hilary wrote:"So to ask yet another question, were Henry and
Isabel Burgh related to Alice Burgh who is the reputed mother of John of
Pomfret/Gloucester? Weir has her as having a sister Isabel, but of course this
could be another wrong conclusion from her as Isabel's surname prior to marriage
would not have been Burgh.As for burial, is it not odd that there does not
seem to have much ceremonial? Think of the deaths of Arthur and even Edward of
Lancaster. Why no pomp - I don't think you can just give an impending Bosworth
as the excuse. and the parents did not have to be there." Doug here:If the mistake about Isabel's surname was the
*only* error Weir makes...Regarding the, apparent, low-key burial of Edward -
there was no need for any political posturing/statements on the part his
parents. Arthur, while undoubtedly mourned by his family, was to have been the
inheritor of his father and I view the ceremonies that accompanied his funeral
as more a statement on Henry's part about what the *Tudor* dynasty had lost,
than what *England* had. Edward of Lancaster's funeral would, to me anyway, have
been more in the same category as showing the he (Edward( *was*
dead.Obviously, neither of the above would apply to
Richard and Anne, so they could have a low-key, non-conspicuous (?) funerla for
*their* son.Doug

You could actually be kept for quite a long time if you were embalmed and then enclosed in a lead coffin, which is to this day the custom with royalty (or so I'm told). Isabel (because Clarence couldn't let go of her) and Mary II were kept for ages before the actual interment. That was in winter though. But royalty didn't attend burials - I found this out from a number of authors on Henry VIII who said he had to watch his mother's burial procession from a window in Cheapside. And Henry and EOY didn't attend the burial of Arthur. Perhaps that's where the good old stiff upper lip comes from? And before anyone says anything ,I don't know why Richard II was there for the burial of Anne of Bohemia. H On Thursday, 13 February 2014, 20:50, "wednesday.mac@..." <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
If I remember correctly, he died in April and his parents didn't get to Middleham from Nottingham until...something like two weeks later? It's not as if they dropped everything and left the day after receiving the message/messenger. So I'm thinking Richard and Anne may not have been there for the actual burial. How long could a body -- even a small boy's -- be kept above ground without the living needing to bury it? If Richard and Anne were that upset (especially Anne?), perhaps it was better not to be there to see him buried. Or to see him lying in the chapel, so still, surrounded by candles and constant prayers. Perhaps they chose to remember him as he was in life and not have their last memory of him be an image of death. I wonder if Anne's mother, the countess of Warwick, was there when he died. I hope someone was with him who loved him, beyond his nurse.~Weds---In , <destama@...> wrote:Hilary wrote:"So to ask yet another question, were Henry and
Isabel Burgh related to Alice Burgh who is the reputed mother of John of
Pomfret/Gloucester? Weir has her as having a sister Isabel, but of course this
could be another wrong conclusion from her as Isabel's surname prior to marriage
would not have been Burgh.As for burial, is it not odd that there does not
seem to have much ceremonial? Think of the deaths of Arthur and even Edward of
Lancaster. Why no pomp - I don't think you can just give an impending Bosworth
as the excuse. and the parents did not have to be there." Doug here:If the mistake about Isabel's surname was the
*only* error Weir makes...Regarding the, apparent, low-key burial of Edward -
there was no need for any political posturing/statements on the part his
parents. Arthur, while undoubtedly mourned by his family, was to have been the
inheritor of his father and I view the ceremonies that accompanied his funeral
as more a statement on Henry's part about what the *Tudor* dynasty had lost,
than what *England* had. Edward of Lancaster's funeral would, to me anyway, have
been more in the same category as showing the he (Edward( *was*
dead.Obviously, neither of the above would apply to
Richard and Anne, so they could have a low-key, non-conspicuous (?) funerla for
*their* son.Doug

Sandra wrote:
"I don't quite follow you, Doug. Was not Edward of
Middleham the heir as well, and had not the Ricardian dynasty lost as much as
Henry had with Arthur? And Edward of Middleham's death was as important as that
of Henry VI's Lancastrian son."
Doug here:
What I was trying get at was that in both Arthur's
and Edward of Lancaster's instances the splendor of the funerals was as much, if
not more, a *political* affair as a religious ceremony. In Arthur's case,
it was a sign that the Tudor dynasty (all 15 or so years of it) was
in a position to spend a fortune for the funeral services. Viewed as a form of a
political version of "conspicuous consumption," perhaps? And Henry while Henry
had a second son, after that - nothing. In Edward of Lancaster's case it was a
funeral for the same reason as that of Henry VI, to show that Edward *was* dead,
thus precluding any pretenders, which meant the funeral required as many
attendees as possible to ensure the fact of Edward's death was as widespread as
possible. There may also have been a feeling amongst the victorious Yorkists
that, as Edward had been the last legitimate Lancaster, there was no need *not*
to allow a fitting funeral for the son of an annointed king.
Seemingly what happened in Edward of
Middleham's case was that the feelings of the *parents* over-ruled protocol with
Richard and Anne viewing Edward's death as the death of their *son*, not the
death of the "Prince of Wales" and they acted accordingly.
Nor in my view, and assuming Richard and Anne even
thought about it all *at that time*, did Edward's death affect the continuation
of the *Yorkist* dynasty. There still were Yorkist heirs remaining (how many
nephews?), just not *direct* heirs of Richard.
Basically it boils down to Richard and Anne viewing
Edward's funeral as a *private* matter, with any public consequences
to be dealt with later.
I hope this makes my previous post more
understandable, because I *know* what I'm *trying* to say, the question being
whether I'm saying it so someone else can understand...
Doug
Doug

Gotcha, Doug. All is clear to me now. I knew you'd have a sensible
explanation, you always do, so I was well aware that the problem lay with me for
not understanding. But I still find it hardly to accept that Richard (maybe not
Anne, who clearly collapsed of grief and could not cope) would be so very
private about the death of the Prince of Wales. Yes, Richard was distraught too,
but he was the king and had to keep a lid on it. Edward of Middleham was their
little boy, their only child, but he had been created Prince of Wales, which is
a pretty vital and important title to have. If he had still been alive at the
time of Bosworth, he would definitely have been the rightful King of England.
Not for long, of course, for he'd be shoved in the Tower by HT and would suffer
the fate of Warwick. At least, that's what I think. No doubt someone has a
better guess.
It's a point, actually. What would have happened if Richard's son and heir
had lived? Would he have been spirited off to Burgundy from Sheriff Hutton (or
wherever) with Edward IV's sons? That would really have given HT something to be
spooked about.
Richard was correct in all the things he did, so surely the correct thing
in this case would have been to give his son the honour and respect of a full
royal funeral for a Prince of Wales? I can't help feeling he wouldn't settle for
less. So what happened? We'll never know the reason for anything, of course.
It's as darned infuriating as all the other mysteries surrounding Richard.
Perhaps if he wasn't so mysterious and enigmatic, we wouldn't all be so wrapped
up in his fascination.
But thank you again for taking the time to explain to me. It's much
appreciated.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 5:47 PM
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate
Subject: "My lord of
Salysbury"

