Micklegate Bar

Richard III museum at Micklegate Bar to be turned into a museum about Henry Tudor!! Dorothy Mitchell will come back and haunt them. How dare they turn the Friends of Richard III museum into a shrine to the Weasel.Dorothy and the Friends worked very hard to keep it going.

What? Richard's museum turned over to Tudor! (I met Dorothy in the early 1980s, and we corresponded for a time. She generously drove a friend and me to Middleham, one afternoon, and we chattered like school girls. Knowing her devotion, she would be thoroughly appalled.)
Does anyone know exactly Why this is happening?
Judy Loyaulte me lie

On Monday, February 24, 2014 6:50 PM, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:
Richard III museum at Micklegate Bar to be turned into a museum about Henry Tudor!! Dorothy Mitchell will come back and haunt them. How dare they turn the Friends of Richard III museum into a shrine to the Weasel.Dorothy and the Friends worked very hard to keep it going.

Here's more. http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11032017.New_museum_plans_for_York/?ref=rss Sandra =^..^= From: Judy Thomson Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 3:27 AM To: Subject: Re: Micklegate Bar

What? Richard's museum turned over to Tudor! (I met Dorothy in the early 1980s, and we corresponded for a time. She generously drove a friend and me to Middleham, one afternoon, and we chattered like school girls. Knowing her devotion, she would be thoroughly appalled.)
Does anyone know exactly Why this is happening?
Judy Loyaulte me lie

On Monday, February 24, 2014 6:50 PM, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:
Richard III museum at Micklegate Bar to be turned into a museum about Henry Tudor!! Dorothy Mitchell will come back and haunt them. How dare they turn the Friends of Richard III museum into a shrine to the Weasel. Dorothy and the Friends worked very hard to keep it going.

Hi all The Richard III Museum is at Monk Bar, rather than Micklegate. Apparently the Museum is being taken over by the York Archaeological Trust, which is going to revamp it, and then will create a Henry Museum at Micklegate as well. I think the idea is to improve the Richard one, not close it... http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11032017.New_museum_plans_for_York/?ref=rss Personally, I think that turning the Micklegate museum - where York's head was mounted after Wakefield - into somehting with a focus on the Wars of the Roses would be more interesting than covering Henry VII, and weuld attract more interest than the rather dour monarch, but you never know.... Janet

On Tuesday, 25 February 2014, 3:28, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
What? Richard's museum turned over to Tudor! (I met Dorothy in the early 1980s, and we corresponded for a time. She generously drove a friend and me to Middleham, one afternoon, and we chattered like school girls. Knowing her devotion, she would be thoroughly appalled.)
Does anyone know exactly Why this is happening?
Judy Loyaulte me lie

On Monday, February 24, 2014 6:50 PM, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:
Richard III museum at Micklegate Bar to be turned into a museum about Henry Tudor!! Dorothy Mitchell will come back and haunt them. How dare they turn the Friends of Richard III museum into a shrine to the Weasel.Dorothy and the Friends worked very hard to keep it going.

I met Dorothy in the early 1990s. She would be appalled

Why on earth would they do that.....it's potty....what links does HT have with York? Honestly you couldn't make it up......Eileen

That is a terrible thing to happen, and why?
On Feb 24, 2014, at 9:27 PM, "Judy Thomson" <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

What? Richard's museum turned over to Tudor! (I met Dorothy in the early 1980s, and we corresponded for a time. She generously drove a friend and me to Middleham, one afternoon, and we chattered like school girls. Knowing her devotion, she would be thoroughly appalled.)
Does anyone know exactly Why this is happening?
Judy Loyaulte me lie

On Monday, February 24, 2014 6:50 PM, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:
Richard III museum at Micklegate Bar to be turned into a museum about Henry Tudor!! Dorothy Mitchell will come back and haunt them. How dare they turn the Friends of Richard III museum into a shrine to the Weasel. Dorothy and the Friends worked very hard to keep it going.

