BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails

Jan here.
Leicester it is; there was"no duty to consult".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836

You're the first to post, Jan. That I've seen anyway. So we're back to
where we were in the beginning. Heaven knows how much it has cost to go full
circle. Anyway, at least we can now move on and see him laid to rest at last.
May it be in honour, and in peace.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:28 AM
To:
Subject: BBC News - Richard III court
reburial bid fails
Jan here.Leicester it is; there was"no duty to
consult".http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836

At least Richard will now be laid to rest, hopefully with the dignity that he deserves.Mary

I have posted the following at other sites, and
apparently been misunderstood by those who wanted the decision to go in York's
favour, so here it is for the forum, with as much clarification as I can think
of, because I am NOT taking sides in the disagreement. I do not understand what
there was in my original post that caught people on the raw. I had not made the
decision, nor was I cock-a-hoop that Leicester had won, I was only pleased that
Richard's final laying-to-rest could now proceed. Please, people, don't
misunderstand me here as well. I merely wanted to express my feelings now that
the decision has made made.
So, it is going to be Leicester.
After all the furore, delay, money spent and the suffering (if bones can
suffer) of Richard himself, we are back where we were in the beginning. If it
were not for this judicial challenge, he would be buried now and at rest, and
it would be in Leicester. But, Spring 2015 is when he is to be finally shown
the honour, respect and consideration his rank is due (and I do NOT mean that
he'll only get honour, respect and consideration because he will be in
Leicester). Then we, his supporters, will be able to go there and think our
personal thoughts while we are actually within feet of him. No more seeing
from afar on TV or in the press, we will be physically close. It is something
to which I look forward. He's been important to me for so long that I need to
pay my personal respects. I would feel and say the same things if he was to
lie in York. Any relief I express is purely that the wrangling must now be at
an end. May everything go well from this point on, and may the wounds of
disagreement between friends be over and done with. We're not York or
Leicester, we're Richard's supporters. Maybe we are laughed at sometimes for
adhering to a long-dead king, but we know what it feels like to be drawn to
him, and what he means to us.
Loyaulte me lie.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III
court reburial bid fails
You're the first to post, Jan. That I've seen anyway. So we're back to
where we were in the beginning. Heaven knows how much it has cost to go full
circle. Anyway, at least we can now move on and see him laid to rest at last.
May it be in honour, and in peace.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:28 AM
To:
Subject: BBC News - Richard III court
reburial bid fails
Jan here.Leicester it is; there was"no duty to
consult".http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836

Hi SandraGood and apposite message. I think - hope - it's probably quiet on this board because people don't wish to appear disparaging of the sensibilities of others, whichever side of the debate they're on. Like you, I'm just relieved there's a conclusion.Jonathan From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> To: Sent: Friday, 23 May 2014, 13:16 Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails
I have posted the following at other sites, and
apparently been misunderstood by those who wanted the decision to go in York's
favour, so here it is for the forum, with as much clarification as I can think
of, because I am NOT taking sides in the disagreement. I do not understand what
there was in my original post that caught people on the raw. I had not made the
decision, nor was I cock-a-hoop that Leicester had won, I was only pleased that
Richard's final laying-to-rest could now proceed. Please, people, don't
misunderstand me here as well. I merely wanted to express my feelings now that
the decision has made made.
So, it is going to be Leicester.
After all the furore, delay, money spent and the suffering (if bones can
suffer) of Richard himself, we are back where we were in the beginning. If it
were not for this judicial challenge, he would be buried now and at rest, and
it would be in Leicester. But, Spring 2015 is when he is to be finally shown
the honour, respect and consideration his rank is due (and I do NOT mean that
he'll only get honour, respect and consideration because he will be in
Leicester). Then we, his supporters, will be able to go there and think our
personal thoughts while we are actually within feet of him. No more seeing
from afar on TV or in the press, we will be physically close. It is something
to which I look forward. He's been important to me for so long that I need to
pay my personal respects. I would feel and say the same things if he was to
lie in York. Any relief I express is purely that the wrangling must now be at
an end. May everything go well from this point on, and may the wounds of
disagreement between friends be over and done with. We're not York or
Leicester, we're Richard's supporters. Maybe we are laughed at sometimes for
adhering to a long-dead king, but we know what it feels like to be drawn to
him, and what he means to us.
Loyaulte me lie.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III
court reburial bid fails
You're the first to post, Jan. That I've seen anyway. So we're back to
where we were in the beginning. Heaven knows how much it has cost to go full
circle. Anyway, at least we can now move on and see him laid to rest at last.
May it be in honour, and in peace.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:28 AM
To:
Subject: BBC News - Richard III court
reburial bid fails
Jan here.Leicester it is; there was"no duty to
consult".http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836