Sandra wrote:
"I don't quite follow you, Doug. Was not Edward of
Middleham the heir as well, and had not the Ricardian dynasty lost as much as
Henry had with Arthur? And Edward of Middleham's death was as important as that
of Henry VI's Lancastrian son."
Doug here:
What I was trying get at was that in both Arthur's
and Edward of Lancaster's instances the splendor of the funerals was as much, if
not more, a *political* affair as a religious ceremony. In Arthur's case, it was
a sign that the Tudor dynasty (all 15 or so years of it) was in a position
to spend a fortune for the funeral services. Viewed as a form of a political
version of "conspicuous consumption," perhaps? And Henry while Henry had a
second son, after that - nothing. In Edward of Lancaster's case it was a funeral
for the same reason as that of Henry VI, to show that Edward *was* dead, thus
precluding any pretenders, which meant the funeral required as many attendees as
possible to ensure the fact of Edward's death was as widespread as possible.
There may also have been a feeling amongst the victorious Yorkists that, as
Edward had been the last legitimate Lancaster, there was no need *not* to allow
a fitting funeral for the son of an annointed king.
Seemingly what happened in Edward of Middleham's
case was that the feelings of the *parents* over-ruled protocol with Richard and
Anne viewing Edward's death as the death of their *son*, not the death of the
"Prince of Wales" and they acted accordingly.
Nor in my view, and assuming Richard and Anne even
thought about it all *at that time*, did Edward's death affect the continuation
of the *Yorkist* dynasty. There still were Yorkist heirs remaining (how many
nephews?), just not *direct* heirs of Richard.
Basically it boils down to Richard and Anne viewing
Edward's funeral as a *private* matter, with any public consequences to be dealt
with later.
I hope this makes my previous post more
understandable, because I *know* what I'm *trying* to say, the question being
whether I'm saying it so someone else can understand...
Doug
Doug

The trouble with what-ifs is that if you change the narrative at one point, you have to be aware that the ripples go backwards in time as well as forwards.
If Edward of Middleham had been alive at Bosworth, I'm not convinced Bosworth would have happened. The whole enterprise - mad enough in *real* history - would have been even riskier with Henry potentially having to win two battles...
Jonathan
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From:
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: "My lord of Salysbury"
Sent:
Fri, Feb 14, 2014 5:11:43 PM

 


Gotcha, Doug. All is clear to me now.  I knew you'd have a sensible
explanation, you always do, so I was well aware that the problem lay with me for
not understanding. But I still find it hardly to accept that Richard (maybe not
Anne, who clearly collapsed of grief and could not cope) would be so very
private about the death of the Prince of Wales. Yes, Richard was distraught too,
but he was the king and had to keep a lid on it. Edward of Middleham was their
little boy, their only child, but he had been created Prince of Wales, which is
a pretty vital and important title to have. If he had still been alive at the
time of Bosworth, he would definitely have been the rightful King of England.
Not for long, of course, for he'd be shoved in the Tower by HT and would suffer
the fate of Warwick. At least, that's what I think. No doubt someone has a
better guess.
 
It's a point, actually. What would have happened if Richard's son and heir
had lived? Would he have been spirited off to Burgundy from Sheriff Hutton (or
wherever) with Edward IV's sons? That would really have given HT something to be
spooked about.
 
Richard was correct in all the things he did, so surely the correct thing
in this case would have been to give his son the honour and respect of a full
royal funeral for a Prince of Wales? I can't help feeling he wouldn't settle for
less. So what happened? We'll never know the reason for anything, of course.
It's as darned infuriating as all the other mysteries surrounding Richard.
Perhaps if he wasn't so mysterious and enigmatic, we wouldn't all be so wrapped
up in his fascination.
 
But thank you again for taking the time to explain to me. It's much
appreciated.
 
Sandra
=^..^=
 
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 5:47 PM
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate
Subject: "My lord of
Salysbury"
 
 

Sandra wrote:
"I don't quite follow you, Doug. Was not Edward of
Middleham the heir as well, and had not the Ricardian dynasty lost as much as
Henry had with Arthur? And Edward of Middleham's death was as important as that
of Henry VI's Lancastrian son."
 
Doug here:
What I was trying get at was that in both Arthur's
and Edward of Lancaster's instances the splendor of the funerals was as much, if
not more, a *political* affair as a religious ceremony. In Arthur's case, it was
a sign that the Tudor dynasty (all 15 or so  years of it) was in a position
to spend a fortune for the funeral services. Viewed as a form of a political
version of "conspicuous consumption," perhaps? And Henry while Henry had a
second son, after that - nothing. In Edward of Lancaster's case it was a funeral
for the same reason as that of Henry VI, to show that Edward *was* dead, thus
precluding any pretenders, which meant the funeral required as many attendees as
possible to ensure the fact of Edward's death was as widespread as possible.
There may also have been a feeling amongst the victorious Yorkists that, as
Edward had been the last legitimate Lancaster, there was no need *not* to allow
a fitting funeral for the son of an annointed king.
Seemingly what happened in Edward of Middleham's
case was that the feelings of the *parents* over-ruled protocol with Richard and
Anne viewing Edward's death as the death of their *son*, not the death of the
"Prince of Wales" and they acted accordingly.
Nor in my view, and assuming Richard and Anne even
thought about it all *at that time*, did Edward's death affect the continuation
of the *Yorkist* dynasty. There still were Yorkist heirs remaining (how many
nephews?), just not *direct* heirs of Richard.
Basically it boils down to Richard and Anne viewing
Edward's funeral as a *private* matter, with any public consequences to be dealt
with later.
I hope this makes my previous post more
understandable, because I *know* what I'm *trying* to say, the question being
whether I'm saying it so someone else can understand...
Doug
Doug
 
 

That's true, Jonathan. Hadn't thought of that. But surely, HT was such a
strong, brave, confident, charismatic leader that a little thing like two
Bosworth's' wouldn't bother him! He'd be in there in the thick of it, sword
swinging, the opposition dropping away before his personal might . . . Even the
word York' would be annihilated.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: jmcevans98@...
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 5:51 PM
To:
Subject: Re: "My lord of
Salysbury"