Mike Bennet who established and ran the museum since 1992 has had to retire - so YAT have taken over the Monk Bar museum to make sure it stays open and dedicated to Richard III. As they already own Micklegate Bar they had the idea to establish a Tudor experience there to complement Monk Bar, and also medieval Barley Hall in the city which they also run.Monk Bar museum is currently shut for a few weeks while YAT revamp and update it. Due to open early April around Easter.

Well, perhaps if they can get Thomas Penn to write the pamphlet, etc., it might be worth it....
Judy Loyaulte me lie

On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 8:28 AM, kcflet <[email protected]> wrote:
Mike Bennet who established and ran the museum since 1992 has had to retire - so YAT have taken over the Monk Bar museum to make sure it stays open and dedicated to Richard III. As they already own Micklegate Bar they had the idea to establish a Tudor experience there to complement Monk Bar, and also medieval Barley Hall in the city which they also run.Monk Bar museum is currently shut for a few weeks while YAT revamp and update it. Due to open early April around Easter.

Seems fairly harmless to me and will probably improve the Monk Bar museum. No point in getting hung up on nomenclature. It sounds like they're merely using two sites to provide complementary pictures of York in the late medieval period under the Plantagenets at Monk Bar and the Tudors at Micklegate.

I don't think this is indicative of a sudden surge in popularity for Mr Tudor - in fact, from his perspective, it's likely to be a perfect illustration of the phrase "comparisons are odious".

Jonathan


From: kcflet <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 February 2014, 14:28
Subject: Re: Micklegate Bar

Mike Bennet who established and ran the museum since 1992 has had to retire - so YAT have taken over the Monk Bar museum to make sure it stays open and dedicated to Richard III. As they already own Micklegate Bar they had the idea to establish a Tudor experience there to complement Monk Bar, and also medieval Barley Hall in the city which they also run.Monk Bar museum is currently shut for a few weeks while YAT revamp and update it. Due to open early April around Easter.

Mary, I have some photos of Dorothy, taken while we spent two wonderful days together. I'll look for these... Such great memories. She got us into all sorts of "private" places.
We were later joined by a delighted young Australian Ricardian named Edgar who sent me a beautiful embroidered boar badge. I lost his address, somehow, and I've always wondered what became of him. Not recalling his last name, I can't locate him, alas! But I'm sure he'd feel similar outrage.
Judy Loyaulte me lie

On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:21 AM, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:
I met Dorothy in the early 1990s. She would be appalled

Hope you're right, Jonathan. I'm quite serious that Prof. Penn be contacted to provide the written materials for such a museum...and not - heaven forfend - someone like Weir!
Judy Loyaulte me lie

On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 8:44 AM, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
Seems fairly harmless to me and will probably improve the Monk Bar museum. No point in getting hung up on nomenclature. It sounds like they're merely using two sites to provide complementary pictures of York in the late medieval period under the Plantagenets at Monk Bar and the Tudors at Micklegate.

I don't think this is indicative of a sudden surge in popularity for Mr Tudor - in fact, from his perspective, it's likely to be a perfect illustration of the phrase "comparisons are odious".

Jonathan


From: kcflet <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 February 2014, 14:28
Subject: Re: Micklegate Bar

Mike Bennet who established and ran the museum since 1992 has had to retire - so YAT have taken over the Monk Bar museum to make sure it stays open and dedicated to Richard III. As they already own Micklegate Bar they had the idea to establish a Tudor experience there to complement Monk Bar, and also medieval Barley Hall in the city which they also run.Monk Bar museum is currently shut for a few weeks while YAT revamp and update it. Due to open early April around Easter.

I second that!

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Micklegate Bar
Sent: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 2:53:53 PM

 

Hope you're right, Jonathan. I'm quite serious that Prof. Penn be contacted to provide the written materials for such a museum...and not - heaven forfend - someone like Weir!
Judy Loyaulte me lie

On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 8:44 AM, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
  Seems fairly harmless to me and will probably improve the Monk Bar museum.  No point in getting hung up on nomenclature.  It sounds like they're merely using two sites to provide complementary pictures of York in the late medieval period under the Plantagenets at Monk Bar and the Tudors at Micklegate.

I don't think this is indicative of a sudden surge in popularity for Mr Tudor - in fact, from his perspective, it's likely to be a perfect illustration of the phrase "comparisons are odious".