Thank you, Jonathan.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 1:36 PM
To:
Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III
court reburial bid fails

Hi Sandra

Good
and apposite message. I think - hope - it's probably quiet on this board
because people don't wish to appear disparaging of the sensibilities of others,
whichever side of the debate they're on. Like you, I'm just relieved
there's a conclusion.

Jonathan
From:
"'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []"
<>To:
Sent: Friday, 23 May 2014,
13:16Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails
I have posted the following at other sites, and
apparently been misunderstood by those who wanted the decision to go in York's
favour, so here it is for the forum, with as much clarification as I can think
of, because I am NOT taking sides in the disagreement. I do not understand what
there was in my original post that caught people on the raw. I had not made the
decision, nor was I cock-a-hoop that Leicester had won, I was only pleased that
Richard's final laying-to-rest could now proceed. Please, people, don't
misunderstand me here as well. I merely wanted to express my feelings now that
the decision has made made.
So, it is going to be Leicester.
After all the furore, delay, money spent and the suffering (if bones can
suffer) of Richard himself, we are back where we were in the beginning. If it
were not for this judicial challenge, he would be buried now and at rest, and
it would be in Leicester. But, Spring 2015 is when he is to be finally shown
the honour, respect and consideration his rank is due (and I do NOT mean that
he'll only get honour, respect and consideration because he will be in
Leicester). Then we, his supporters, will be able to go there and think our
personal thoughts while we are actually within feet of him. No more seeing
from afar on TV or in the press, we will be physically close. It is something
to which I look forward. He's been important to me for so long that I need to
pay my personal respects. I would feel and say the same things if he was to
lie in York. Any relief I express is purely that the wrangling must now be at
an end. May everything go well from this point on, and may the wounds of
disagreement between friends be over and done with. We're not York or
Leicester, we're Richard's supporters. Maybe we are laughed at sometimes for
adhering to a long-dead king, but we know what it feels like to be drawn to
him, and what he means to us.
Loyaulte me
lie.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III
court reburial bid fails
You're the first to post, Jan. That I've seen anyway. So we're back to
where we were in the beginning. Heaven knows how much it has cost to go full
circle. Anyway, at least we can now move on and see him laid to rest at last.
May it be in honour, and in peace.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:28 AM
To:
Subject: BBC News - Richard III court
reburial bid fails
Jan here.Leicester it is; there was"no duty to consult".http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836

Yes...and thank God for that...finally to have somewhere to go and pay our respects...Eileen

Excellent posting Sandra. Thank you so much for letting us all know. There is precious little about it in the media due to the local election coverage. (Not being churlish here, I was up half the night at our own election count).Personally, I am just relieved that the matter has been settled and Richard can finally be laid to rest with honour and dignity.I am with you that I hope beyond hope that we can all unite now in support of Richard and his reputation and memory.Jess
From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []Sent: 23/05/2014 13:36To: Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails

Hi Sandra

Good and apposite message. I think - hope - it's probably quiet on this board because people don't wish to appear disparaging of the sensibilities of others, whichever side of the debate they're on. Like you, I'm just relieved there's a conclusion.

Jonathan

From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <>To: Sent: Friday, 23 May 2014, 13:16Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails

I have posted the following at other sites, and apparently been misunderstood by those who wanted the decision to go in York's favour, so here it is for the forum, with as much clarification as I can think of, because I am NOT taking sides in the disagreement. I do not understand what there was in my original post that caught people on the raw. I had not made the decision, nor was I cock-a-hoop that Leicester had won, I was only pleased that Richard's final laying-to-rest could now proceed. Please, people, don't misunderstand me here as well. I merely wanted to express my feelings now that the decision has made made.
So, it is going to be Leicester. After all the furore, delay, money spent and the suffering (if bones can suffer) of Richard himself, we are back where we were in the beginning. If it were not for this judicial challenge, he would be buried now and at rest, and it would be in Leicester. But, Spring 2015 is when he is to be finally shown the honour, respect and consideration his rank is due (and I do NOT mean that he'll only get honour, respect and consideration because he will be in Leicester). Then we, his supporters, will be able to go there and think our personal thoughts while we are actually within feet of him. No more seeing from afar on TV or in the press, we will be physically close. It is something to which I look forward. He's been important to me for so long that I need to pay my personal respects. I would feel and say the same things if he was to lie in York. Any relief I express is purely that the wrangling must now be at an end. May everything go well from this point on, and may the wounds of disagreement between friends be over and done with. We're not York or Leicester, we're Richard's supporters. Maybe we are laughed at sometimes for adhering to a long-dead king, but we know what it feels like to be drawn to him, and what he means to us.
Loyaulte me lie.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails
You're the first to post, Jan. That I've seen anyway. So we're back to where we were in the beginning. Heaven knows how much it has cost to go full circle. Anyway, at least we can now move on and see him laid to rest at last. May it be in honour, and in peace.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:28 AM
To:
Subject: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails
Jan here.Leicester it is; there was"no duty to consult".http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836

I agree, it is like quibbling over who gets Granny’s jewelry, only writ large. After a year, I think it is time to bury the hatchet,
and let him be buried!

From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 7:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails



I have posted the following at other sites, and apparently been misunderstood by those who wanted the decision to go in York’s favour,
so here it is for the forum, with as much clarification as I can think of, because I am NOT taking sides in the disagreement. I do not understand what there was in my original post that caught people on the raw. I had not made the decision, nor was I cock-a-hoop
that Leicester had won, I was only pleased that Richard’s final laying-to-rest could now proceed. Please, people, don’t misunderstand me here as well. I merely wanted to express my feelings now that the decision has made made.

So, it is going to be
Leicester . After all the furore, delay, money spent and the suffering (if bones can suffer) of Richard himself, we are back where we were in the beginning. If it were not for this judicial challenge, he would be buried now and
at rest, and it would be in Leicester . But, Spring 2015 is when he is to be finally shown the honour, respect and consideration his rank is due (and I do NOT mean that he’ll only get honour, respect and consideration because
he will be in Leicester ). Then we, his supporters, will be able to go there and think our personal thoughts while we are actually within feet of him. No more seeing from afar on TV or in the press, we will be physically close.
It is something to which I look forward. He's been important to me for so long that I need to pay my personal respects. I would feel and say the same things if he was to lie in
York . Any relief I express is purely that the wrangling must now be at an end. May everything go well from this point on, and may the wounds of disagreement between friends be over and done with.
We're not York or Leicester, we're Richard's supporters. Maybe we are laughed at sometimes for adhering to a long-dead king, but we know what it feels like to be drawn to him, and what he means to us.

Loyaulte me lie.

Sandra
=^..^=


From:
SandraMachin

Sent:
Friday, May 23, 2014 10:35 AM
To:

Subject:
Re: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails

You’re the first to post, Jan. That I’ve seen anyway. So we’re back to where we were in the beginning. Heaven knows how much it has
cost to go full circle. Anyway, at least we can now move on and see him laid to rest at last. May it be in honour, and in peace.

Sandra
=^..^=

From:
mailto:
Sent:
Friday, May 23, 2014 10:28 AM
To:

Subject:
BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails



Jan here.
Leicester it is ; there was"no duty to consult".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836

Just to say I feel the same way as everyone else who as posted. I felt a preference for York Minster but was unhappy about the acrimony and delay caused by the appeal, and now just feel relieved that the burial can go ahead.Marie

I echo this. And thanks Sandra for your post too. H On Friday, 23 May 2014, 16:12, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Just to say I feel the same way as everyone else who as posted. I felt a preference for York Minster but was unhappy about the acrimony and delay caused by the appeal, and now just feel relieved that the burial can go ahead.Marie