The trouble with what-ifs is that if you change the narrative at one
point, you have to be aware that the ripples go backwards in time as well
as forwards.
If Edward of Middleham had been alive at Bosworth, I'm not convinced
Bosworth would have happened. The whole enterprise - mad enough in *real*
history - would have been even riskier with Henry potentially having to
win two battles...
Jonathan
Sent
from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: SandraMachin
<sandramachin@...>; To:
<>; Subject: Re:
"My lord of Salysbury" Sent:
Fri, Feb 14, 2014 5:11:43 PM
Gotcha, Doug. All is clear to me now. I knew you'd have a
sensible explanation, you always do, so I was well aware that the problem
lay with me for not understanding. But I still find it hardly to accept
that Richard (maybe not Anne, who clearly collapsed of grief and could not
cope) would be so very private about the death of the Prince of Wales.
Yes, Richard was distraught too, but he was the king and had to keep a lid
on it. Edward of Middleham was their little boy, their only child, but he
had been created Prince of Wales, which is a pretty vital and important
title to have. If he had still been alive at the time of Bosworth, he
would definitely have been the rightful King of England. Not for long, of
course, for he'd be shoved in the Tower by HT and would suffer the fate of
Warwick. At least, that's what I think. No doubt someone has a better
guess.
It's a point, actually. What would have happened if Richard's son and
heir had lived? Would he have been spirited off to Burgundy from Sheriff
Hutton (or wherever) with Edward IV's sons? That would really have given
HT something to be spooked about.
Richard was correct in all the things he did, so surely the correct
thing in this case would have been to give his son the honour and respect
of a full royal funeral for a Prince of Wales? I can't help feeling he
wouldn't settle for less. So what happened? We'll never know the reason
for anything, of course. It's as darned infuriating as all the other
mysteries surrounding Richard. Perhaps if he wasn't so mysterious and
enigmatic, we wouldn't all be so wrapped up in his fascination.
But thank you again for taking the time to explain to me. It's much
appreciated.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: Douglas Eugene
Stamate
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 5:47 PM
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate
Subject: "My lord of
Salysbury"
Sandra wrote:
"I don't quite follow you, Doug. Was not
Edward of Middleham the heir as well, and had not the Ricardian dynasty
lost as much as Henry had with Arthur? And Edward of Middleham's death was
as important as that of Henry VI's Lancastrian son."
Doug here:
What I was trying get at was that in both
Arthur's and Edward of Lancaster's instances the splendor of the funerals
was as much, if not more, a *political* affair as a religious ceremony. In
Arthur's case, it was a sign that the Tudor dynasty (all 15 or so
years of it) was in a position to spend a fortune for the funeral
services. Viewed as a form of a political version of "conspicuous
consumption," perhaps? And Henry while Henry had a second son, after that
- nothing. In Edward of Lancaster's case it was a funeral for the same
reason as that of Henry VI, to show that Edward *was* dead, thus
precluding any pretenders, which meant the funeral required as many
attendees as possible to ensure the fact of Edward's death was as
widespread as possible. There may also have been a feeling amongst the
victorious Yorkists that, as Edward had been the last legitimate
Lancaster, there was no need *not* to allow a fitting funeral for the son
of an annointed king.
Seemingly what happened in Edward of
Middleham's case was that the feelings of the *parents* over-ruled
protocol with Richard and Anne viewing Edward's death as the death of
their *son*, not the death of the "Prince of Wales" and they acted
accordingly.
Nor in my view, and assuming Richard and Anne
even thought about it all *at that time*, did Edward's death affect the
continuation of the *Yorkist* dynasty. There still were Yorkist heirs
remaining (how many nephews?), just not *direct* heirs of
Richard.
Basically it boils down to Richard and Anne
viewing Edward's funeral as a *private* matter, with any public
consequences to be dealt with later.
I hope this makes my previous post more
understandable, because I *know* what I'm *trying* to say, the question
being whether I'm saying it so someone else can understand...
Doug
Doug

Sandra wrote:
//snip//
But I still find it hard to accept that Richard
(maybe not Anne, who clearly collapsed of grief and could not cope) would be so
very private about the death of the Prince of Wales. Yes, Richard was distraught
too, but he was the king and had to keep a lid on it. Edward of Middleham was
their little boy, their only child, but he had been created Prince of Wales,
which is a pretty vital and important title to have."
//snip//
Doug here:
Perhaps it's because I'm *not* from the UK but, in
*most* instances isn't "Prince of Wales" merely the designator for the heir to
the throne - at least until said Prince reaches adulthood and can be given tasks
by the King/Queen?
I *think* the following list is accurate and of
them the *only* PoW who actually *did* anything while he was PoW that title was
the Black Prince:
Edward II - first PoW
Edward III - second PoW
Edward, the Black Prince - third PoW, never
King
Richard II - ever PoW?
Henry IV - never PoW
Henry V - ever PoW?
Henry VI - never PoW
Edward IV - never PoW
Edward V - PoW, but no duties assigned
Richard III - never PoW
Which is why I look at it, quite possibly
incorrectly of course, that the title of "Prince of Wales", and especially when
applied to a child, *only* denoted that child as the king's heir. Once the child
attained adulthood, or even adolescence, *then* more ceremonial roles would be
given him, with eventually the PoW possibly being employed in some circumstances
as the King's Lieutenant.
As I wrote, there *were* other, fully
legitimate, heirs so the need to *immediately* produce/nominate a
replacement for Edward as PoW wasn't, based on the previous century's
events, an absolute necessity nor, to the best of knowledge (talk about going
out on a limb!) had Edward, as PoW, been assigned any duties.
Which, again in my view, is why Richard and Anne
held a low-key funeral for their only son. While I don't doubt Richard would
have *preferred* for his son to succeed him, we have nothing that says he didn't
view the *legitimacy* of his successor to be just as, if not
more, important. Which would certainly apply if Richard viewed himself as a
Plantagenet, rather than a "York".
As far as I know, there was still the *possibility*
that Anne might bear another child, but if that failed the Attainder that
barred Edward of Warwick from the throne could be reversed and, of course,
there were the de la Poles. There was even the Mortimer/Neville branch of
the family.
So, while *Richard* may not have had any "hiers of
the body", he most certainly had *legitimate" successors in the Pantagent
line.
What he didn't have was time...
Doug

The Prince of Wales is always the monarch’s
(heir apparent) eldest surviving son, given that no elder deceased sons had
surviving sons, retaining this position for life. Thus Richard II and Henry IV
and Richard III never held the title but Henry V (1399-1413) and Henry VI
(1421) did. Investiture typically takes place at 21, somewhere like
Caernarvon
Castle , but the title can be assumed at
birth. The Scottish equivalent is Duke of Rothesay.
Traditionally, it could not be held by a
monarch’s daughter (heir presumptive) because a younger brother could
supplant her but this no longer applies due to a law change in 2012-3.