Jonathan


From: kcflet <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 February 2014, 14:28
Subject: Re: Micklegate Bar

  Mike Bennet who established and ran the museum since 1992 has had to retire - so YAT have taken over the Monk Bar museum to make sure it stays open and dedicated to Richard III. As they already own Micklegate Bar they had the idea to establish a Tudor experience there to complement Monk Bar, and also medieval Barley Hall in the city which they also run.Monk Bar museum is currently shut for a few weeks while YAT revamp and update it. Due to open early April around Easter.

She was so dedicated to the Ricardian cause. I found a photograph of her taken when the Friends presented a chalice in memory of Richard to York Minster. Dorothy also spent a day showing us around York, including the Minster, what was left of the Augustinian Friars and of course the Micklegate Bar Richard III museum.

Yikes...a chill run right down my spine at the thought of that....what a nightmare...:0/

I should probably have added that my message is in reply to Judy's and the thought of Weir's involvement....Eileen

As was mine!

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: cherryripe.eileenb@... <cherryripe.eileenb@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Micklegate Bar
Sent: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 5:10:05 PM

 

I should probably have added that my message is in reply to Judy's and the thought of Weir's involvement....Eileen 

One word disgusted. I have visited it often. Bought many books there too including Annette's

Sent from my iPhone
On 25 Feb 2014, at 14:44, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

Seems fairly harmless to me and will probably improve the Monk Bar museum. No point in getting hung up on nomenclature. It sounds like they're merely using two sites to provide complementary pictures of York in the late medieval period under the Plantagenets at Monk Bar and the Tudors at Micklegate.

I don't think this is indicative of a sudden surge in popularity for Mr Tudor - in fact, from his perspective, it's likely to be a perfect illustration of the phrase "comparisons are odious".

Jonathan


From: kcflet <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 February 2014, 14:28
Subject: Re: Micklegate Bar

Mike Bennet who established and ran the museum since 1992 has had to retire - so YAT have taken over the Monk Bar museum to make sure it stays open and dedicated to Richard III. As they already own Micklegate Bar they had the idea to establish a Tudor experience there to complement Monk Bar, and also medieval Barley Hall in the city which they also run.Monk Bar museum is currently shut for a few weeks while YAT revamp and update it. Due to open early April around Easter.

Perhaps they will show in the Micklegate museum how York played fast and loose with Tudor.

Hi Coral,
I haven't been to the museum but I do agree with you and everyone who is upset about this,perhaps it may need renovating slightly but surely it should remain a museum for Richard III. Dorothy,the lady who ran the museum, sounds such a lovely person and a dedicated Richardian.It would be more appropriate if there was an other place for a museum about the Tudors.
Kathryn x

It IS staying as a Richard III Museum . The Henry “Tudor” Museum will be in Monk Bar ie another place.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of kathryng56@...
Sent: 01 March 2014 11:54
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Micklegate Bar

Hi Coral,
I haven't been to the museum but I do agree with you and everyone who is upset about this,perhaps it may need renovating slightly but surely it should remain a museum for Richard III. Dorothy,the lady who ran the museum, sounds such a lovely person and a dedicated Richardian.It would be more appropriate if there was an other place for a museum about the Tudors.
Kathryn x

Hi Stephen,
Thanks for this information. I'm sorry I must be and am completely confused.I know there are two museums one at Mickle Gate and one at Monk Bar.One previously run by a gentleman and the other a lady named Dorothy.The museum I'm refering to is the one belonging to Dorothy which I thought was being turned into a museum about the Tudors.And thought was at Mickle Gate.Thank you for clarifying this.If the museum that belonged to Dorothy is being turned into a museum for the Tudors I am very upset for her and nher memory.The same if it's the gentleman who's retiring.Both should remain museums for Richard and his times and the Tudor museum placed somewhere else.Just my thoughts.
Kathryn x

Kathryn wrote: <snip> Both should remain museums for Richard and his times and the Tudor museum placed somewhere else. Sandra: Perhaps a corner of the high-slung bottoms of Zob? (For those who don't know what the heck I'm talking about, it's a quote from British comedy TV series called Blackadder, and seems to indicate somewhere very, very far away.) =^..^=

Hi Sandra,
Can just see Rowan Atkinson saying it now ! I think the Richard III museum will be more popular. x
Kathryn x

Stephen, in the press report it said Monk Bar was being renovated and Micklegate was going to be dedicated to H Tudor.