To me, a burial is a burial: any church can bury the dead. But "honour" and "dignity"????Like thousands - yes, thousands - of Ricardians outside this forum (and outside the Society, hey, how about that!!) , I am deeply unhappy at this decision and believe it to be profoundly wrong. If you find treasure trove by accident, the 'possession' must go to a coroner's court. But apparently if you find a king, and if you are only the contracted worker paid to carry out the work proscribed for you in a work contract by someone who is conducting a search, then you - as the mere contracted digger - are entitled to choose where to bury the king, regardless of anyone else, and particularly regardless of the personal history of this king. How dignified is that? "Honour" - well, honouring a man, let alone a king, means paying his life some mind: where he lived, where he gave his religious time and devotion. Otherwise you are just honouring where his successor decided to put him: and we know why and how Henry Tudor put him just inside the chancel of Greyfriars and in what state. It has been said over the last few weeks and months that everyone knows Richard would have never chosen Leicester - even Leicester supporters have apparently said this too - so yes, let's now have him buried in Leicester, in a place he definitely would never have chosen. You can call that a burial, but you can't call it honouring the dead, or respect for the dead. There is no dignity in this outcome, and no respect. But there will be a ceremony on TV at which much will be said about dignity and honour by a city praising itself above all else and beginning their great task of showing us the moral example of "Richard the Flawed Man", the example of humanity who had "dishonourable characteristics", an archetype of our sinful human nature, the only burial inside St Martin's.....Only the Alliance and the Johnsons were brave enough to stand up for what was best for Richard, not what was best for the convenience and best interests of a uni/city council etc. I am very sorry their efforts have not won through, and like the many who study and appreciate Richard outside this forum, I will never be reconciled to a Leicester burial. It was and always will be the wrong place for Richard to be.

I thought you were perfectly clear on that. And many of us, I'm sure, feel the same way. Though I would have preferred York, I'm not upset that the decision was in Leicester's favor. I just want them to get on with burying him!Gilda On May 23, 2014, at 8:16 AM, 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] wrote:I have posted the following at other sites, and apparently been misunderstood by those who wanted the decision to go in York's favour, so here it is for the forum, with as much clarification as I can think of, because I am NOT taking sides in the disagreement. I do not understand what there was in my original post that caught people on the raw. I had not made the decision, nor was I cock-a-hoop that Leicester had won, I was only pleased that Richard's final laying-to-rest could now proceed. Please, people, don't misunderstand me here as well. I merely wanted to express my feelings now that the decision has made made. So, it is going to be Leicester. After all the furore, delay, money spent and the suffering (if bones can suffer) of Richard himself, we are back where we were in the beginning. If it were not for this judicial challenge, he would be buried now and at rest, and it would be in Leicester. But, Spring 2015 is when he is to be finally shown the honour, respect and consideration his rank is due (and I do NOT mean that he'll only get honour, respect and consideration because he will be in Leicester). Then we, his supporters, will be able to go there and think our personal thoughts while we are actually within feet of him. No more seeing from afar on TV or in the press, we will be physically close. It is something to which I look forward. He's been important to me for so long that I need to pay my personal respects. I would feel and say the same things if he was to lie in York. Any relief I express is purely that the wrangling must now be at an end. May everything go well from this point on, and may the wounds of disagreement between friends be over and done with. We're not York or Leicester, we're Richard's supporters. Maybe we are laughed at sometimes for adhering to a long-dead king, but we know what it feels like to be drawn to him, and what he means to us.Loyaulte me lie. Sandra=^..^= From: SandraMachinSent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:35 AMTo: Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails You're the first to post, Jan. That I've seen anyway. So we're back to where we were in the beginning. Heaven knows how much it has cost to go full circle. Anyway, at least we can now move on and see him laid to rest at last. May it be in honour, and in peace. Sandra=^..^= From: mailto:Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:28 AMTo: Subject: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails Jan here.Leicester it is; there was"no duty to consult".http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836

Indeed, Gilda. We have him again, when we never even dreamed it could
happen, so let's be glad. For him as well as for ourselves. For
everyone, because he was, and still is, a great man.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2014 10:49 AM
To:
Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III
court reburial bid fails
I thought you were perfectly clear on that. And many of us, I'm sure, feel
the same way. Though I would have preferred York, I'm not upset that the
decision was in Leicester's favor. I just want them to get on with burying him!
Gilda
On May 23, 2014, at 8:16 AM, 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@...
[] wrote:

