Back to Richard of Eastwell - was RE: Coronation day - Henry VII/E
Back to Richard of Eastwell - was RE: Coronation day - Henry VII/E
2004-08-09 17:03:53
Marie wrote: To take these points in reverse order: we
know item 6 belongs to sometime between late November
1473 (when John Paston hoped the brothers would "be
set at one by the award of the King") and spring
1474 (when the agreement was written up by statute);
Croyland suggests Richard did not marry Anne until
after the agreement was reached.
Item 5 connects with John Paston's comment in late
November 1473.
item 4 could be connected with the threat of actual
violence he noted earlier in the month (also referred
to by the Milanese ambassador in Feb 1474).
So this is all quite late. In which case it is quite
possible that Anne remained in Clarence's household
until the summer of 1473, or that she was missing,
hidden away, for a very long time. Croyland
suggests that it was Richard finding her in her
drudgery that ratcheted up the argument to a violent
state - and this seems to have happened late in 1473.
Worth remembering that Richard couldn't have married
Anne in any case until at least 9 months after
Tewkesbury - 12 months would have been better. This
(allowing for Lent) would take us into mid April 1472
before Clarence would have had any immediate cause to
worry.
***
OK, I'm convinced. For now, at least. <G> Richard
and Anne married in 1474.
That gives me time for another long-shot theory:
A 1474 marriage date for Richard and Anne allows time
for Richard to father Richard of Eastwell between 1471
and 1472.
If Richard wasn't planning to marry Ann in 1472, he
might have been involved with Richard of Eastwell's
mother between 1471-1472.
If Richard of Eastwell was born in 1472 or 1473, he
could have been the right age to be the Binche boy in
Ann Wroe's theory. Maybe Richard sent him to Margaret
of York in Burgundy. Maybe he stayed with Margaret in
Binche until she decided he should return to England.
Or maybe not. <g>
Is my math correct?
If it is, we need a reason for Richard of Eastwell to
return to England.
And a theory to explain where Margaret found the boy
who became "Perkin Warbeck."
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
know item 6 belongs to sometime between late November
1473 (when John Paston hoped the brothers would "be
set at one by the award of the King") and spring
1474 (when the agreement was written up by statute);
Croyland suggests Richard did not marry Anne until
after the agreement was reached.
Item 5 connects with John Paston's comment in late
November 1473.
item 4 could be connected with the threat of actual
violence he noted earlier in the month (also referred
to by the Milanese ambassador in Feb 1474).
So this is all quite late. In which case it is quite
possible that Anne remained in Clarence's household
until the summer of 1473, or that she was missing,
hidden away, for a very long time. Croyland
suggests that it was Richard finding her in her
drudgery that ratcheted up the argument to a violent
state - and this seems to have happened late in 1473.
Worth remembering that Richard couldn't have married
Anne in any case until at least 9 months after
Tewkesbury - 12 months would have been better. This
(allowing for Lent) would take us into mid April 1472
before Clarence would have had any immediate cause to
worry.
***
OK, I'm convinced. For now, at least. <G> Richard
and Anne married in 1474.
That gives me time for another long-shot theory:
A 1474 marriage date for Richard and Anne allows time
for Richard to father Richard of Eastwell between 1471
and 1472.
If Richard wasn't planning to marry Ann in 1472, he
might have been involved with Richard of Eastwell's
mother between 1471-1472.
If Richard of Eastwell was born in 1472 or 1473, he
could have been the right age to be the Binche boy in
Ann Wroe's theory. Maybe Richard sent him to Margaret
of York in Burgundy. Maybe he stayed with Margaret in
Binche until she decided he should return to England.
Or maybe not. <g>
Is my math correct?
If it is, we need a reason for Richard of Eastwell to
return to England.
And a theory to explain where Margaret found the boy
who became "Perkin Warbeck."
Marion
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Back to Richard of Eastwell - was RE: Coronation day - Henry V
2004-08-10 10:37:08
--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: To take these points in reverse order: we
> know item 6 belongs to sometime between late November
> 1473 (when John Paston hoped the brothers would "be
> set at one by the award of the King") and spring
> 1474 (when the agreement was written up by statute);
> Croyland suggests Richard did not marry Anne until
> after the agreement was reached.
>
> Item 5 connects with John Paston's comment in late
> November 1473.
>
> item 4 could be connected with the threat of actual
> violence he noted earlier in the month (also referred
> to by the Milanese ambassador in Feb 1474).
>
> So this is all quite late. In which case it is quite
> possible that Anne remained in Clarence's household
> until the summer of 1473, or that she was missing,
> hidden away, for a very long time. Croyland
> suggests that it was Richard finding her in her
> drudgery that ratcheted up the argument to a violent
> state - and this seems to have happened late in 1473.
>
> Worth remembering that Richard couldn't have married
> Anne in any case until at least 9 months after
> Tewkesbury - 12 months would have been better. This
> (allowing for Lent) would take us into mid April 1472
> before Clarence would have had any immediate cause to
> worry.
>
> ***
>
> OK, I'm convinced. For now, at least. <G> Richard
> and Anne married in 1474.
>
> That gives me time for another long-shot theory:
>
> A 1474 marriage date for Richard and Anne allows time
> for Richard to father Richard of Eastwell between 1471
> and 1472.
>
> If Richard wasn't planning to marry Ann in 1472, he
> might have been involved with Richard of Eastwell's
> mother between 1471-1472.
He could well have been. However, he was wanting to marry Anne as
early as that. On February 17 1472 (1st Tuesday in Lent) Sir John
Paston wrote to young John: "Yesterday the King, the Queen, my lords
of Clarence and Gloucester went to Shene to pardon, men say not all
in charity. What will fall, men cannot say.
The King entreateth my Lord of Clarence for my Lord of Gloucester
and, as it is said, he answereth that he may well have my Lady his
sister-in-law but they shall part no lyvelode, as he saith. So what
will fall I cannot say."
Certainly there was no agreement then - King Edward was
still "entreating". But it does sound as though Richard would have
liked to marry Anne straight after Easter (29 March that year).
After that there's no word of the business from the Pastons until
June 1473 when Sir James Tyrell conveyed the Countess of
Warwick "northward" from Bieulieu sanctuary, "men say by the King's
assent, whereto some men say that the Duke of Clarence is not agreed."
Then on November 6th the news that Clarence "maketh him
big. . .showing as he would but deal with the Duke of Gloucester. . .
and some men think that under this there should be some other thing
intended, and some treason conspired."
Amd, finally, on 22 November 1473 "I trust to God that the ij dukes
of Clarence and Gloucester shall be set at one by the award of the
King. Item, I hope by means of the Duke of Gloucester that my Lord
Archbishop shall come home."
So whether Richard put the whole thing on the back burner for a
while, being perhaps unable to see Anne, who knows. Then perhaps he
felt it would help to have her mother out - able to demand to see her
daughter, and take his side. With such a long-drawn-out campaign on
his hands, he my very well have got involved with a mistress. Perhaps
it was Katherine Haute (Katherine P.'s probable mother) again -
Richard of Eastwell did settle in her home county of Kent, after all.
All I can see of Richard's movements for that period at present are:
1) Lent 1472, Shene
2) Autumn 1472 - Westminster (for Parliament
3) Late spring 1473 - at Nottingham with Edward (May 12 he and
Northumberland signed their working agreement)
4) June 1473 - presumably in the north, since that is where the
Countess of Warwick was being taken
5) 10 September 1473 - commissioned to array the men of Yorkshire
Richard had, of course, been granted Warwick's northern lands quite
soon after Tewkesbury. It was the Beauchamp inheritance they were
arguing about.
>
> If Richard of Eastwell was born in 1472 or 1473, he
> could have been the right age to be the Binche boy in
> Ann Wroe's theory. Maybe Richard sent him to Margaret
> of York in Burgundy. Maybe he stayed with Margaret in
> Binche until she decided he should return to England.
> Or maybe not. <g>
>
> Is my math correct?
I think so - about five in late 1478, I seem to recall.
>
> If it is, we need a reason for Richard of Eastwell to
> return to England.
Perhaps Richard asked for him after Anne's death. Maybe Anne never
knew about him because she would have been offended that he fathered
a child even while he was suing for her hand in marriage.
>
> And a theory to explain where Margaret found the boy
> who became "Perkin Warbeck."
Richard Duke of York? Or her own baby? If she and Burgundy NEVER had
sex, he might not have been prepared to recognise it as his heir. She
did go off to the the ducal convalsesecent home for a long spell at
about the right time.
>
> Marion
PS. I wonder if there are any more little clues in the Cely or Stonor
papers. Anyone know?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: To take these points in reverse order: we
> know item 6 belongs to sometime between late November
> 1473 (when John Paston hoped the brothers would "be
> set at one by the award of the King") and spring
> 1474 (when the agreement was written up by statute);
> Croyland suggests Richard did not marry Anne until
> after the agreement was reached.
>
> Item 5 connects with John Paston's comment in late
> November 1473.
>
> item 4 could be connected with the threat of actual
> violence he noted earlier in the month (also referred
> to by the Milanese ambassador in Feb 1474).