I just want to clarify this.
There has only ever been one Richard III Museum in York - the one at Monk Bar set up by Mike Bennet in 1992. This has now been taken over by the York Archaeological Trust who are keeping it as focussing on Richard but updating the interior.(I do believe Dorothy Mitchell helped with some fund raising to initially open it)
Micklegate Bar concentrated on the numerous conflict in and around the city from Viking to Civil War and featured the Wars of The Roses (it was the bar where heads were displayed - such as Richard Duke of York and Edmund of Rutland following the Battle of Wakefield). YAT have owned this since 2010. This is the one which will relate to Henry VII.

I remember visiting Micklegate Bar with Dorothy Mitchell during a Branch weekend in York in the 1990s. It is a while ago but I remember that there were two floors dedicated to possibly the WOTR in general but Richard in particular. There was a large boar banner and a large poster featuring a picture of Richard. I don't remember anything about other periods of history.

I don't really get the point of a Henry VII museum in York, of all places. Wouldn't a Wars of the Roses museum make more sense? Much more interesting and varied - and locally relevant - subject matter, anyway.
But that's just me, speaking as a non-native of York ;)
Pansy

My thoughts exactly - just what on earth has Tudor got to do with York ? It seems to be to be a completely stupid idea and I hope the people of York boycott it. When I get to York I won't waste a penny on it. Liz
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 3 March 2014, 19:46
Subject: RE: Micklegate Bar



I don't really get the point of a Henry VII museum in York, of all places. Wouldn't a Wars of the Roses museum make more sense? Much more interesting and varied - and locally relevant - subject matter, anyway.
But that's just me, speaking as a non-native of York ;)
Pansy

Liz...I so thoroughly agree with you....it's just baffling really.....I really don't know who dream some of this crap up I really don't..,,Eileen

Monkbar had the boar banner (actually it had a couple) and many pictures/posters of Richard. Not Micklegate bar.

There were definitely two floors dedicated to Richard and the Yorkists at Micklegate Bar in the 1990s. It was run by the Friends of Richard III. I will check with my Branch Secretary because she took photographs and I will check to see if she still has them. We were taken there by Dorothy Mitchell of the Friends of Richard111. We were there for the York R3 Society Banquet.

Liz wrote: "My thoughts exactly - just what on earth has Tudor got to do with York? It seems to be a completely stupid idea and I hope the people of York boycott it. When I get to York I won't wste a penny on it." Doug here: I would tend to think it's more to catch some of the tourist trade. After all, there must be *some* non-Ricardians out there and why shouldn't they spend some money in YorK? Plus there's the idea I support that the *only* reason Stanley was able to carry out his charge was because Northumberland, a northerner, (wasn't he also a Percy?) disobeyed his orders to move into position to check exactly what *did* happen. Doug who also fully recognizes the possibility Northumberland was a completely incompetent military leader - but still...

Doug, I also have another theory about Northumberland. In Michael K Jones battle scenario if you look at his plan of the battlefield Northumberland is guarding the road to London. What if Richard had told him to guard it come what may. When Henry won, Northumberland wouldn't have had a lot of choice but to go along with the usurper or suffer the same fate as Catesby. Just a theory.