I have posted the following at other sites, and
apparently been misunderstood by those who wanted the decision to go in York's
favour, so here it is for the forum, with as much clarification as I can think
of, because I am NOT taking sides in the disagreement. I do not understand
what there was in my original post that caught people on the raw. I had not
made the decision, nor was I cock-a-hoop that Leicester had won, I was only
pleased that Richard's final laying-to-rest could now proceed. Please, people,
don't misunderstand me here as well. I merely wanted to express my feelings
now that the decision has made made.
So, it is going to be
Leicester. After all the furore, delay, money spent and the suffering (if
bones can suffer) of Richard himself, we are back where we were in the
beginning. If it were not for this judicial challenge, he would be buried
now and at rest, and it would be in Leicester. But, Spring 2015 is when he
is to be finally shown the honour, respect and consideration his rank is due
(and I do NOT mean that he'll only get honour, respect and consideration
because he will be in Leicester). Then we, his supporters, will be able to
go there and think our personal thoughts while we are actually within feet
of him. No more seeing from afar on TV or in the press, we will be
physically close. It is something to which I look forward. He's been
important to me for so long that I need to pay my personal respects. I would
feel and say the same things if he was to lie in York. Any relief I express
is purely that the wrangling must now be at an end. May everything go well
from this point on, and may the wounds of disagreement between friends be
over and done with. We're not York or Leicester, we're Richard's supporters.
Maybe we are laughed at sometimes for adhering to a long-dead king, but we
know what it feels like to be drawn to him, and what he means to
us.
Loyaulte me
lie.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Friday, May
23, 2014 10:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re:
BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid
fails
You're the first to post, Jan. That I've seen anyway. So we're back to
where we were in the beginning. Heaven knows how much it has cost to go full
circle. Anyway, at least we can now move on and see him laid to rest at last.
May it be in honour, and in peace.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May
23, 2014 10:28 AM
To:
Subject: [Richard
III Society Forum] BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid
fails
Jan here.Leicester it is; there was"no duty to consult".http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27537836

Marie I'm sure you're the person who might know. Who is this Sir Robert Hildyard mentioned by their lordships in their resume of Richard's reign? He is the only person they mention as having supported the coronation of Richard and been rewarded by him. I have checked the index of most of my Ricardian books and can find no mention of him. Where did their lordships find him??Jennie

Marie I'm sure you're the person who might know. Who is this Sir Robert Hildyard whom their lordships mention as having supported the coronation of Richard and been rewarded by him? I have not heard of him and I have checked the index in most of my Ricardian books and can find no mention of him. Where did their lordships find him? (I'm referring to their resume of Richard's life & reign.)Jennie

I was surprised to see Robert Hildyard's name popping up in that context as the Hildyards belonged to the Earl of Northumberland's neck of the woods, at Winestead in Holderness, but according to A2A Robert the Younger was knighted at Richard's coronation:-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=050-ddx5830-33&cid=-1#-1 However, I've checked Harley 433, and Hildyard's name is not on the list of men summoned on 5th June to receive knighthoods at Edward V's coronation so I'm not sure of the provenance of the statement in A2A. Perhaps it's simply that after 26 June 1483 he is referred tovas a knight. As you can see from the A2A link, there were two Robert Hildyards, father and son. One of these was reputed to have been the 'Robin of Holderness' who led the rebellion in the spring of 1469. Possibly the 'Robin of Redesdale' who appeared the same spring was originally Hildyard under another name. The main aim of the spring rebellions in E. Yorks was the restoration of Henry Percy to the earldom of Northumberland, and they were put down by John Neville, although some historians depict it as an early stage in Warwick's rebellion against Edward IV. My own suspicion is that this genuinely was a pro-Percy rebellion, and that Warwick's captain John Conyers simply found it useful to borrow the Robin of Redesdale moniker as a cover when they rode down to challenge Edward's forces a couple of months later.Quick look in patent rolls for 1476-85 shows that a Robert Hildyard was appointed to commissions for the East Riding under Northumberland in 1477 and 1480, and RH the Elder was a JP for the East Riding until June 1483; he had been reappointed by Richard as Protector in May so is more likely to have been dropped the next month owing to old age and infirmity than because he was out of favour.Anyhow, he seems a very random person to have been chosen to illustrate Richard's rewarding of his supporters at his coronation, so I wonder if one of the Plantagenet Alliance people is a Hildyard.Marie