From:
[mailto: ]
On Behalf Of Douglas Eugene
Stamate
Sent: 15 February 2014 14:44
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] "My lord of Salysbury"


Sandra wrote:
//snip//
But I still find it hard to accept that Richard (maybe not
Anne, who clearly collapsed of grief and could not cope) would be so very
private about the death of the Prince of Wales. Yes, Richard was distraught too,
but he was the king and had to keep a lid on it. Edward of Middleham was their
little boy, their only child, but he had been created Prince of Wales, which is
a pretty vital and important title to have."
//snip//

Doug here:
Perhaps it's because I'm *not* from the UK but, in *most*
instances isn't "Prince of Wales" merely the designator for the heir
to the throne - at least until said Prince reaches adulthood and can be given
tasks by the King/Queen?
I *think* the following list is accurate and of them the
*only* PoW who actually *did* anything while he was PoW that title was the
Black Prince:
Edward II - first PoW
Edward III - second PoW
Edward, the Black Prince - third PoW, never King
Richard II - ever PoW?
Henry IV - never PoW
Henry V - ever PoW?
Henry VI - never PoW
Edward IV - never PoW
Edward V - PoW, but no duties assigned
Richard III - never PoW
Which is why I look at it, quite possibly incorrectly of
course, that the title of "Prince of Wales", and especially when
applied to a child, *only* denoted that child as the king's heir. Once the
child attained adulthood, or even adolescence, *then* more ceremonial roles
would be given him, with eventually the PoW possibly being employed in some
circumstances as the King's Lieutenant.
As I wrote, there *were* other, fully legitimate, heirs
so the need to *immediately* produce/nominate a replacement for Edward as
PoW wasn't, based on the previous century's events, an absolute necessity nor,
to the best of knowledge (talk about going out on a limb!) had Edward, as
PoW, been assigned any duties.
Which, again in my view, is why Richard and Anne held a
low-key funeral for their only son. While I don't doubt Richard would have
*preferred* for his son to succeed him, we have nothing that says he didn't
view the *legitimacy* of his successor to be just as, if not
more, important. Which would certainly apply if Richard viewed himself as
a Plantagenet, rather than a "York".
As far as I know, there was still the *possibility* that
Anne might bear another child, but if that failed the Attainder that
barred Edward of Warwick from the throne could be reversed and, of course,
there were the de la Poles. There was even the Mortimer/Neville branch of
the family.
So, while *Richard* may not have had any "hiers of the
body", he most certainly had *legitimate" successors in the Pantagent
line.
What he didn't have was time...
Doug

The Prince of Wales is a very, very important role, so as Stephen says until a year or so ago a daughter (like the current Queen) could only ever be heir presumptive - because there would always be the possibility, however remote, that her father, the King, could produce a male heir who would automatically come before her because of primogeniture. Other examples are Mary and Anne, daughters of James II and indeed Mary and Elizabeth Tudor. So no Princesses of Wales in their own right, unless wife of the Prince of Wales, like Diana. Richard II was a younger son of the then Prince of Wales, Black Prince, who pre-deceased his father and Richard was only a child when taking the throne, as was Henry VI, who was about 9 months old; therefore no chance to confer the
title. Henry IV was a usurper and Richard was never formally in direct line. The conferment was turned again into a great piece of palava by George V who brought back the ceremony and investiture of the future Edward VIII (oh dear) at Caernarvon to boost the popularity of the monarchy. And that's where the coming of age thing came from. So my point is Doug that the Prince of Wales, the true monarch designate, is/was a very, very important person and would/should have had a funeral to match. H (who in the distant stone age got a degree she'd forgotten about in Government and Politics) On Saturday, 15 February 2014, 14:19, Stephen <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
The Prince of Wales is always the monarch's
(heir apparent) eldest surviving son, given that no elder deceased sons had
surviving sons, retaining this position for life. Thus Richard II and Henry IV
and Richard III never held the title but Henry V (1399-1413) and Henry VI
(1421) did. Investiture typically takes place at 21, somewhere like Caernarvon Castle , but the title can be assumed at
birth. The Scottish equivalent is Duke of Rothesay.
Traditionally, it could not be held by a
monarch's daughter (heir presumptive) because a younger brother could
supplant her but this no longer applies due to a law change in 2012-3.
From:
[mailto: ]
On Behalf Of Douglas Eugene
Stamate
Sent: 15 February 2014 14:44
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] "My lord of Salysbury"
Sandra wrote:
//snip//
But I still find it hard to accept that Richard (maybe not
Anne, who clearly collapsed of grief and could not cope) would be so very
private about the death of the Prince of Wales. Yes, Richard was distraught too,
but he was the king and had to keep a lid on it. Edward of Middleham was their
little boy, their only child, but he had been created Prince of Wales, which is
a pretty vital and important title to have."
//snip//
Doug here:
Perhaps it's because I'm *not* from the UK but, in *most*
instances isn't "Prince of Wales" merely the designator for the heir
to the throne - at least until said Prince reaches adulthood and can be given
tasks by the King/Queen?
I *think* the following list is accurate and of them the
*only* PoW who actually *did* anything while he was PoW that title was the
Black Prince:
Edward II - first PoW
Edward III - second PoW
Edward, the Black Prince - third PoW, never King
Richard II - ever PoW?
Henry IV - never PoW
Henry V - ever PoW?
Henry VI - never PoW
Edward IV - never PoW
Edward V - PoW, but no duties assigned
Richard III - never PoW
Which is why I look at it, quite possibly incorrectly of
course, that the title of "Prince of Wales", and especially when
applied to a child, *only* denoted that child as the king's heir. Once the
child attained adulthood, or even adolescence, *then* more ceremonial roles
would be given him, with eventually the PoW possibly being employed in some
circumstances as the King's Lieutenant.
As I wrote, there *were* other, fully legitimate, heirs
so the need to *immediately* produce/nominate a replacement for Edward as
PoW wasn't, based on the previous century's events, an absolute necessity nor,
to the best of knowledge (talk about going out on a limb!) had Edward, as
PoW, been assigned any duties.
Which, again in my view, is why Richard and Anne held a
low-key funeral for their only son. While I don't doubt Richard would have
*preferred* for his son to succeed him, we have nothing that says he didn't
view the *legitimacy* of his successor to be just as, if not
more, important. Which would certainly apply if Richard viewed himself as
a Plantagenet, rather than a "York".
As far as I know, there was still the *possibility* that
Anne might bear another child, but if that failed the Attainder that
barred Edward of Warwick from the throne could be reversed and, of course,
there were the de la Poles. There was even the Mortimer/Neville branch of
the family.
So, while *Richard* may not have had any "hiers of the
body", he most certainly had *legitimate" successors in the Pantagent
line.
What he didn't have was time...
Doug