>
> So this is all quite late. In which case it is quite
> possible that Anne remained in Clarence's household
> until the summer of 1473, or that she was missing,
> hidden away, for a very long time. Croyland
> suggests that it was Richard finding her in her
> drudgery that ratcheted up the argument to a violent
> state - and this seems to have happened late in 1473.
>
> Worth remembering that Richard couldn't have married
> Anne in any case until at least 9 months after
> Tewkesbury - 12 months would have been better. This
> (allowing for Lent) would take us into mid April 1472
> before Clarence would have had any immediate cause to
> worry.
>
> ***
>
> OK, I'm convinced. For now, at least. <G> Richard
> and Anne married in 1474.
>
> That gives me time for another long-shot theory:
>
> A 1474 marriage date for Richard and Anne allows time
> for Richard to father Richard of Eastwell between 1471
> and 1472.
>
> If Richard wasn't planning to marry Ann in 1472, he
> might have been involved with Richard of Eastwell's
> mother between 1471-1472.
He could well have been. However, he was wanting to marry Anne as
early as that. On February 17 1472 (1st Tuesday in Lent) Sir John
Paston wrote to young John: "Yesterday the King, the Queen, my lords
of Clarence and Gloucester went to Shene to pardon, men say not all
in charity. What will fall, men cannot say.
The King entreateth my Lord of Clarence for my Lord of Gloucester
and, as it is said, he answereth that he may well have my Lady his
sister-in-law but they shall part no lyvelode, as he saith. So what
will fall I cannot say."
Certainly there was no agreement then - King Edward was
still "entreating". But it does sound as though Richard would have
liked to marry Anne straight after Easter (29 March that year).
After that there's no word of the business from the Pastons until
June 1473 when Sir James Tyrell conveyed the Countess of
Warwick "northward" from Bieulieu sanctuary, "men say by the King's
assent, whereto some men say that the Duke of Clarence is not agreed."
Then on November 6th the news that Clarence "maketh him
big. . .showing as he would but deal with the Duke of Gloucester. . .
and some men think that under this there should be some other thing
intended, and some treason conspired."
Amd, finally, on 22 November 1473 "I trust to God that the ij dukes
of Clarence and Gloucester shall be set at one by the award of the
King. Item, I hope by means of the Duke of Gloucester that my Lord
Archbishop shall come home."
So whether Richard put the whole thing on the back burner for a
while, being perhaps unable to see Anne, who knows. Then perhaps he
felt it would help to have her mother out - able to demand to see her
daughter, and take his side. With such a long-drawn-out campaign on
his hands, he my very well have got involved with a mistress. Perhaps
it was Katherine Haute (Katherine P.'s probable mother) again -
Richard of Eastwell did settle in her home county of Kent, after all.
All I can see of Richard's movements for that period at present are:
1) Lent 1472, Shene
2) Autumn 1472 - Westminster (for Parliament
3) Late spring 1473 - at Nottingham with Edward (May 12 he and
Northumberland signed their working agreement)
4) June 1473 - presumably in the north, since that is where the
Countess of Warwick was being taken
5) 10 September 1473 - commissioned to array the men of Yorkshire
Richard had, of course, been granted Warwick's northern lands quite
soon after Tewkesbury. It was the Beauchamp inheritance they were
arguing about.
>
> If Richard of Eastwell was born in 1472 or 1473, he
> could have been the right age to be the Binche boy in
> Ann Wroe's theory. Maybe Richard sent him to Margaret
> of York in Burgundy. Maybe he stayed with Margaret in
> Binche until she decided he should return to England.
> Or maybe not. <g>
>
> Is my math correct?
I think so - about five in late 1478, I seem to recall.
>
> If it is, we need a reason for Richard of Eastwell to
> return to England.
Perhaps Richard asked for him after Anne's death. Maybe Anne never
knew about him because she would have been offended that he fathered
a child even while he was suing for her hand in marriage.
>
> And a theory to explain where Margaret found the boy
> who became "Perkin Warbeck."
Richard Duke of York? Or her own baby? If she and Burgundy NEVER had
sex, he might not have been prepared to recognise it as his heir. She
did go off to the the ducal convalsesecent home for a long spell at
about the right time.
>
> Marion
PS. I wonder if there are any more little clues in the Cely or Stonor
papers. Anyone know?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Back to Richard of Eastwell - w
2004-08-11 00:17:58
Friends
A bit off topic, but this Sir James Tyrell, was he a
hard warrior type, to be escorting folks about?
Galen
--- marie <marie@...> wrote:
> After that there's no word of the business from the
> Pastons until
> June 1473 when Sir James Tyrell conveyed the
> Countess of
> Warwick "northward" from Bieulieu sanctuary, "men
> say by the King's
> assent, whereto some men say that the Duke of
> Clarence is not agreed."
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
A bit off topic, but this Sir James Tyrell, was he a
hard warrior type, to be escorting folks about?
Galen
--- marie <marie@...> wrote:
> After that there's no word of the business from the
> Pastons until
> June 1473 when Sir James Tyrell conveyed the
> Countess of
> Warwick "northward" from Bieulieu sanctuary, "men
> say by the King's
> assent, whereto some men say that the Duke of
> Clarence is not agreed."
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-11 12:38:10
I don't know about a "hard type" but as he was Richard's Master of the
Horse one imagines he lead a very active, mainly outdoors life. So he
must have been a hardy type!
Paul
On 11 Aug 2004, at 00:17, Galen wrote:
> Friends
>
> A bit off topic, but this Sir James Tyrell, was he a
> hard warrior type, to be escorting folks about?
>
> Galen
Horse one imagines he lead a very active, mainly outdoors life. So he
must have been a hardy type!
Paul
On 11 Aug 2004, at 00:17, Galen wrote:
> Friends
>
> A bit off topic, but this Sir James Tyrell, was he a
> hard warrior type, to be escorting folks about?
>
> Galen
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-11 16:53:53
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Tyrell
I don't know about a "hard type" but as he was Richard's Master of the
Horse one imagines he lead a very active, mainly outdoors life. So he
must have been a hardy type!
Paul
.... and, if all the old legends (Rufus etc) were to be believed, he was a hereditary regicide!
Yes, I know Walter TIREL was spelt differently but these things evolve over the years.
Stephen
On 11 Aug 2004, at 00:17, Galen wrote:
> Friends
>
> A bit off topic, but this Sir James Tyrell, was he a
> hard warrior type, to be escorting folks about?
>
> Galen
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Tyrell
I don't know about a "hard type" but as he was Richard's Master of the
Horse one imagines he lead a very active, mainly outdoors life. So he
must have been a hardy type!
Paul
.... and, if all the old legends (Rufus etc) were to be believed, he was a hereditary regicide!
Yes, I know Walter TIREL was spelt differently but these things evolve over the years.
Stephen
On 11 Aug 2004, at 00:17, Galen wrote:
> Friends
>
> A bit off topic, but this Sir James Tyrell, was he a
> hard warrior type, to be escorting folks about?
>
> Galen
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-11 22:53:38
Of course Stephen that Tirel killed anybody is disputed strongly. He
was on the hunt with Rufus and may big 'MAY" have shot an arrow that
accidentally killed the king, BUT......
It is another story that has grown over the years, a story that didn't
start being told until years after the event.
I do find the choice many years later of James Tyrell as a possible
regicide far from accidental. Morton, sorry, More, surely knew the
Rufus story when writing his "history".And of course there was no
family link between the two men at all, just a similar name.
Paul
On 11 Aug 2004, at 16:51, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Tyrell
>
>
> I don't know about a "hard type" but as he was Richard's Master of
> the
> Horse one imagines he lead a very active, mainly outdoors life. So he
> must have been a hardy type!
> Paul
> .... and, if all the old legends (Rufus etc) were to be believed, he
> was a hereditary regicide!
> Yes, I know Walter TIREL was spelt differently but these things
> evolve over the years.
>
> Stephen
>
> On 11 Aug 2004, at 00:17, Galen wrote:
>
>> Friends
>>
>> A bit off topic, but this Sir James Tyrell, was he a
>> hard warrior type, to be escorting folks about?
>>
>> Galen
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams
was on the hunt with Rufus and may big 'MAY" have shot an arrow that
accidentally killed the king, BUT......
It is another story that has grown over the years, a story that didn't
start being told until years after the event.
I do find the choice many years later of James Tyrell as a possible
regicide far from accidental. Morton, sorry, More, surely knew the
Rufus story when writing his "history".And of course there was no
family link between the two men at all, just a similar name.
Paul
On 11 Aug 2004, at 16:51, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Tyrell
>
>
> I don't know about a "hard type" but as he was Richard's Master of
> the
> Horse one imagines he lead a very active, mainly outdoors life. So he
> must have been a hardy type!
> Paul
> .... and, if all the old legends (Rufus etc) were to be believed, he
> was a hereditary regicide!
> Yes, I know Walter TIREL was spelt differently but these things
> evolve over the years.
>
> Stephen
>
> On 11 Aug 2004, at 00:17, Galen wrote:
>
>> Friends
>>
>> A bit off topic, but this Sir James Tyrell, was he a
>> hard warrior type, to be escorting folks about?
>>
>> Galen
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-11 23:09:36
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> Of course Stephen that Tirel killed anybody is disputed strongly.