Can anyone tell me whether Conn I ggilden's books on the Wars of the Roses are worth reading. I am currently reading his books on Ghengis Khan which I have found excellent. Many thanks. CoralSent from Samsung Mobile-------- Original message --------From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> Date: 25/05/2014 13:43 (GMT+00:00) To: Subject: Re: BBC News - Richard III court reburial bid fails
I was surprised to see Robert Hildyard's name popping up in that context as the Hildyards belonged to the Earl of Northumberland's neck of the woods, at Winestead in Holderness, but according to A2A Robert the Younger was knighted at Richard's coronation:-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=050-ddx5830-33&cid=-1#-1 However, I've checked Harley 433, and Hildyard's name is not on the list of men summoned on 5th June to receive knighthoods at Edward V's coronation so I'm not sure of the provenance of the statement in A2A. Perhaps it's simply that after 26 June 1483 he is referred tovas a knight. As you can see from the A2A link, there were two Robert Hildyards, father and son. One of these was reputed to have been the 'Robin of Holderness' who led the rebellion in the spring of 1469. Possibly the 'Robin of Redesdale' who appeared the same spring was originally Hildyard under another name. The main aim of the spring rebellions in E. Yorks was the restoration of Henry Percy to the earldom of Northumberland, and they were put down by John Neville, although some historians depict it as an early stage in Warwick's rebellion against Edward IV. My own suspicion is that this genuinely was a pro-Percy rebellion, and that Warwick's captain John Conyers simply found it useful to borrow the Robin of Redesdale moniker as a cover when they rode down to challenge Edward's forces a couple of months later.Quick look in patent rolls for 1476-85 shows that a Robert Hildyard was appointed to commissions for the East Riding under Northumberland in 1477 and 1480, and RH the Elder was a JP for the East Riding until June 1483; he had been reappointed by Richard as Protector in May so is more likely to have been dropped the next month owing to old age and infirmity than because he was out of favour.Anyhow, he seems a very random person to have been chosen to illustrate Richard's rewarding of his supporters at his coronation, so I wonder if one of the Plantagenet Alliance people is a Hildyard.Marie

Jan here.Thank you for the information about the Hilyards, Marie. I had only been ale to find a brief reference to Hilyard/Hilyard in Ross's "Edward IV" in connection with the Robins of Redesdale/Holderness.Sent from my iPad On 25 May 2014, at 13:43, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
I was surprised to see Robert Hildyard's name popping up in that context as the Hildyards belonged to the Earl of Northumberland's neck of the woods, at Winestead in Holderness, but according to A2A Robert the Younger was knighted at Richard's coronation:-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=050-ddx5830-33&cid=-1#-1 However, I've checked Harley 433, and Hildyard's name is not on the list of men summoned on 5th June to receive knighthoods at Edward V's coronation so I'm not sure of the provenance of the statement in A2A. Perhaps it's simply that after 26 June 1483 he is referred tovas a knight. As you can see from the A2A link, there were two Robert Hildyards, father and son. One of these was reputed to have been
the 'Robin of Holderness' who led the rebellion in the spring of 1469. Possibly the 'Robin of Redesdale' who appeared the same spring was originally Hildyard under another name. The main aim of the spring rebellions in E. Yorks was the restoration of Henry Percy to the earldom of Northumberland, and they were put down by John Neville, although some historians depict it as an early stage in Warwick's rebellion against Edward IV. My own suspicion is that this genuinely was a pro-Percy rebellion, and that Warwick's captain John Conyers simply found it useful to borrow the Robin of Redesdale moniker as a cover when they rode down to challenge Edward's forces a couple of months later.Quick look in patent rolls for 1476-85 shows that a Robert Hildyard was appointed to commissions for the East Riding under Northumberland in 1477 and 1480, and RH the Elder was a JP for the East Riding until June 1483; he had been rea
ppointed by Richard as Protector in May so is more likely to have been dropped the next month owing to old age and infirmity than because he was out of favour.Anyhow, he seems a very random person to have been chosen to illustrate Richard's rewarding of his supporters at his coronation, so I wonder if one of the Plantagenet Alliance people is a Hildyard.Marie