Doug wrote:"What I was trying get at was that in both Arthur's
and Edward of Lancaster's instances the splendor of the funerals was as much, if
not more, a *political* affair as a religious ceremony. [snip] Seemingly what happened in Edward of
Middleham's case was that the feelings of the *parents* over-ruled protocol with
Richard and Anne viewing Edward's death as the death of their *son*, not the
death of the "Prince of Wales" and they acted accordingly. [snip]Carol responds:One point in favor of that view is that Richard, unlike Edward IV before him and Henry VII after him, did not send his son to Ludlow to be near Wales. He was evidently "son" first and "Prince of Wales" second.Where did you read that Edward of Lancaster had a splendid funeral? I've never read that. In any case, the Lancastrian line was not quite extinct yet because Henry VI was still alive (for a short time). I know that his body was displayed but evidently the funeral and burial place were less than splendid or Richard would not have seen fit to have Henry's body moved to a more appropriate place. (Even that pious action has been read as a propaganda move by those who see all Richard's good actions as hypocrisy.)Carol

A slight diversion. Someone mentioned earlier (I can't find the note now)
that if HT had been married, he would never have been of use as a challenger to
Richard. I had this image of the moment his poor wife realised she was ALL that
stood between MB's man-cub (thank you for that wonderful description, Eileen)
and a shot at the throne. The only sound would have been her heart thudding to
the floor, closely followed by the rest of her.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: justcarol67@...
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 5:47 PM
To:
Subject: RE: "My lord of
Salysbury"

Doug
wrote:
"What I was trying get at was that in both Arthur's
and Edward of Lancaster's instances the splendor of the funerals was as much, if
not more, a *political* affair as a religious ceremony. [snip] Seemingly what happened in Edward of Middleham's case was
that the feelings of the *parents* over-ruled protocol with Richard and Anne
viewing Edward's death as the death of their *son*, not the death of the "Prince
of Wales" and they acted accordingly. [snip]Carol responds:One point
in favor of that view is that Richard, unlike Edward IV before him and Henry VII
after him, did not send his son to Ludlow to be near Wales. He was evidently
"son" first and "Prince of Wales" second.Where did you read that Edward
of Lancaster had a splendid funeral? I've never read that. In any case, the
Lancastrian line was not quite extinct yet because Henry VI was still alive (for
a short time). I know that his body was displayed but evidently the funeral and
burial place were less than splendid or Richard would not have seen fit to have
Henry's body moved to a more appropriate place. (Even that pious action has been
read as a propaganda move by those who see all Richard's good actions as
hypocrisy.)Carol

Sandra, you have such a way with words, I can tell you're a writer!
Liz From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> To: Sent: Saturday, 15 February 2014, 18:27 Subject: Re: RE: "My lord of Salysbury"

A slight diversion. Someone mentioned earlier (I can't find the note now)
that if HT had been married, he would never have been of use as a challenger to
Richard. I had this image of the moment his poor wife realised she was ALL that
stood between MB's man-cub (thank you for that wonderful description, Eileen)
and a shot at the throne. The only sound would have been her heart thudding to
the floor, closely followed by the rest of her.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: justcarol67@...
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 5:47 PM
To:
Subject: RE: "My lord of
Salysbury"
Doug
wrote:
"What I was trying get at was that in both Arthur's
and Edward of Lancaster's instances the splendor of the funerals was as much, if
not more, a *political* affair as a religious ceremony. [snip] Seemingly what happened in Edward of Middleham's case was
that the feelings of the *parents* over-ruled protocol with Richard and Anne
viewing Edward's death as the death of their *son*, not the death of the "Prince
of Wales" and they acted accordingly. [snip]Carol responds:One point
in favor of that view is that Richard, unlike Edward IV before him and Henry VII
after him, did not send his son to Ludlow to be near Wales. He was evidently
"son" first and "Prince of Wales" second.Where did you read that Edward
of Lancaster had a splendid funeral? I've never read that. In any case, the
Lancastrian line was not quite extinct yet because Henry VI was still alive (for
a short time). I know that his body was displayed but evidently the funeral and
burial place were less than splendid or Richard would not have seen fit to have
Henry's body moved to a more appropriate place. (Even that pious action has been
read as a propaganda move by those who see all Richard's good actions as
hypocrisy.)Carol

Lol...a shove in the back down the stairs we goes..a bit like poor Amy Robsart....?

That is grand..... I am missing a lot of email, my spam filter just does not let many things through. But, what I do get is delightful. And the packing routine is wonderful.

On Feb 15, 2014, at 12:28 PM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:


A slight diversion. Someone mentioned earlier (I can't find the note now) that if HT had been married, he would never have been of use as a challenger to Richard. I had this image of the moment his poor wife realised she was ALL that stood between MB's
man-cub (thank you for that wonderful description, Eileen) and a shot at the throne. The only sound would have been her heart thudding to the floor, closely followed by the rest of her.
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
justcarol67@...
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 5:47 PM
To:
Subject: RE: "My lord of Salysbury"

Doug wrote:
"What I was trying get at was that in both Arthur's and Edward of Lancaster's instances the splendor of the funerals was as much, if not more, a *political* affair as a religious ceremony. [snip]
Seemingly what happened in Edward of Middleham's case was that the feelings of the *parents* over-ruled protocol with Richard and Anne viewing Edward's death as the death of their *son*, not the death of the "Prince of Wales" and they acted accordingly. [snip]

Carol responds:
One point in favor of that view is that Richard, unlike Edward IV before him and Henry VII after him, did not send his son to Ludlow to be near Wales. He was evidently "son" first and "Prince of Wales" second.

Where did you read that Edward of Lancaster had a splendid funeral? I've never read that. In any case, the Lancastrian line was not quite extinct yet because Henry VI was still alive (for a short time). I know that his body was displayed but evidently the funeral
and burial place were less than splendid or Richard would not have seen fit to have Henry's body moved to a more appropriate place. (Even that pious action has been read as a propaganda move by those who see all Richard's good actions as hypocrisy.)