He
> was on the hunt with Rufus and may big 'MAY" have shot an arrow
that
> accidentally killed the king, BUT......
> It is another story that has grown over the years, a story that
didn't
> start being told until years after the event.
> I do find the choice many years later of James Tyrell as a
possible
> regicide far from accidental. Morton, sorry, More, surely knew the
> Rufus story when writing his "history".And of course there was no
> family link between the two men at all, just a similar name.
> Paul
Not sure about no family link. However, I do agree about the name
being very convenient - and those two heavies Forrest & Grene! All a
bit too reminiscent of an earlier incident, wouldn't one say?
By the way, does anyone know the source of the story that William
Rufus' body was left in the forest by his cronies, and eventually
taken pity on by a local charcoal burner & his son by the name of
Purkiss, who put the body in their cart & took it to Winchester for
burial?
Marie
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> Of course Stephen that Tirel killed anybody is disputed strongly.
He
> was on the hunt with Rufus and may big 'MAY" have shot an arrow
that
> accidentally killed the king, BUT......
> It is another story that has grown over the years, a story that
didn't
> start being told until years after the event.
> I do find the choice many years later of James Tyrell as a
possible
> regicide far from accidental. Morton, sorry, More, surely knew the
> Rufus story when writing his "history".And of course there was no
> family link between the two men at all, just a similar name.
> Paul
Not sure about no family link. However, I do agree about the name
being very convenient - and those two heavies Forrest & Grene! All a
bit too reminiscent of an earlier incident, wouldn't one say?
By the way, does anyone know the source of the story that William
Rufus' body was left in the forest by his cronies, and eventually
taken pity on by a local charcoal burner & his son by the name of
Purkiss, who put the body in their cart & took it to Winchester for
burial?
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-12 00:04:12
Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>Of course Stephen that Tirel killed anybody is disputed strongly. He
>was on the hunt with Rufus and may big 'MAY" have shot an arrow that
>accidentally killed the king, BUT......
>It is another story that has grown over the years, a story that didn't
>start being told until years after the event.
>I do find the choice many years later of James Tyrell as a possible
>regicide far from accidental. Morton, sorry, More, surely knew the
>Rufus story when writing his "history".And of course there was no
>family link between the two men at all, just a similar name.
>Paul
>
>
>
Oddly enough, I was down in the New Forest this weekend, due to a
combination of horrific traffic on the A31 and an overheating raditator,
and we stopped at the Rufus Stone (which I figured out before I got
there - remember, I'm a vurringer).
Looking at the inscription, my first comment to my husband was:
"Obviously if you're royal in this country, watch out for people called
Tyrell..."
Jenny
>Of course Stephen that Tirel killed anybody is disputed strongly. He
>was on the hunt with Rufus and may big 'MAY" have shot an arrow that
>accidentally killed the king, BUT......
>It is another story that has grown over the years, a story that didn't
>start being told until years after the event.
>I do find the choice many years later of James Tyrell as a possible
>regicide far from accidental. Morton, sorry, More, surely knew the
>Rufus story when writing his "history".And of course there was no
>family link between the two men at all, just a similar name.
>Paul
>
>
>
Oddly enough, I was down in the New Forest this weekend, due to a
combination of horrific traffic on the A31 and an overheating raditator,
and we stopped at the Rufus Stone (which I figured out before I got
there - remember, I'm a vurringer).
Looking at the inscription, my first comment to my husband was:
"Obviously if you're royal in this country, watch out for people called
Tyrell..."
Jenny
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-12 09:36:58
> Looking at the inscription, my first comment to my husband was:
> "Obviously if you're royal in this country, watch out for people called
> Tyrell..."
>
> Jenny
Or Tirel even Jenny!:-)
Paul
> "Obviously if you're royal in this country, watch out for people called
> Tyrell..."
>
> Jenny
Or Tirel even Jenny!:-)
Paul
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-12 10:00:14
The whole Rufus story is full of innuendo and falsehoods.
It is probable, and I'd put my money on it, that Rufus' brother Henry
had him killed, IF it was not an accident. All the anti Rufus
propaganda came from the Church, who else, who disliked his lifestyle,
he may have been homosexual, and was probably an atheist, and did all
it could to attack and defame him.
There was definitely no family link Marie.
Paul
On 11 Aug 2004, at 23:09, marie wrote:
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>> Of course Stephen that Tirel killed anybody is disputed strongly.
> He
>> was on the hunt with Rufus and may big 'MAY" have shot an arrow
> that
>> accidentally killed the king, BUT......
>> It is another story that has grown over the years, a story that
> didn't
>> start being told until years after the event.
>> I do find the choice many years later of James Tyrell as a
> possible
>> regicide far from accidental. Morton, sorry, More, surely knew the
>> Rufus story when writing his "history".And of course there was no
>> family link between the two men at all, just a similar name.
>> Paul
>
> Not sure about no family link. However, I do agree about the name
> being very convenient - and those two heavies Forrest & Grene! All a
> bit too reminiscent of an earlier incident, wouldn't one say?
>
> By the way, does anyone know the source of the story that William
> Rufus' body was left in the forest by his cronies, and eventually
> taken pity on by a local charcoal burner & his son by the name of
> Purkiss, who put the body in their cart & took it to Winchester for
> burial?
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams
It is probable, and I'd put my money on it, that Rufus' brother Henry
had him killed, IF it was not an accident. All the anti Rufus
propaganda came from the Church, who else, who disliked his lifestyle,
he may have been homosexual, and was probably an atheist, and did all
it could to attack and defame him.
There was definitely no family link Marie.
Paul
On 11 Aug 2004, at 23:09, marie wrote:
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>> Of course Stephen that Tirel killed anybody is disputed strongly.
> He
>> was on the hunt with Rufus and may big 'MAY" have shot an arrow
> that
>> accidentally killed the king, BUT......
>> It is another story that has grown over the years, a story that
> didn't
>> start being told until years after the event.
>> I do find the choice many years later of James Tyrell as a
> possible
>> regicide far from accidental. Morton, sorry, More, surely knew the
>> Rufus story when writing his "history".And of course there was no
>> family link between the two men at all, just a similar name.
>> Paul
>
> Not sure about no family link. However, I do agree about the name
> being very convenient - and those two heavies Forrest & Grene! All a
> bit too reminiscent of an earlier incident, wouldn't one say?
>
> By the way, does anyone know the source of the story that William
> Rufus' body was left in the forest by his cronies, and eventually
> taken pity on by a local charcoal burner & his son by the name of
> Purkiss, who put the body in their cart & took it to Winchester for
> burial?
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-12 12:05:12
P.T.Bale wrote:
>>Looking at the inscription, my first comment to my husband was:
>>"Obviously if you're royal in this country, watch out for people called
>>Tyrell..."
>>
>>Jenny
>>
>>
>
>Or Tirel even Jenny!:-)
>Paul
>
Actually, that was one of the interesting things - it was spelled Tyrell
on the stone, and since it's not a period I know a huge amount about, I
was just struck by the resemblance in names...
Jenny
>>Looking at the inscription, my first comment to my husband was:
>>"Obviously if you're royal in this country, watch out for people called
>>Tyrell..."
>>
>>Jenny
>>
>>
>
>Or Tirel even Jenny!:-)
>Paul
>
Actually, that was one of the interesting things - it was spelled Tyrell
on the stone, and since it's not a period I know a huge amount about, I
was just struck by the resemblance in names...
Jenny
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-12 15:21:17
Clearly the stone was written by a post Tudor reader! In the Chronicles
it is always spelled Tirel. They just want to make it seem that the
Tyrells are a murdering lot. Awful imho!
Paul
On 12 Aug 2004, at 12:09, Jennifer Delaney wrote:
> P.T.Bale wrote:
>
>>> Looking at the inscription, my first comment to my husband was:
>>> "Obviously if you're royal in this country, watch out for people
>>> called
>>> Tyrell..."
>>>
>>> Jenny
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Or Tirel even Jenny!:-)
>> Paul
>>
>
> Actually, that was one of the interesting things - it was spelled
> Tyrell
> on the stone, and since it's not a period I know a huge amount about, I
> was just struck by the resemblance in names...
>
> Jenny
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams
it is always spelled Tirel. They just want to make it seem that the
Tyrells are a murdering lot. Awful imho!
Paul
On 12 Aug 2004, at 12:09, Jennifer Delaney wrote:
> P.T.Bale wrote:
>
>>> Looking at the inscription, my first comment to my husband was:
>>> "Obviously if you're royal in this country, watch out for people
>>> called
>>> Tyrell..."
>>>
>>> Jenny
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Or Tirel even Jenny!:-)
>> Paul
>>
>
> Actually, that was one of the interesting things - it was spelled
> Tyrell
> on the stone, and since it's not a period I know a huge amount about, I
> was just struck by the resemblance in names...
>
> Jenny
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-12 19:32:42
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> The whole Rufus story is full of innuendo and falsehoods.
> It is probable, and I'd put my money on it, that Rufus' brother
Henry
> had him killed, IF it was not an accident. All the anti Rufus
> propaganda came from the Church, who else, who disliked his
lifestyle,
> he may have been homosexual, and was probably an atheist, and did
all
> it could to attack and defame him.