I would agree with that purely from looking at his profile. He doesn't seem to have been related to anyone spectacular - his wife was the daughter of Sir John Hastings of Elsing and Anne Morley (daughter of Lord Morley) and his children married the usual Yorks gang of the De la See, Ayscough and Haldenby, but these names may mean more to you Marie? BTW he wasn't that old - he was born in 1436 and died in 1502 aged 65. H On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 13:43, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
I was surprised to see Robert Hildyard's name popping up in that context as the Hildyards belonged to the Earl of Northumberland's neck of the woods, at Winestead in Holderness, but according to A2A Robert the Younger was knighted at Richard's coronation:-http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=050-ddx5830-33&cid=-1#-1 However, I've checked Harley 433, and Hildyard's name is not on the list of men summoned on 5th June to receive knighthoods at Edward V's coronation so I'm not sure of the provenance of the statement in A2A. Perhaps it's simply that after 26 June 1483 he is referred tovas a knight. As you can see from the A2A link, there were two Robert
Hildyards, father and son. One of these was reputed to have been the 'Robin of Holderness' who led the rebellion in the spring of 1469. Possibly the 'Robin of Redesdale' who appeared the same spring was originally Hildyard under another name. The main aim of the spring rebellions in E. Yorks was the restoration of Henry Percy to the earldom of Northumberland, and they were put down by John Neville, although some historians depict it as an early stage in Warwick's rebellion against Edward IV. My own suspicion is that this genuinely was a pro-Percy rebellion, and that Warwick's captain John Conyers simply found it useful to borrow the Robin of Redesdale moniker as a cover when they rode down to challenge Edward's forces a couple of months later.Quick look in patent rolls for 1476-85 shows that a Robert Hildyard was appointed to commissions for the East Riding under Northumberland in 1477 and 1480, and RH the Elder
was a JP for the East Riding until June 1483; he had been reappointed by Richard as Protector in May so is more likely to have been dropped the next month owing to old age and infirmity than because he was out of favour.Anyhow, he seems a very random person to have been chosen to illustrate Richard's rewarding of his supporters at his coronation, so I wonder if one of the Plantagenet Alliance people is a Hildyard.Marie

Hi Hilary,It was Robert Hildyard the Younger - son of Robert Hildyard the elder the JP - who died in 1502; RH the Elder died in the late 1480s. According to my notes taken from an article by Keith Dockray in Ricardian no 83, it was Robert the Elder who married a Hastings, and she was a sister of Sir Hugh Hastings who appears frequently in the York city records - not related to Lord Hastings, at least not at all closely. I know the de la Sees were another East Riding family retained by the Percys. If you follow the A2A link in my previous post you will find much more information.Marie

Thanks Marie. Yes I don't have a father for the Younger and the only son I can find for him is a Peter who married Joan de la See. Looks as though someone has muddled up the two with regard to marriage or perhaps completely, because Elizabeth Hastings (sister of Sir Hugh) was born about 1439 which matches the dates of Robert the Younger (1436/1501) and it has been perpetuated in record after record on the web. That's why I shall never release my database until I've been through it all and double checked insofar as I can, with NA evidence. H On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 18:36, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Hilary,It was Robert Hildyard the Younger - son of Robert Hildyard the elder the JP - who died in 1502; RH the Elder died in the late 1480s. According to my notes taken from an article by Keith Dockray in Ricardian no 83, it was Robert the Elder who married a Hastings, and she was a sister of Sir Hugh Hastings who appears frequently in the York city records - not related to Lord Hastings, at least not at all closely. I know the de la Sees were another East Riding family retained by the Percys. If you follow the A2A link in my previous post you will find much more information.Marie

Thank you so much. He certainly does seem an odd choice for their lordships. Is anyone on friendly terms with them to ask?Jennie

Can anybody tell me if it is worth purchasing Conn Iggurdsens books on the Wars of the Roses. If not does anyone have any reccommendations apart from the obvious. Thank you. CoralSent from Samsung Mobile

I looked at it in the bookshop, very
large print and quite short, and bought it for my Kindle, but as
yet haven't got round to reading it! Anyone else help out here?
Paul

On 26/05/2014 20:21, 'c.nelson1' c.nelson1@...
[] wrote:
Can anybody tell me if it is worth purchasing Conn Iggurdsens
books on the Wars of the Roses. If not does anyone have any
reccommendations apart from the obvious.
Thank you. Coral

Sent from Samsung
Mobile


--
Richard Liveth Yet!