Carol

Don't forget to give the servants a day off first
Liz From: "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> To: Sent: Saturday, 15 February 2014, 18:37 Subject: Re: RE: "My lord of Salysbury"

Lol...a shove in the back down the stairs we goes..a bit like poor Amy Robsart....?

And as she lies there, with her hands tied and a dagger in her back, a
suicide note is found . . .
Sandra
=^..^=
From: liz williams
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 7:13 PM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: "My lord of
Salysbury"

Don't forget to give the servants a day off first
Liz
From:
"cherryripe.eileenb@..."
<cherryripe.eileenb@...>To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 February
2014, 18:37Subject: Re:
RE: "My lord of Salysbury"
Lol...a shove in the back down the stairs we goes..a bit like poor
Amy Robsart....?

Sandra wrote:"And as she lies there, with her hands tied and a dagger in her back, a
suicide note is found . . ."Would that note say "RICHARD DID IT", by any chance?Pansy

Can't top that, Pansy! <g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From: pansydobersby
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 7:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: "My lord of
Salysbury"

Sandra wrote:
"And as she lies there, with her hands tied and a dagger in her back, a
suicide note is found . . ."
Would that note say "RICHARD DID IT", by any chance?
Pansy

Stephen wrote:
"The Prince of Wales is always the monarch's (heir
apparent) eldest surviving son, given that no elder deceased sons had surviving
sons, retaining this position for life. Thus Richard II and Henry IV and Richard
III never held the title, but Henry V (1399-1413) and Henry VI (1421) did.
Investiture typically takes place at 21, somewhere like Caernarvon Castle, but
the title can be assumed at birth. The Scottish equivalent is Duke of
Rothesay."
Doug here:
I didn't know that about Henry V and was going by
memory, so thank you very much Stephen! Going by the date, it appears Henry
V became Prince of Wales shortly after his father assumed the
throne. I'm presuming that in making his son Prince of Wales so
quickly, Henry IV was telling the world that he (Henry IV) had the throne, was
going to keep the throne and, most importantly, going to pass the throne on to
*his* son?
Or am I reading too much into Henry's
actions?
Doug

Succession to this title is automatic,
although the ceremony often follows many years later.

From:
[mailto: ]
On Behalf Of Douglas Eugene
Stamate
Sent: 16 February 2014 16:44
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] "My lord of Salysbury"


Stephen wrote:
"The Prince of Wales is always the monarch's (heir
apparent) eldest surviving son, given that no elder deceased sons had surviving
sons, retaining this position for life. Thus Richard II and Henry IV and
Richard III never held the title, but Henry V (1399-1413) and Henry VI (1421)
did. Investiture typically takes place at 21, somewhere like
Caernarvon Castle ,
but the title can be assumed at birth. The Scottish equivalent is Duke of
Rothesay."

Doug here:
I didn't know that about Henry V and was going by memory, so
thank you very much Stephen! Going by the date, it appears Henry
V became Prince of Wales shortly after his father assumed the
throne. I'm presuming that in making his son Prince of Wales so
quickly, Henry IV was telling the world that he (Henry IV) had the throne, was
going to keep the throne and, most importantly, going to pass the throne on to
*his* son?
Or am I reading too much into Henry's actions?
Doug

If you set your emails for the group to Digest, you'll get everything and it won't go into the trash. ~Weds ---In , <pbain@...> wrote:That is grand..... I am missing a lot of email, my spam filter just does not let many things through.

Thank you……I hate to miss anything!

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
wednesday.mac@...
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:49 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: "My lord of Salysbury"



If you set your emails for the group to Digest, you'll get everything and it won't go into the trash.

~Weds


---In , <pbain@...> wrote:
That is grand..... I am missing a lot of email, my spam filter just does not let many things through.

Hilary wrote:
//snip//
So my point is Doug that the Prince of Wales, the
true monarch designate, is/was a very, very important person and would/should
have had a funeral to match."
Doug here:
Well, it appears to me that *at that point in
time*, Edward being invested as Prince of Wales would have been Richard acting
much as Henry IV had with *his* son (and a "Thank you!" to Stephen for that bit
of information) - a statement that Richard *was* King, intended to remain King
and planned/hoped to pass the throne to his son. IOW, Richard wasn't "keeping the throne warm" for his *nephew*
Edward, he was intending to pass it on to his *son* Edward.
Then when Edward died (and quite unexpectedly, as
well) it appears, to me anyway, that what occurred was that Richard
allowed his grief *as a parent* to overcome the ceremonial norms, with
the result that a funeral was held for "Edward of Middleham, beloved son" vice
"Edward, Prince of Wales, beloved son *and heir*."
To jump ahead a bit (and hopefully help explain
what I mean), when Anne died and was given a state funeral, she was,
I believe, an annointed Queen who, *besides*
being Richard's "beloved wife," had carried out the duties that went with
being Queen. Edward, OTOH, had, almost literally, just been invested as "Prince
of Wales" and while his being heir to throne was an important position in and of
itself, that was the sum total of his activities as Prince of Wales: being
alive. And when he died, not even having done anything ceremonial as "Prince of
Wales" (please correct me if I'm mistaken on that), it allowed his parents to
treat the calamity that his death was as solely *personal* and not as having
anything to do with Edward as "Prince of Wales."
If my surmises are anywhere near being accurate,
and as his parents couldn't attend, Richard and Anne may very well have wanted
for those attending the funeral to be the people Edward had grown up among and
spent his short time on Earth with. Which is something I can readily see them
doing, as one thing that stands out about both of them was a sense of
empathy for others. So, rather than mourners who hadn't even met Edward and only
attended the funeral because they *had* to, it was better that those who *had*
known him be his mourners.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that yes, as a
matter of state, Edward, as heir to the throne, *should* have had a funeral
attended by the VIPs of government and church, but Richard (and Anne?), for
whatever reason/s (*possibly* those I've given), decided otherwise.
Treating Edward's funeral as a private, family
matter could also explain why so little is known about Edward's funeral and
final resting place: because those VIPs *weren't*
involved, The VIPs didn't have to travel north to wherever the funeral was
held and, as everyone knows, if VIPs don't attend something, it's not worth
noting! The lack of "VIP" involvement could also explain why little,
if any, note of where Edward was buried was taken "down south."
Finally, because the funeral was a quiet affair, it originally may only
have been written down in one or two places - and between mice and the need for
tinder...
Doug
(who sincerely hopes he's made his thoughts clearer
and hasn't just run on...)