> There was definitely no family link Marie.
> Paul
>
If you have a genealogy for Sir James going back that far, I would
be very interested in seeing it.
Obviously the pselling on its own is an irrelevance. I's and y's were
interchangeable, single, double consonents, not usually important.
Spelling preferences change over time. There were even Tyrells who
settled in Ireland, went native and and became Triall.
I had always supposed the name was of Norman origin, and they were
all of common descent - not from a quite separate Tirel and Tyrell
coming over with the Conqueror. Or am I wrong?
Marie
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> The whole Rufus story is full of innuendo and falsehoods.
> It is probable, and I'd put my money on it, that Rufus' brother
Henry
> had him killed, IF it was not an accident. All the anti Rufus
> propaganda came from the Church, who else, who disliked his
lifestyle,
> he may have been homosexual, and was probably an atheist, and did
all
> it could to attack and defame him.
> There was definitely no family link Marie.
> Paul
>
If you have a genealogy for Sir James going back that far, I would
be very interested in seeing it.
Obviously the pselling on its own is an irrelevance. I's and y's were
interchangeable, single, double consonents, not usually important.
Spelling preferences change over time. There were even Tyrells who
settled in Ireland, went native and and became Triall.
I had always supposed the name was of Norman origin, and they were
all of common descent - not from a quite separate Tirel and Tyrell
coming over with the Conqueror. Or am I wrong?
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-12 21:44:30
Marie, I have checked the obvious place - Castelli - and cannot find the title. However, my Group visited Gipping two years ago and I shall ask our Chairman when I can
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: marie
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: Tyrell
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> The whole Rufus story is full of innuendo and falsehoods.
> It is probable, and I'd put my money on it, that Rufus' brother
Henry
> had him killed, IF it was not an accident. All the anti Rufus
> propaganda came from the Church, who else, who disliked his
lifestyle,
> he may have been homosexual, and was probably an atheist, and did
all
> it could to attack and defame him.
> There was definitely no family link Marie.
> Paul
>
If you have a genealogy for Sir James going back that far, I would
be very interested in seeing it.
Obviously the pselling on its own is an irrelevance. I's and y's were
interchangeable, single, double consonents, not usually important.
Spelling preferences change over time. There were even Tyrells who
settled in Ireland, went native and and became Triall.
I had always supposed the name was of Norman origin, and they were
all of common descent - not from a quite separate Tirel and Tyrell
coming over with the Conqueror. Or am I wrong?
Marie
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: marie
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: Tyrell
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> The whole Rufus story is full of innuendo and falsehoods.
> It is probable, and I'd put my money on it, that Rufus' brother
Henry
> had him killed, IF it was not an accident. All the anti Rufus
> propaganda came from the Church, who else, who disliked his
lifestyle,
> he may have been homosexual, and was probably an atheist, and did
all
> it could to attack and defame him.
> There was definitely no family link Marie.
> Paul
>
If you have a genealogy for Sir James going back that far, I would
be very interested in seeing it.
Obviously the pselling on its own is an irrelevance. I's and y's were
interchangeable, single, double consonents, not usually important.
Spelling preferences change over time. There were even Tyrells who
settled in Ireland, went native and and became Triall.
I had always supposed the name was of Norman origin, and they were
all of common descent - not from a quite separate Tirel and Tyrell
coming over with the Conqueror. Or am I wrong?
Marie
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-12 22:59:45
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> Marie, I have checked the obvious place - Castelli - and cannot
find the title. However, my Group visited Gipping two years ago and I
shall ask our Chairman when I can
>
> Stephen
Thanks. I'm not saying I belive there is a connection (no data) but I
don't think the spelling difference is important.
I've just found the foll. on the net tonight:
A Dictionary of English & Wesl hsurnames", Charles Wareing Bardisley,
Baltimore Genealogical Co, 1967: "TERRLL, TYRRELL, TIRRELL, TERRILL,
TURRELL, TURRILL - Bapt. 'the son of Turold' popularly Tirrell. There
can be no doubt as to the personal or baptismal origin of the
surname. And it will account for the name of Walter Tyrrel, as a
reference to the Index of Freeman's Hist. Norman Conquest will
conclusively prove the popularity of Turold in the 11th century."
So maybe a native English name and therefore multiple origins??
But then Walter Tirel is said to have fled to France and tayed there.
So was this really a Saxon family?
Also another site says Walter Tyrrel was connected by marriage to the
de Clares. I don't know whether that is significant, but I am
thinking Gipping = Suffolk, Stoke by Clare. . .
I think it is definitely one for a local historian.
Marie
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: marie
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 7:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Tyrell
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > The whole Rufus story is full of innuendo and falsehoods.
> > It is probable, and I'd put my money on it, that Rufus' brother
> Henry
> > had him killed, IF it was not an accident. All the anti Rufus
> > propaganda came from the Church, who else, who disliked his
> lifestyle,
> > he may have been homosexual, and was probably an atheist, and
did
> all
> > it could to attack and defame him.
> > There was definitely no family link Marie.
>
> > Paul
> >
> If you have a genealogy for Sir James going back that far, I
would
> be very interested in seeing it.
> Obviously the pselling on its own is an irrelevance. I's and y's
were
> interchangeable, single, double consonents, not usually
important.
> Spelling preferences change over time. There were even Tyrells
who
> settled in Ireland, went native and and became Triall.
> I had always supposed the name was of Norman origin, and they
were
> all of common descent - not from a quite separate Tirel and
Tyrell
> coming over with the Conqueror. Or am I wrong?
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> Marie, I have checked the obvious place - Castelli - and cannot
find the title. However, my Group visited Gipping two years ago and I
shall ask our Chairman when I can
>
> Stephen
Thanks. I'm not saying I belive there is a connection (no data) but I
don't think the spelling difference is important.
I've just found the foll. on the net tonight:
A Dictionary of English & Wesl hsurnames", Charles Wareing Bardisley,
Baltimore Genealogical Co, 1967: "TERRLL, TYRRELL, TIRRELL, TERRILL,
TURRELL, TURRILL - Bapt. 'the son of Turold' popularly Tirrell. There
can be no doubt as to the personal or baptismal origin of the
surname. And it will account for the name of Walter Tyrrel, as a
reference to the Index of Freeman's Hist. Norman Conquest will
conclusively prove the popularity of Turold in the 11th century."
So maybe a native English name and therefore multiple origins??
But then Walter Tirel is said to have fled to France and tayed there.
So was this really a Saxon family?
Also another site says Walter Tyrrel was connected by marriage to the
de Clares. I don't know whether that is significant, but I am
thinking Gipping = Suffolk, Stoke by Clare. . .
I think it is definitely one for a local historian.
Marie
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: marie
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 7:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Tyrell
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > The whole Rufus story is full of innuendo and falsehoods.
> > It is probable, and I'd put my money on it, that Rufus' brother
> Henry
> > had him killed, IF it was not an accident. All the anti Rufus
> > propaganda came from the Church, who else, who disliked his
> lifestyle,
> > he may have been homosexual, and was probably an atheist, and
did
> all
> > it could to attack and defame him.
> > There was definitely no family link Marie.
>
> > Paul
> >
> If you have a genealogy for Sir James going back that far, I
would
> be very interested in seeing it.
> Obviously the pselling on its own is an irrelevance. I's and y's
were
> interchangeable, single, double consonents, not usually
important.
> Spelling preferences change over time. There were even Tyrells
who
> settled in Ireland, went native and and became Triall.
> I had always supposed the name was of Norman origin, and they
were
> all of common descent - not from a quite separate Tirel and
Tyrell
> coming over with the Conqueror. Or am I wrong?
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-13 00:37:03
On 12 Aug 2004, at 22:59, marie wrote:
> But then Walter Tirel is said to have fled to France and tayed there.
> So was this really a Saxon family?
Certainly not, Walter was Lord of Poix and Castellan of Pontoise. He
married Adelaide the daughter of Richard fitzGilbert and Rohese,
daughter of Walter Gifford earl of Buckingham. He was one of those men
who had inherited some lands in France and been given some in England.
He was a typical Anglo Norman, only by reason of marriage, and the fat
that he jumped backwards and forwards across the Channel (La Manche if
you prefer!) By summer of 1100 he was considered one of Rufus' closest
friends. One story has him fleeing to France straight after the death
of Rufus, by accident or intent is not known, but he was neither
rewarded or punished for anything by Henry I, and sick of some of the
stories on his deathbed he swore he was innocent of any involvement in
the king's death. He did visit England again to administer his lands
and ensure a safe hand over to his son.
He died while on crusade.
> Also another site says Walter Tyrrel was connected by marriage to the
> de Clares. I don't know whether that is significant, but I am
> thinking Gipping = Suffolk, Stoke by Clare. . .
I;m not sure why you are pursuing this Marie. It is as if you want two
men with similar names to be confirmed as relatives and possible
regicides, even though all the proof is against it, especially the
second one.
Tirel came from Anglo Norman nobility. James Tyrell was an ordinary
freeman who made good and was knighted after Tewkesbury where his
military skill was noticed and rewarded.
But in both cases you need to prove a murder before accusing anyone of
doing the deed, and in neither case has a crime been proved.