I have looked at the Friends website and they say that one of their successes was the Richard 111 museums at Monkbar and Micklegate Bar.
Mary

Mary wrote: "Doug, I also have another theory about Northumberland. In Michael K. Jones' battle scenario if you look at his plan of the battelfield Northumberland is guarding the road to London. What if Richard had told him to guard it come what may. When Henry won, Northumberland wouldn't have had a lot of choice but to go along with the usurper or suffer the same fate as Cateby. Just a theory." Doug here: Unfortunately, that's all we have to go on - theories. The problem with explaining away Northumberland's, um, "inaction" by having him guard the road to London "come what may" is that it makes no sense militarily. Most medieval armies, once engaged, didn't "retreat", they (if they were lucky) scattered and ran for safety, unless they were cut down *as* they ran. A highly-trained, *professional* army *might* be able to carry out a retreat immediately after a battle without losing all of its cohesion, but I have no recollection of that ever occurring with what were basically feudal levies. Especially when it could be expected that the enemy would be chasing after the defeated forces. It *would* make sense for Richard to have Northumberland guard the London Road *until* a decision was made on whether or not engage Tudor's forces, because until that decision was made a retreat *was* possible - screened by whatever calvary Richrd possessed. However, once a decision was made to fight, then there was no need to continue Northumberland in his role as "gatekeeper" for the London Road. Friendly troops coming to join Richard would be able to push past Stanley, should he decide to move behind Richard's forces or, at the very least, distract Stanley from the fighting between Richard's troops and Tudor's. Once the decision to fight was made, however, the emphasis shifted from keeping a retreat route open to blocking Stanley from interfering and I find it all but impossible to believe that, between Richard and Norfolk, the only militarily sound use of Northumberland; ie, his being used as a check on Stanley, wasn't taken. Or at least planned. The fact that Stanley's men were mounted and (most?all?) Northumberland's weren't still wouldn't have prevented the latter from blunting any effect Stanley's charge would have had - *if* Stanley, faced with a body of men *in close proximity* to both him *and* the battle, decided to go ahead with that charge. It may very well have been that Richard, immediately prior to *his* charge into the battle, gave orders that Northumberland was to move closer to the fighting and Northumberland simply didn't move his troops quickly enough for them to act as the intended check on Stanley. The problem with *that* scenario is that there was plenty of time *before* the battle commenced for Richard to place all of his troops exactly where he wanted them. As I've said before, and as shown by his actions during the battle, he obviously had no intention of retreating, so there was no need to guard the London Road to protect his best avenue of retreat. Basically my position is: There was more than enough time for Northumberland to be moved into *his* position to serve as a check on Stanley's actions *before* the battle ever started and certainly before Richard entered it. There was no need to guard the London Road as retreat wasn't considered an option. So why *didn't* the presence of Northumberland's troops deter Stanley? Doug

Eileen wrote :

Why on earth would they do that.....it's potty....what links does HT have with York? Honestly you couldn't make it up......Eileen

Carol responds:

I can see a Henry VI (or Margaret of Anjou) exhibit there. Or how about Richard Duke of York? Not famous enough, I suppose, but if people learned what happened to his head . . . .

Carol (T)

Doug wrote:
Basically my position is: There was more than enough time for
Northumberland to be moved into *his* position to serve as a check on
Stanley's actions *before* the battle ever started and certainly
before Richard entered it. There was no need to guard the London Road
as retreat wasn't considered an option.

So why *didn't* the presence of Northumberland's troops deter Stanley?


Weds writes:
Lessee....

1. We know that Henry Tudor wrote Northumberland asking Northy to help
the Tydder to get himself a wife (and not Elizabeth of York). So the
Tydder and Northy were at the very least writing buddies. (I mean, an
exiled nobody doesn't write an earl, saying, "Hey, I wanted to marry
your wife, but since you went and married her, d'y think you could
hook me up with somebody else?" unless one has been, at the very
least, previous penpals with said earl.)

2. Stanley's wife was mummy to the Tydder. When she learned of what
her Most Precious and Beloved Son was up to (writing to Northy
directly and asking for him to act as marriage broker while she's
trying to broker him a marriage with bastardy royalty???) she Did Not
Approve. Only a Pretty Blonde Yorkie Princess was good enough for
Her-Son-Magically-The-Rightful-King-Before-Bosworth. So Mummy Beaufort
ixnayed the "pleez to help me get a wife okay thanx bye" plea.