I do see what you're getting at Doug, but I still cannot believe that
Richard would do as you suggest. There was some other reason for the absence of
a full-blown funeral with all the VIPs. Richard was King of England, his son was
the Prince of Wales. Full stop. I'm sure it just wouldn't happen that, because
Edward of Middleham was only' a ten-year-old boy, his passing would be private.
If there was a quiet, almost surreptitious funeral, there was a pressing reason
that hasn't come down to us over the centuries. There is a missing link here,
and I would dearly like to know what it is. Well, so would we all, of course. As
to what that link might have been, I'm sure you don't want to hear more from my
grey cells, so I'll be quiet.
Just one thing (sorry). What reasons would usually require a very swift
burial? The frightening onset of some horrific and immediately fatal disease?
Witchcraft? Whatever, I am sure that when Richard's realm was at peace, he would
have reburied his beloved child in a fitting manner. He always seems to have
shown remarkable respect for the safety and religious comfort of the dead. into
eternity. He would certainly do the same for his own son.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:33 PM
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate
Subject: "My lord of
Salysbury"

Hilary wrote:
//snip//
So my point is Doug that the Prince of Wales, the
true monarch designate, is/was a very, very important person and would/should
have had a funeral to match."
Doug here:
Well, it appears to me that *at that point in
time*, Edward being invested as Prince of Wales would have been Richard acting
much as Henry IV had with *his* son (and a "Thank you!" to Stephen for that bit
of information) - a statement that Richard *was* King, intended to remain King
and planned/hoped to pass the throne to his son. IOW, Richard wasn't "keeping the throne warm" for his *nephew*
Edward, he was intending to pass it on to his *son* Edward.
Then when Edward died (and quite unexpectedly, as
well) it appears, to me anyway, that what occurred was that Richard allowed his
grief *as a parent* to overcome the ceremonial norms, with the result that a
funeral was held for "Edward of Middleham, beloved son" vice "Edward, Prince of
Wales, beloved son *and heir*."
To jump ahead a bit (and hopefully help explain
what I mean), when Anne died and was given a state funeral, she was,
I believe, an annointed Queen who, *besides*
being Richard's "beloved wife," had carried out the duties that went with being
Queen. Edward, OTOH, had, almost literally, just been invested as "Prince of
Wales" and while his being heir to throne was an important position in and of
itself, that was the sum total of his activities as Prince of Wales: being
alive. And when he died, not even having done anything ceremonial as "Prince of
Wales" (please correct me if I'm mistaken on that), it allowed his parents to
treat the calamity that his death was as solely *personal* and not as having
anything to do with Edward as "Prince of Wales."
If my surmises are anywhere near being accurate,
and as his parents couldn't attend, Richard and Anne may very well have wanted
for those attending the funeral to be the people Edward had grown up among and
spent his short time on Earth with. Which is something I can readily see them
doing, as one thing that stands out about both of them was a sense of empathy
for others. So, rather than mourners who hadn't even met Edward and only
attended the funeral because they *had* to, it was better that those who *had*
known him be his mourners.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that yes, as a
matter of state, Edward, as heir to the throne, *should* have had a funeral
attended by the VIPs of government and church, but Richard (and Anne?), for
whatever reason/s (*possibly* those I've given), decided otherwise.
Treating Edward's funeral as a private, family
matter could also explain why so little is known about Edward's funeral and
final resting place: because those VIPs *weren't*
involved, The VIPs didn't have to travel north to wherever the funeral was held
and, as everyone knows, if VIPs don't attend something, it's not worth noting!
The lack of "VIP" involvement could also explain why little, if any, note of
where Edward was buried was taken "down south." Finally, because the funeral was
a quiet affair, it originally may only have been written down in one or two
places - and between mice and the need for tinder...
Doug
(who sincerely hopes he's made his thoughts clearer
and hasn't just run on...)

I love your comments about VIPs - I suppose the most important VIP Buckingham had already 'passed on'. If you take Edward V as a 'typical' child Prince of Wales, he did little ceremonial either, even though cities like Coventry wrote to him. The replies would actually come from his Uncle Rivers, his guardian at Ludlow. The ceremonial bit of the Prince of Wales's duties seem to have come from George V and the House of Windsor, eager to imbed themselves into the national conciousness and inventing medieval-style ceremonies. There was a good programme about that a while back. Other than that a grown up Prince of Wales would fight for their father - the Black Prince, Henry V at Shrewsbury but HenryV as Prince of Wales was no Prince Hal. In fact he and his
father were in disagreement for some time and he as good as set up a rival faction.Edward of Middleham's burial still remains a mystery to me. I can't for a moment think that York wouldn't have sent a deputation - we have great detail about how they arrayed themselves for his investiture and if you can send barrels of wine to him I don't see why you can't despatch half a dozen Aldermen to his funeral. Perhaps by misfortune rather than design the York House papers got lost? H On Sunday, 16 February 2014, 18:33, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Hilary wrote:
//snip//
So my point is Doug that the Prince of Wales, the
true monarch designate, is/was a very, very important person and would/should
have had a funeral to match."
Doug here:
Well, it appears to me that *at that point in
time*, Edward being invested as Prince of Wales would have been Richard acting
much as Henry IV had with *his* son (and a "Thank you!" to Stephen for that bit
of information) - a statement that Richard *was* King, intended to remain King
and planned/hoped to pass the throne to his son. IOW, Richard wasn't "keeping the throne warm" for his *nephew*
Edward, he was intending to pass it on to his *son* Edward.
Then when Edward died (and quite unexpectedly, as
well) it appears, to me anyway, that what occurred was that Richard
allowed his grief *as a parent* to overcome the ceremonial norms, with
the result that a funeral was held for "Edward of Middleham, beloved son" vice
"Edward, Prince of Wales, beloved son *and heir*."
To jump ahead a bit (and hopefully help explain
what I mean), when Anne died and was given a state funeral, she was,
I believe, an annointed Queen who, *besides*
being Richard's "beloved wife," had carried out the duties that went with
being Queen. Edward, OTOH, had, almost literally, just been invested as "Prince
of Wales" and while his being heir to throne was an important position in and of
itself, that was the sum total of his activities as Prince of Wales: being
alive. And when he died, not even having done anything ceremonial as "Prince of
Wales" (please correct me if I'm mistaken on that), it allowed his parents to
treat the calamity that his death was as solely *personal* and not as having
anything to do with Edward as "Prince of Wales."
If my surmises are anywhere near being accurate,
and as his parents couldn't attend, Richard and Anne may very well have wanted
for those attending the funeral to be the people Edward had grown up among and
spent his short time on Earth with. Which is something I can readily see them
doing, as one thing that stands out about both of them was a sense of
empathy for others. So, rather than mourners who hadn't even met Edward and only
attended the funeral because they *had* to, it was better that those who *had*
known him be his mourners.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that yes, as a
matter of state, Edward, as heir to the throne, *should* have had a funeral
attended by the VIPs of government and church, but Richard (and Anne?), for
whatever reason/s (*possibly* those I've given), decided otherwise.
Treating Edward's funeral as a private, family
matter could also explain why so little is known about Edward's funeral and
final resting place: because those VIPs *weren't*
involved, The VIPs didn't have to travel north to wherever the funeral was
held and, as everyone knows, if VIPs don't attend something, it's not worth
noting! The lack of "VIP" involvement could also explain why little,
if any, note of where Edward was buried was taken "down south."
Finally, because the funeral was a quiet affair, it originally may only
have been written down in one or two places - and between mice and the need for
tinder...
Doug
(who sincerely hopes he's made his thoughts clearer
and hasn't just run on...)