Paul
you're never too old to launch your dreams
> But then Walter Tirel is said to have fled to France and tayed there.
> So was this really a Saxon family?
Certainly not, Walter was Lord of Poix and Castellan of Pontoise. He
married Adelaide the daughter of Richard fitzGilbert and Rohese,
daughter of Walter Gifford earl of Buckingham. He was one of those men
who had inherited some lands in France and been given some in England.
He was a typical Anglo Norman, only by reason of marriage, and the fat
that he jumped backwards and forwards across the Channel (La Manche if
you prefer!) By summer of 1100 he was considered one of Rufus' closest
friends. One story has him fleeing to France straight after the death
of Rufus, by accident or intent is not known, but he was neither
rewarded or punished for anything by Henry I, and sick of some of the
stories on his deathbed he swore he was innocent of any involvement in
the king's death. He did visit England again to administer his lands
and ensure a safe hand over to his son.
He died while on crusade.
> Also another site says Walter Tyrrel was connected by marriage to the
> de Clares. I don't know whether that is significant, but I am
> thinking Gipping = Suffolk, Stoke by Clare. . .
I;m not sure why you are pursuing this Marie. It is as if you want two
men with similar names to be confirmed as relatives and possible
regicides, even though all the proof is against it, especially the
second one.
Tirel came from Anglo Norman nobility. James Tyrell was an ordinary
freeman who made good and was knighted after Tewkesbury where his
military skill was noticed and rewarded.
But in both cases you need to prove a murder before accusing anyone of
doing the deed, and in neither case has a crime been proved.
Paul
you're never too old to launch your dreams
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-13 02:02:43
--- Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...>
wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2004, at 22:59, marie wrote:
>
> James Tyrell was an ordinary freeman who made good
and was knighted after Tewkesbury where his military
skill was noticed and rewarded.
>
I think this was the answer I was seeking. Tyrell was
apparently a "hard warrior" whose martial skills were
valued as a bodyguard among other similar positions;
i.e., escorting ladies through dangerous territory.
This perhaps explains why Shakespeare chose Sir James
Tyrell to whack the two princes in the tower. It would
take a hard man to commit such a "piteous massacre."
The Tyrell in the play pays two hitmen to do the
actual deeds, but Tyrell got it done nevertheless.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2004, at 22:59, marie wrote:
>
> James Tyrell was an ordinary freeman who made good
and was knighted after Tewkesbury where his military
skill was noticed and rewarded.
>
I think this was the answer I was seeking. Tyrell was
apparently a "hard warrior" whose martial skills were
valued as a bodyguard among other similar positions;
i.e., escorting ladies through dangerous territory.
This perhaps explains why Shakespeare chose Sir James
Tyrell to whack the two princes in the tower. It would
take a hard man to commit such a "piteous massacre."
The Tyrell in the play pays two hitmen to do the
actual deeds, but Tyrell got it done nevertheless.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Tyrell
2004-08-13 07:19:24
Paul wrote:
> All the anti Rufus propaganda came from
> the Church, who else, who disliked his lifestyle,
> he may have been homosexual, and was probably
> an atheist, and did all it could to attack
> and defame him.
Ann:
The eleventh-century Church is more likely to have been fussed
if the King was a committed atheist, or worse, an agnostic, than
about anything so trivial as sexual orientation ...
The whole question of Sir James Tyrell and his possible descent
was discussed at some length on the soc.genealogy.medieval
newsgroup. If you search Google groups with
"James Tyrell" Walter 1100 group:soc.genealogy.medieval
the major posts will come up.
I find it interesting that Princes William and Harry of Wales
are descended from Sir James T through their late mother.
L.P.H.,
Ann
> All the anti Rufus propaganda came from
> the Church, who else, who disliked his lifestyle,
> he may have been homosexual, and was probably
> an atheist, and did all it could to attack
> and defame him.
Ann:
The eleventh-century Church is more likely to have been fussed
if the King was a committed atheist, or worse, an agnostic, than
about anything so trivial as sexual orientation ...
The whole question of Sir James Tyrell and his possible descent
was discussed at some length on the soc.genealogy.medieval
newsgroup. If you search Google groups with
"James Tyrell" Walter 1100 group:soc.genealogy.medieval
the major posts will come up.
I find it interesting that Princes William and Harry of Wales
are descended from Sir James T through their late mother.
L.P.H.,
Ann
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-13 13:31:03
On 13 Aug 2004, at 02:02, Galen wrote:
> This perhaps explains why Shakespeare chose Sir James
> Tyrell to whack the two princes in the tower. It would
> take a hard man to commit such a "piteous massacre."
> The Tyrell in the play pays two hitmen to do the
> actual deeds, but Tyrell got it done nevertheless.
>
Well of course Shakespeare was using Hall and Holinshed as his main
source, who in turn used More and Vergil who were mainly responsible
for making the Tudor myth, so he was just towing the line.
In the play Richard says when Tyrell is mentioned that he 'partly know
the man'. Well, of course, he had known him for some time, and Tyrell
was his Master of the Horse and Master of the Henchmen.
I love the poetry in the play, and in the scene the night before
Bosworth I feel the Bard had great sympathy for his character. However
he has done the historic Richard a lot of damage, as he has a lot of
damage to the truth of history in the 15th century.
Let's not forget how he also made Henry V a hero when a four letter
word beginning with s would describe him better!
Paul
you're never too old to launch your dreams
> This perhaps explains why Shakespeare chose Sir James
> Tyrell to whack the two princes in the tower. It would
> take a hard man to commit such a "piteous massacre."
> The Tyrell in the play pays two hitmen to do the
> actual deeds, but Tyrell got it done nevertheless.
>
Well of course Shakespeare was using Hall and Holinshed as his main
source, who in turn used More and Vergil who were mainly responsible
for making the Tudor myth, so he was just towing the line.
In the play Richard says when Tyrell is mentioned that he 'partly know
the man'. Well, of course, he had known him for some time, and Tyrell
was his Master of the Horse and Master of the Henchmen.
I love the poetry in the play, and in the scene the night before
Bosworth I feel the Bard had great sympathy for his character. However
he has done the historic Richard a lot of damage, as he has a lot of
damage to the truth of history in the 15th century.
Let's not forget how he also made Henry V a hero when a four letter
word beginning with s would describe him better!
Paul
you're never too old to launch your dreams
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-13 14:44:29
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>...he was just towing the line.
I collect malapropisms based on homophones, and this is a lovely
addition.
Thank you.
Katy
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>...he was just towing the line.
I collect malapropisms based on homophones, and this is a lovely
addition.
Thank you.
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-13 20:43:45
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
> On 12 Aug 2004, at 22:59, marie wrote:
>
> > But then Walter Tirel is said to have fled to France and tayed
there.
> > So was this really a Saxon family?
> Certainly not, Walter was Lord of Poix and Castellan of Pontoise.
Actually, Paul, I'd cited this book in the hope of getting some
opinions on the author's etymology, which struck me as rather
dubious. So it was a Norman name after all. Just as I thought.
He
> married Adelaide the daughter of Richard fitzGilbert and Rohese,
> daughter of Walter Gifford earl of Buckingham. He was one of those
men
> who had inherited some lands in France and been given some in
England.
> He was a typical Anglo Norman, only by reason of marriage, and the
fat
> that he jumped backwards and forwards across the Channel (La Manche
if
> you prefer!) By summer of 1100 he was considered one of Rufus'
closest
> friends. One story has him fleeing to France straight after the
death
> of Rufus, by accident or intent is not known, but he was neither
> rewarded or punished for anything by Henry I, and sick of some of
the
> stories on his deathbed he swore he was innocent of any involvement
in
> the king's death. He did visit England again to administer his
lands
> and ensure a safe hand over to his son.
> He died while on crusade.
>
>
> > Also another site says Walter Tyrrel was connected by marriage to
the
> > de Clares. I don't know whether that is significant, but I am
> > thinking Gipping = Suffolk, Stoke by Clare. . .
> I;m not sure why you are pursuing this Marie. It is as if you want
two
> men with similar names to be confirmed as relatives and possible
> regicides, even though all the proof is against it, especially the
> second one.
Paul, why do you always pick up the wrong end of the feather duster?
I am not trying to prove anything, only to ascertain the truth. And I
cannot see what possible bearing it can have on the question of Sir
James' involvement in the Princes business. Are you seriously saying
that you would expect him to be a carbon copy of a single ancestor
approximately 13 generations back? Assuming no intermarriage between
lines (which of course there would have been), Sir James would have
had over 8,000 other ancestors alive at the same time as Walter
Tirel. In other words, he would have inherited less than 1 gene in
8,000 from that particular individual. I am very probably descended
from Purkis the good charcoal burner, but I don't let it go to my
head.
Tirel's wife "Adelaide, daughter of Richard FitzGilbert", was a de
Clare. That was the surname by which Fitzgilbert's children were
known. It is sometimes suspected that Tirel and the de Clares plotted
Rufus' death together. Adelheidis' - or Alice's - brother Gilbert de
Clare was a direct ancestor of the house of York: another scandalous
fact, if you like.