3. I'd venture that both Stanleys (i.e., Sir-Willie-the-Betrayer and
Willie's brother
Lord-Tommy-Stanley-Who-May-or-May-Not-Have-Been-At-Bosworth) **and
Northie** knew that Mummy Beaufort wanted
Her-Son-Magically-The-Rightful-King-Before-Bosworth to be
The-Official-Usurping-Conquesty-King-After-Bosworth-Hooray-For-Rented-French-Troops!
I mean, can't you see Lord Tommy telling Northie, "Heigh ho, would you
be so kind as to ignore that frantic 'I wants me a bride' letter from
the boy oversea? My lady-wife and I have promised to get him a kingdom
instead. Thenk yew, we'll be sure to see that little Harry grants you
the coveted Lordship of the North for your troubles, eh?"

4. So, basically, my position is that the presence of Northumberland's
troops didn't deter Sir William Stanley because he knew ahead of time
that the earl wouldn't come in against him. (Yes, yes, I know the
Tydder briefly imprisoned Northumberland after Bosworth. I've always
thought that may have been because Northumberland didn't courageously
and joyfully gallop forth and join the attack against
The-Rightful-Anointed-King.

Standing and watching? Not so much the supporty.


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

Weds, you need to write a book!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesdaymac .
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 2:17 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Micklegate Bar

Doug wrote:
Basically my position is: There was more than enough time for
Northumberland to be moved into *his* position to serve as a check on
Stanley's actions *before* the battle ever started and certainly
before Richard entered it. There was no need to guard the London Road
as retreat wasn't considered an option.

So why *didn't* the presence of Northumberland's troops deter Stanley?

Weds writes:
Lessee....

1. We know that Henry Tudor wrote Northumberland asking Northy to help
the Tydder to get himself a wife (and not Elizabeth of York). So the
Tydder and Northy were at the very least writing buddies. (I mean, an
exiled nobody doesn't write an earl, saying, "Hey, I wanted to marry
your wife, but since you went and married her, d'y think you could
hook me up with somebody else?" unless one has been, at the very
least, previous penpals with said earl.)

2. Stanley's wife was mummy to the Tydder. When she learned of what
her Most Precious and Beloved Son was up to (writing to Northy
directly and asking for him to act as marriage broker while she's
trying to broker him a marriage with bastardy royalty???) she Did Not
Approve. Only a Pretty Blonde Yorkie Princess was good enough for
Her-Son-Magically-The-Rightful-King-Before-Bosworth. So Mummy Beaufort
ixnayed the "pleez to help me get a wife okay thanx bye" plea.

3. I'd venture that both Stanleys (i.e., Sir-Willie-the-Betrayer and
Willie's brother
Lord-Tommy-Stanley-Who-May-or-May-Not-Have-Been-At-Bosworth) **and
Northie** knew that Mummy Beaufort wanted
Her-Son-Magically-The-Rightful-King-Before-Bosworth to be
The-Official-Usurping-Conquesty-King-After-Bosworth-Hooray-For-Rented-French-Troops!
I mean, can't you see Lord Tommy telling Northie, "Heigh ho, would you
be so kind as to ignore that frantic 'I wants me a bride' letter from
the boy oversea? My lady-wife and I have promised to get him a kingdom
instead. Thenk yew, we'll be sure to see that little Harry grants you
the coveted Lordship of the North for your troubles, eh?"

4. So, basically, my position is that the presence of Northumberland's
troops didn't deter Sir William Stanley because he knew ahead of time
that the earl wouldn't come in against him. (Yes, yes, I know the
Tydder briefly imprisoned Northumberland after Bosworth. I've always
thought that may have been because Northumberland didn't courageously
and joyfully gallop forth and join the attack against
The-Rightful-Anointed-King.

Standing and watching? Not so much the supporty.

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

Right on...and what thanks did Northy get?..sent up north into the jaws of death....hacked to death, pommeled, whacked and throttled by a mob..or maybe they just lynched him...either way the end result was the same. .I would love to think this was them avenging the death of their Good King Richard. Eileen

Hi Liz and Doug,
I agree with you both.A lot of people will not bother but some will.I am interested in your views on Northumberland Doug.What a stance to take.Makes me so sad that so many were self serving.Those that fought with and for Richard will always be remembered with gratitude.
Kathryn x