Stephen wrote:
"Succession to the title is automatic, although the
ceremony often follows many years later."
Doug here:
Thank you again! I hadn't known the title was
automatically used, but rather had to be proclaimed seperately.
Doug

See my reply about the Windsors Doug. H On Monday, 17 February 2014, 14:23, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Stephen wrote:
"Succession to the title is automatic, although the
ceremony often follows many years later."
Doug here:
Thank you again! I hadn't known the title was
automatically used, but rather had to be proclaimed seperately.
Doug

Sandra wrote:
//snip//
Whatever, I am sure that when Richard's realm was
at peace, he would have reburied his beloved child in a fitting
manner."
??snip??
Doug here:
May what you've written above answer the
question about the, apparently very, low-key services for Edward? For example,
we know that Richard and Anne, even if there'd been a magnificent funeral
couldn't have attended, but would that non-attendance rule also apply to a
re-interment?
Doug

Doug wrote:"May what you've written above answer the
question about the, apparently very, low-key services for Edward? For example,
we know that Richard and Anne, even if there'd been a magnificent funeral
couldn't have attended, but would that non-attendance rule also apply to a
re-interment?Doug"When did the whole 'royalty not attending funerals' thing start, anyway? How much documentation do we have of earlier funerals? I always thought it was a Tudor thing, but I don't know where I got that idea - I've certainly never looked into it properly.The King, the Queen et al. were present at the re-interment of Richard, Duke of York, that much I do know... Richard himself was in the procession following his father's corpse from Pontefract to Fotheringhay.Pansy

Strictly speaking, the reinterment was not a funeral, so I guess it was acceptable for the King and Queen to be present. From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
Doug wrote:"May what you've written above answer the
question about the, apparently very, low-key services for Edward? For example,
we know that Richard and Anne, even if there'd been a magnificent funeral
couldn't have attended, but would that non-attendance rule also apply to a
re-interment?Doug"When did the whole 'royalty not attending funerals' thing start, anyway? How much documentation do we have of earlier funerals? I always thought it was a Tudor thing, but I don't know where I got that idea - I've certainly never looked into it properly.The King, the Queen et al. were present at the re-interment of Richard, Duke of York, that much I do know... Richard himself was in the procession following his father's corpse from Pontefract to Fotheringhay.Pansy

Jan here.
I've been looking at
the Royal Funerals of the House of York at Windsor again. Long post, apologies!
There are 2 funerals of interest
mentioned that could be relevant to EOM's burial, the funerals of 2 children of
E4. The king's son George died, probably
at Sheen, aged 2 in 1479 & his daughter Mary, aged 14, at Greenwich in 1482.
George's funeral was attended by a small but significant
group of relatives, members of the royal households of the king & queen,
& several bishops & nobles who were presumably available at court at
the time of the child's death. There isn't much documentary evidence apart
from the accounts of Piers Curteys, in charge of E5's great wardrobe. There's no mention of the king or queen being
present. There were 6 noble mourners in
black, including Thomas Marquess of Dorset & Anthony, Earl Rivers [chief
mourner?]. The royal chapel would have
provided 4 chaplains & 6 gentlemen-singers.
I count 18 other named people.
The bishops include Morton of Ely, Master of the Rolls of Chancery &
Russell of Rochester, Keeper of the Privy Seal.
There were 5 Kings of Arms, one herald & Scales Pursuivant for Earl
Rivers. 8 servants & the child's
chaplain Robert Warde went too. There
were 30 torch bearers & about 120 cloth & paper escutcheons. There was a man at arms in complete harness
on a horse carrying George's ceremonial helmet & shield. The coffin was draped in a black cloth with a
white cross on it.
Mary's funeral was attended by
Bishop Goldwell of Norwich & the bishop of Chichester. There was the dean of Windsor, the queen's
chamberlain & Robert Morton, Master of the Rolls. There were plenty of women, headed by Jane
Woodville, widowed Lady Grey of Ruthin, mostly relatives of the queen, &
the Lady Mistress of the dead princess, possibly Joan, Lady Dacre. There are details of the route to Windsor,
with processions coming from parish churches en route to pay respects & go
with the cortege until the next parish took over. They would have been notified in
advance. When the funeral arrived at
Windsor it was met by the mayor & his brethren & a group of maidens in
white holding candles, probably one for each year of the dead princess's
life. All the ladies attending the
funeral had dinner before the burial  next to George. The chief mourner is not named but would have
been a woman.
These funerals were supposed to
be written up by heralds but it seems the heralds were not much interested in
Mary's funeral. The heralds' account for
George hasn't survived, but I imagine accounts were kept & that those
responsible for organising funeral rites for EOM as Prince of Wales would have
known of them. R3 paid attention to their roles, after all. Whether the staff at Middleham had access
to them or not, there must have been local dignitaries, members of EOM's
household including a herald, possibly his grandmother with her attendants, &
chaplains & singers, either from the castle or St Alkelda's or Coverham
Abbey, available to conduct a solemn rite.
Except there's no surviving evidence.
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> To: "" <> Sent: Monday, 17 February 2014, 15:03 Subject: Re: RE: "My lord of Salysbury"
Strictly speaking, the reinterment was not a funeral, so I guess it was acceptable for the King and Queen to be present. From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
Doug wrote:"May what you've written above answer the
question about the, apparently very, low-key services for Edward? For example,
we know that Richard and Anne, even if there'd been a magnificent funeral
couldn't have attended, but would that non-attendance rule also apply to a
re-interment?Doug"When did the whole 'royalty not attending funerals' thing start, anyway? How much documentation do we have of earlier funerals? I always thought it was a Tudor thing, but I don't know where I got that idea - I've certainly never looked into it properly.The King, the Queen et al. were present at the re-interment of Richard, Duke of York, that much I do know... Richard himself was in the procession following his father's corpse from Pontefract to Fotheringhay.Pansy