> Tirel came from Anglo Norman nobility. James Tyrell was an ordinary
> freeman who made good and was knighted after Tewkesbury where his
> military skill was noticed and rewarded.
Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Sir James came from distinguished
Essex/ Suffolk gentry. (I hate to point out that Stoke by Clare, on
that old Essex/ Suffolk border, where the house of York had a
religious college, must surely have been de Clare inheritance - and
the Clare cartulary mentions Tyrels - however you want them spelled -
in the 13th century). Sir James' grandfather was Sir John Tyrell of
Heron, Essex, Speaker of the Commons, Treasurer of the Household,
Sheriff of Suffolk and Herts. . .. blah, blah... Sir John had three
sons: "all were prominent men, and noted Lancastrians" ('Sir James
Tyrell', WE Hampton, Ricardian No 63). The second son, William Tyrell
of Gipping, was the father of Sir James.
By the way, above the door of the chapel which Sir James built at
Gipping are the words "Pray for Sir Jamys Tirell & Dame Anne his
Wyf". Note the spelling of Tyrell.
By the by, I've just looked at Anne's Google group - thank you Anne -
and it says Sir James definitely was a direct descendant of Walter
Tirel.
Also, this from "Sir James Tyrell and his Chapel at Gipping", by
Joyce M. Melhuish, Ricardian no 50: "The name Tyrell is derived
from "Tirailleur" - a bowman, and the Knot [Sir James' device] is
composed of interlaced bows. The Tyrells of Gipping were a branch of
the same family as Sir Walter Tyrell who slew William Rufus with an
arrow in the New Forest. Possibly the association of the name with
regicide played its part in pointing out Sir James as a likely
candidate for murderer of the Princes." Good old Joyce! (I remember
the late Joyce Melhuish, who had, by the way, had a very
distinguished career in the Ancient Monuments dept., and knew her
stuff.)
>
> But in both cases you need to prove a murder before accusing anyone
of
> doing the deed, and in neither case has a crime been proved.
> Paul
> you're never too old to launch your dreams
Pardon? Nobody's accused anybody of anything, except you accusing me
of accusing Tyrells of murder. My point (which I thought was clear,
and which I first made on this forum a very long while back) is that
the Tudor regime may, after Tyrell's death, have encouraged the idea
that he was the culprit (and that he had accomplices with names like
Forrest and Grene) because it chimed in with pre-existing beliefs.
Evidently, as I see, Joyce Melhuish had thought of it first - and her
suggestion may have lodged in the back of my brain. The Tudors were
always using history, real or feigned, to prop up their version of
events, because people believed in a world with a divine order, and
in history repeating itself in a regular pattern.
If Sir James were actually believed to be a descendant of Walter
Tirel, so much the better.
Now whether Walter was an assassin or a rotten shot, I wouldn't know.
>
>
>
Anyway, what we were asked about is Sir James' character. So I'll
attempt a brief background. He may have been born about 1440. His
father, as noted bove, was William Tyrell of Gipping. His mother was
Margaret Darcy. James was the eldest of 5 brothers. James' father was
executed together with the Earl of Oxford in 1462 for conspiracy
against Edward IV. In 1469 James married a Cornish heiress, Anne
Arundell of Lanherne, who had family connections with both Francis
Lovell and Richard's supporter Sir William Parker.
A Sir William Tyrell was killed fighting for the Lancastrians at
Barnet. However, James fought for Edward at Tewkesbury and was
knighted on the field.
If he was not already in Richard's retinue, he was connected with him
afterwards, possibly in a sort of team effort with John Howard,
another East Anglian. In June 1473, of course, he's bringing the
Countess of Warwick north for Richard. No doubt that was a job for an
able man - ambushes by Clarence couldn't be ruled out. In Henry VII's
reign, the de Veres, angling to get back the lands that the old
Countess of Oxford had made over to Richard in the 1470s, got
witnesses to testify (as I recall) that she had been brought to
Richard by Tyrell and Howard, and had been coerced into giving the
lands up, being terrified of being sent to the Tower, and being
threatened by Gloucester with being taken to Middleham in THE NORTH
(hell!). (She had, of course, been accused of treason - sending money
to aid her son's invasion attempt - and had been imprisoned by
Edward IV back in 1462 when her husband and other son had been
executed. Richard was possibly offering her the best deal he could -
living on a regulated allowance.)
In 1474 Tyrell was one of the challengers at the tournament held at
the creation of Prince richard as Duke of York. He probably went on
the French expedition in 1475, as he made his will in May that year.
In 1482 he was with Gloucester on his Scottish expedition, and was
made knight banneret. In November 1482 he became Gloucester's deputy
as Constable of England.
Vergil (for what it may or may not be worth) says that after the 13th
June 1483 business, Archbishop Rotherham was placed in Tyrell's
keeping.
He headed the knights at Richard's coronation.
He was head of the Henchmen (these were young lads, not heavies) at
Prince Edward's investiture in York.
Testimony from a Heredfordshire woman suggests that Tyrell brought
Buckingham to Richard at Salisbury after his capture (she calls him
Tiler, but names a servant who is known to have been a servant of
Tyrell's).
On 5th November, he was made a commissioner of array for the
resistance of rebels in Wales, and on 6th made Sheriff of Cornwall.
In February 1484 he was apppointed Steward of the Duchy of Cornwall
for life. His wife was granted the forfeited lands of her traitor
half-brother in Cornwall.
Etc.....
Late in 1484 this "right trusty knight for our body and councillor"
was sent by Richard to Flanders "for diverse matters concerning
greatly our wele". In January 1485 he was made supervisor of Guisnes
during the absence of the ailing leitenant, Mountjoy.
And the rest, as they say, is history
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
> On 12 Aug 2004, at 22:59, marie wrote:
>
> > But then Walter Tirel is said to have fled to France and tayed
there.
> > So was this really a Saxon family?
> Certainly not, Walter was Lord of Poix and Castellan of Pontoise.
Actually, Paul, I'd cited this book in the hope of getting some
opinions on the author's etymology, which struck me as rather
dubious. So it was a Norman name after all. Just as I thought.
He
> married Adelaide the daughter of Richard fitzGilbert and Rohese,
> daughter of Walter Gifford earl of Buckingham. He was one of those
men
> who had inherited some lands in France and been given some in
England.
> He was a typical Anglo Norman, only by reason of marriage, and the
fat
> that he jumped backwards and forwards across the Channel (La Manche
if
> you prefer!) By summer of 1100 he was considered one of Rufus'
closest
> friends. One story has him fleeing to France straight after the
death
> of Rufus, by accident or intent is not known, but he was neither
> rewarded or punished for anything by Henry I, and sick of some of
the
> stories on his deathbed he swore he was innocent of any involvement
in
> the king's death. He did visit England again to administer his
lands
> and ensure a safe hand over to his son.
> He died while on crusade.
>
>
> > Also another site says Walter Tyrrel was connected by marriage to
the
> > de Clares. I don't know whether that is significant, but I am
> > thinking Gipping = Suffolk, Stoke by Clare. . .
> I;m not sure why you are pursuing this Marie. It is as if you want
two
> men with similar names to be confirmed as relatives and possible
> regicides, even though all the proof is against it, especially the
> second one.
Paul, why do you always pick up the wrong end of the feather duster?
I am not trying to prove anything, only to ascertain the truth. And I
cannot see what possible bearing it can have on the question of Sir
James' involvement in the Princes business. Are you seriously saying
that you would expect him to be a carbon copy of a single ancestor
approximately 13 generations back? Assuming no intermarriage between
lines (which of course there would have been), Sir James would have
had over 8,000 other ancestors alive at the same time as Walter
Tirel. In other words, he would have inherited less than 1 gene in
8,000 from that particular individual. I am very probably descended
from Purkis the good charcoal burner, but I don't let it go to my
head.
Tirel's wife "Adelaide, daughter of Richard FitzGilbert", was a de
Clare. That was the surname by which Fitzgilbert's children were
known. It is sometimes suspected that Tirel and the de Clares plotted
Rufus' death together. Adelheidis' - or Alice's - brother Gilbert de
Clare was a direct ancestor of the house of York: another scandalous
fact, if you like.
> Tirel came from Anglo Norman nobility. James Tyrell was an ordinary
> freeman who made good and was knighted after Tewkesbury where his
> military skill was noticed and rewarded.
Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Sir James came from distinguished
Essex/ Suffolk gentry. (I hate to point out that Stoke by Clare, on
that old Essex/ Suffolk border, where the house of York had a
religious college, must surely have been de Clare inheritance - and
the Clare cartulary mentions Tyrels - however you want them spelled -
in the 13th century). Sir James' grandfather was Sir John Tyrell of
Heron, Essex, Speaker of the Commons, Treasurer of the Household,
Sheriff of Suffolk and Herts. . .. blah, blah... Sir John had three
sons: "all were prominent men, and noted Lancastrians" ('Sir James
Tyrell', WE Hampton, Ricardian No 63). The second son, William Tyrell
of Gipping, was the father of Sir James.
By the way, above the door of the chapel which Sir James built at
Gipping are the words "Pray for Sir Jamys Tirell & Dame Anne his
Wyf". Note the spelling of Tyrell.
By the by, I've just looked at Anne's Google group - thank you Anne -
and it says Sir James definitely was a direct descendant of Walter
Tirel.
Also, this from "Sir James Tyrell and his Chapel at Gipping", by
Joyce M. Melhuish, Ricardian no 50: "The name Tyrell is derived
from "Tirailleur" - a bowman, and the Knot [Sir James' device] is
composed of interlaced bows. The Tyrells of Gipping were a branch of
the same family as Sir Walter Tyrell who slew William Rufus with an
arrow in the New Forest. Possibly the association of the name with
regicide played its part in pointing out Sir James as a likely
candidate for murderer of the Princes." Good old Joyce! (I remember
the late Joyce Melhuish, who had, by the way, had a very
distinguished career in the Ancient Monuments dept., and knew her
stuff.)
>
> But in both cases you need to prove a murder before accusing anyone
of
> doing the deed, and in neither case has a crime been proved.
> Paul
> you're never too old to launch your dreams
Pardon? Nobody's accused anybody of anything, except you accusing me
of accusing Tyrells of murder. My point (which I thought was clear,
and which I first made on this forum a very long while back) is that
the Tudor regime may, after Tyrell's death, have encouraged the idea
that he was the culprit (and that he had accomplices with names like
Forrest and Grene) because it chimed in with pre-existing beliefs.
Evidently, as I see, Joyce Melhuish had thought of it first - and her
suggestion may have lodged in the back of my brain. The Tudors were
always using history, real or feigned, to prop up their version of
events, because people believed in a world with a divine order, and
in history repeating itself in a regular pattern.
If Sir James were actually believed to be a descendant of Walter
Tirel, so much the better.
Now whether Walter was an assassin or a rotten shot, I wouldn't know.
>
>
>
Anyway, what we were asked about is Sir James' character. So I'll
attempt a brief background. He may have been born about 1440. His
father, as noted bove, was William Tyrell of Gipping. His mother was
Margaret Darcy. James was the eldest of 5 brothers. James' father was
executed together with the Earl of Oxford in 1462 for conspiracy
against Edward IV. In 1469 James married a Cornish heiress, Anne
Arundell of Lanherne, who had family connections with both Francis
Lovell and Richard's supporter Sir William Parker.
A Sir William Tyrell was killed fighting for the Lancastrians at
Barnet. However, James fought for Edward at Tewkesbury and was
knighted on the field.
If he was not already in Richard's retinue, he was connected with him
afterwards, possibly in a sort of team effort with John Howard,
another East Anglian. In June 1473, of course, he's bringing the
Countess of Warwick north for Richard. No doubt that was a job for an
able man - ambushes by Clarence couldn't be ruled out. In Henry VII's
reign, the de Veres, angling to get back the lands that the old
Countess of Oxford had made over to Richard in the 1470s, got
witnesses to testify (as I recall) that she had been brought to
Richard by Tyrell and Howard, and had been coerced into giving the
lands up, being terrified of being sent to the Tower, and being
threatened by Gloucester with being taken to Middleham in THE NORTH
(hell!). (She had, of course, been accused of treason - sending money
to aid her son's invasion attempt - and had been imprisoned by
Edward IV back in 1462 when her husband and other son had been
executed. Richard was possibly offering her the best deal he could -
living on a regulated allowance.)
In 1474 Tyrell was one of the challengers at the tournament held at
the creation of Prince richard as Duke of York. He probably went on
the French expedition in 1475, as he made his will in May that year.
In 1482 he was with Gloucester on his Scottish expedition, and was
made knight banneret. In November 1482 he became Gloucester's deputy
as Constable of England.
Vergil (for what it may or may not be worth) says that after the 13th
June 1483 business, Archbishop Rotherham was placed in Tyrell's
keeping.
He headed the knights at Richard's coronation.
He was head of the Henchmen (these were young lads, not heavies) at
Prince Edward's investiture in York.
Testimony from a Heredfordshire woman suggests that Tyrell brought
Buckingham to Richard at Salisbury after his capture (she calls him
Tiler, but names a servant who is known to have been a servant of
Tyrell's).
On 5th November, he was made a commissioner of array for the
resistance of rebels in Wales, and on 6th made Sheriff of Cornwall.
In February 1484 he was apppointed Steward of the Duchy of Cornwall
for life. His wife was granted the forfeited lands of her traitor
half-brother in Cornwall.
Etc.....
Late in 1484 this "right trusty knight for our body and councillor"
was sent by Richard to Flanders "for diverse matters concerning
greatly our wele". In January 1485 he was made supervisor of Guisnes
during the absence of the ailing leitenant, Mountjoy.
And the rest, as they say, is history
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-13 23:06:49
OK.
I read enough about Sir James Tyrell to become so bold
as to be ready to posit a theory concerning the two
princes.
Sir James seemed to have been a very smart dude,
wealthy, and an excellent warrior. Considering his
various positions under Richard, he might have had the
loyalty of enough strapping squires and knights to
back him up if need should arise. In other words, Sir
James might have been a formidable adversary even for
a king.
He survived Richard, and became somewhat of a ally for
Henry II, an extraordinary accomplishment, considering
the rumors of his complicity in the murder of the
princes.
During most of Henry's reign he lived at Guines
Castle, a considerable distance from Henry's court
that he would have been out of the way, so to speak.
Here's my theory: instead of killing the princes,
might Sir James have secreted them away in the dead of
night to a same place? Sir James' biography suggests
that he had enough guile to pull it off easily. Alive,
the princes would have been great security for Sir
James. Also, the living princes would have been a
threat to both Ricard and Henry. By keeping them alive
and hidden in safe place, Sir James could thrive.
Moreover, as I understand it, Guines Castle where Sir
James lived during Henry's time was a formidable place
and easily defended.
Also, didn't Sir James back a hostile claim to Henry's
throne around 1500, although it is unclear who was the
adverse claimant? It would be fun to say that Sir
James was promoting one of the surviving princes.
As they still haven't quite conclusively proved what
happened to the princes, I think my theory is as good
as any others that have been thrown about in the last
500 years.
Galen
--- marie <marie@...> wrote:
> --- In , Paul
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
I read enough about Sir James Tyrell to become so bold
as to be ready to posit a theory concerning the two
princes.
Sir James seemed to have been a very smart dude,
wealthy, and an excellent warrior. Considering his
various positions under Richard, he might have had the
loyalty of enough strapping squires and knights to
back him up if need should arise. In other words, Sir
James might have been a formidable adversary even for
a king.
He survived Richard, and became somewhat of a ally for
Henry II, an extraordinary accomplishment, considering
the rumors of his complicity in the murder of the
princes.
During most of Henry's reign he lived at Guines
Castle, a considerable distance from Henry's court
that he would have been out of the way, so to speak.
Here's my theory: instead of killing the princes,
might Sir James have secreted them away in the dead of
night to a same place? Sir James' biography suggests
that he had enough guile to pull it off easily. Alive,
the princes would have been great security for Sir
James. Also, the living princes would have been a
threat to both Ricard and Henry. By keeping them alive
and hidden in safe place, Sir James could thrive.
Moreover, as I understand it, Guines Castle where Sir
James lived during Henry's time was a formidable place
and easily defended.
Also, didn't Sir James back a hostile claim to Henry's
throne around 1500, although it is unclear who was the
adverse claimant? It would be fun to say that Sir
James was promoting one of the surviving princes.
As they still haven't quite conclusively proved what
happened to the princes, I think my theory is as good
as any others that have been thrown about in the last
500 years.
Galen
--- marie <marie@...> wrote:
> --- In , Paul
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-13 23:28:02
Galen wrote:
>He survived Richard, and became somewhat of a ally for
>Henry II, an extraordinary accomplishment, considering
>the rumors of his complicity in the murder of the
>princes.
>
>
Damn right it was. Where was his time machine?
(Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation caused by the typo...)
Jenny
>He survived Richard, and became somewhat of a ally for
>Henry II, an extraordinary accomplishment, considering
>the rumors of his complicity in the murder of the
>princes.
>
>
Damn right it was. Where was his time machine?
(Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation caused by the typo...)
Jenny
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-13 23:41:50
On 13 Aug 2004, at 20:43, marie wrote:
> Paul, why do you always pick up the wrong end of the feather duster?
It might have something to do with your including all previous messages
with your posts and not editing them causing much confusion!
> I am not trying to prove anything, only to ascertain the truth. And I
> cannot see what possible bearing it can have on the question of Sir
> James' involvement in the Princes business. Are you seriously saying
> that you would expect him to be a carbon copy of a single ancestor
> approximately 13 generations back?
That's actually the way your comments have come across to me. Hence my
reactions.
But I'll leave you all to it now. Have much else to do.
Do I hear sighs of relief:-)
Paul
you're never too old to launch your dreams
> Paul, why do you always pick up the wrong end of the feather duster?
It might have something to do with your including all previous messages
with your posts and not editing them causing much confusion!
> I am not trying to prove anything, only to ascertain the truth. And I
> cannot see what possible bearing it can have on the question of Sir
> James' involvement in the Princes business. Are you seriously saying
> that you would expect him to be a carbon copy of a single ancestor
> approximately 13 generations back?
That's actually the way your comments have come across to me. Hence my
reactions.
But I'll leave you all to it now. Have much else to do.
Do I hear sighs of relief:-)
Paul
you're never too old to launch your dreams
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Tyrell
2004-08-13 23:42:29
--- In , Galen <galenbrux@y...>
wrote:
> OK.
>
> I read enough about Sir James Tyrell to become so bold
> as to be ready to posit a theory concerning the two
> princes.
>
> Sir James seemed to have been a very smart dude,
> wealthy, and an excellent warrior. Considering his
> various positions under Richard, he might have had the
> loyalty of enough strapping squires and knights
yes, though unfortunately I think his image suffers from the modern
meaning of 'henchman'. We really ought to be thinking of cute young
pages.
to
> back him up if need should arise. In other words, Sir
> James might have been a formidable adversary even for
> a king.
>
> He survived Richard, and became somewhat of a ally for
> Henry II, an extraordinary accomplishment, considering
> the rumors of his complicity in the murder of the
> princes.
>
> During most of Henry's reign he lived at Guines
> Castle, a considerable distance from Henry's court
> that he would have been out of the way, so to speak.
>
> Here's my theory: instead of killing the princes,
> might Sir James have secreted them away in the dead of
> night to a same place? Sir James' biography suggests
> that he had enough guile to pull it off easily. Alive,
> the princes would have been great security for Sir
> James. Also, the living princes would have been a
> threat to both Ricard and Henry. By keeping them alive
> and hidden in safe place, Sir James could thrive.
> Moreover, as I understand it, Guines Castle where Sir
> James lived during Henry's time was a formidable place
> and easily defended.
>
> Also, didn't Sir James back a hostile claim to Henry's
> throne around 1500, although it is unclear who was the
> adverse claimant? It would be fun to say that Sir
> James was promoting one of the surviving princes.
>
> As they still haven't quite conclusively proved what
> happened to the princes, I think my theory is as good
> as any others that have been thrown about in the last
> 500 years.
>
> Galen
Indeed. You may have noticed that I fight shy of theories on this
subject - more useful, I feel, at this stage, simply to eliminate the
theories that don't work. Well, yes, despite the "Forest" connection
(and, yes, you can choose how many 'r's'), we must keep an open mind
with Tyrell and the Princes (or anybody else and the Princes, for
that matter - whatever their fate, someone must have been involved).
But if T. had them, was it with or without Richard's knowledge?
I don't know if you're aware, but there is a Tyrell family tradition
that the Princes lived at Gipping "with the mother, by permission of
the uncle" (Audrey Williamson's book on the Princes). And then
there's that errand to Flanders shortly before he gets given Guisnes -
sent by Richard.
I do think it's more likely, if Tyrell had the princes, that it was
by arrangement with Richard. Otherwise how did he get them? He wasn't
quite high and mighty enough to have free access to the Tower. And he
didn't get appointed to Guisnes until the end of richard's reign -
yet they had disappeared from view by at latest Easter 1484. It is
possible Richard had brought them out of the Tower into Tyrell's
safekeeping at Gipping, then when Tyrell gets sent to Guisnes he
brings the boys along too, and says: Now then. . .
Except, I don't think there is there any evidence that T. was a
devious sort, other than his choosing the Yorkist side after Barnet.
Brave, able, reliable, but not a natural martyr.
If he had Elizabeth's brothers in Guisnes after Bosworth, and let
Henry know, I should have thought he'd have done rather better out of
it: James Tyrell, Duke of Wherever You Fancy, for instance.
Henry kept him in office at Guisnes maybe just because it was easier.
Tyrell hadn't been at Bosworth, therefore couldn't be got under
the "21st August" rule. He was holed up in Guisnes and presumably
unwilling to give it up (remember, Henry had to besiege Guisnes by
land and sea, in the end, and make false offer of safeconduct, to get
him out).
Maybe Tyrell had said something he shouldn't have by 1502, or maybe
Henry just got him when he felt strong enough.
The question is: if Tyrell had the Princes in Guisnes, what happened
to them in the end?
And: if Tyrell told Henry after Bosworth that he had the Princes, why
did Henry go ahead and repeal Titulus Regius, thus legitimising them?
That first parliament of his brought Henry to two decisions, however
much these had been put off: 1) Edward IV's issue to be legitimised,
2) Henry to marry Elizabeth of York.
I suggest that at best he now knew the Princes were dead, and at
worst did not know them to be alive. Somewhere in between, perhaps,
he may have had "intelligence" regarding their deaths, but as we all
know and someone like Henry knew by instinct, "intelligence" is not
always to be relied upon.
Marie
PS. Unfortunately, the Gipping tradition is not the only one
regarding the whereabouts of the Princes during Richard's reign.
>
>
>
> --- marie <marie@r...> wrote:
>
> > --- In , Paul
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
wrote:
> OK.
>
> I read enough about Sir James Tyrell to become so bold
> as to be ready to posit a theory concerning the two
> princes.
>
> Sir James seemed to have been a very smart dude,
> wealthy, and an excellent warrior. Considering his
> various positions under Richard, he might have had the
> loyalty of enough strapping squires and knights
yes, though unfortunately I think his image suffers from the modern
meaning of 'henchman'. We really ought to be thinking of cute young
pages.
to
> back him up if need should arise. In other words, Sir
> James might have been a formidable adversary even for
> a king.
>
> He survived Richard, and became somewhat of a ally for
> Henry II, an extraordinary accomplishment, considering
> the rumors of his complicity in the murder of the
> princes.
>
> During most of Henry's reign he lived at Guines
> Castle, a considerable distance from Henry's court
> that he would have been out of the way, so to speak.
>
> Here's my theory: instead of killing the princes,
> might Sir James have secreted them away in the dead of
> night to a same place? Sir James' biography suggests
> that he had enough guile to pull it off easily. Alive,
> the princes would have been great security for Sir
> James. Also, the living princes would have been a
> threat to both Ricard and Henry. By keeping them alive
> and hidden in safe place, Sir James could thrive.
> Moreover, as I understand it, Guines Castle where Sir
> James lived during Henry's time was a formidable place
> and easily defended.
>
> Also, didn't Sir James back a hostile claim to Henry's
> throne around 1500, although it is unclear who was the
> adverse claimant? It would be fun to say that Sir
> James was promoting one of the surviving princes.
>
> As they still haven't quite conclusively proved what
> happened to the princes, I think my theory is as good
> as any others that have been thrown about in the last
> 500 years.
>
> Galen
Indeed. You may have noticed that I fight shy of theories on this
subject - more useful, I feel, at this stage, simply to eliminate the
theories that don't work. Well, yes, despite the "Forest" connection
(and, yes, you can choose how many 'r's'), we must keep an open mind
with Tyrell and the Princes (or anybody else and the Princes, for
that matter - whatever their fate, someone must have been involved).
But if T. had them, was it with or without Richard's knowledge?
I don't know if you're aware, but there is a Tyrell family tradition
that the Princes lived at Gipping "with the mother, by permission of
the uncle" (Audrey Williamson's book on the Princes). And then
there's that errand to Flanders shortly before he gets given Guisnes -
sent by Richard.
I do think it's more likely, if Tyrell had the princes, that it was
by arrangement with Richard. Otherwise how did he get them? He wasn't
quite high and mighty enough to have free access to the Tower. And he
didn't get appointed to Guisnes until the end of richard's reign -
yet they had disappeared from view by at latest Easter 1484. It is
possible Richard had brought them out of the Tower into Tyrell's
safekeeping at Gipping, then when Tyrell gets sent to Guisnes he
brings the boys along too, and says: Now then. . .
Except, I don't think there is there any evidence that T. was a
devious sort, other than his choosing the Yorkist side after Barnet.
Brave, able, reliable, but not a natural martyr.
If he had Elizabeth's brothers in Guisnes after Bosworth, and let
Henry know, I should have thought he'd have done rather better out of
it: James Tyrell, Duke of Wherever You Fancy, for instance.
Henry kept him in office at Guisnes maybe just because it was easier.
Tyrell hadn't been at Bosworth, therefore couldn't be got under
the "21st August" rule. He was holed up in Guisnes and presumably
unwilling to give it up (remember, Henry had to besiege Guisnes by
land and sea, in the end, and make false offer of safeconduct, to get
him out).
Maybe Tyrell had said something he shouldn't have by 1502, or maybe
Henry just got him when he felt strong enough.
The question is: if Tyrell had the Princes in Guisnes, what happened
to them in the end?
And: if Tyrell told Henry after Bosworth that he had the Princes, why
did Henry go ahead and repeal Titulus Regius, thus legitimising them?
That first parliament of his brought Henry to two decisions, however
much these had been put off: 1) Edward IV's issue to be legitimised,
2) Henry to marry Elizabeth of York.
I suggest that at best he now knew the Princes were dead, and at
worst did not know them to be alive. Somewhere in between, perhaps,
he may have had "intelligence" regarding their deaths, but as we all
know and someone like Henry knew by instinct, "intelligence" is not
always to be relied upon.
Marie
PS. Unfortunately, the Gipping tradition is not the only one
regarding the whereabouts of the Princes during Richard's reign.
>
>
>
> --- marie <marie@r...> wrote:
>
> > --- In , Paul
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.