[[Possible Spam]] Richmond
[[Possible Spam]] Richmond
2014-07-12 21:25:03
Carol wrote:
"Interesting point about TR not legitimizing
Edward's sons. Are you sure that's true? As far as I know, the church hadn't
declared them illegitimate, only Parliamnet, which repeated the declaration (and
all the rest of Richard's claim) unread. If Richard II (or his Parliament) could
legitimize the clearly illegitimate Beauforts, couldn't Henry's Parliament
legitimize Edward's children (whose illegitimacy had been demonstrated to the
satisfaction of Richard's Parliament but clearly not to that of all Englishmen)
even though Edward's children aren't mentioned in the act of reversal, which is
careful not to quote TR for fear of preserving its words?"
//snip//
Dour here:
(sorry, couldn't resist!)
It may only be my reading, but I can't find
anything in TR where *Parliament* declares Edward's offspring illegitimate. TR,
after stating the conditions under which Edward's "pretenced" marriage to EW
took place (no banns, profane site, sorcery), then adds (knowing full well
the objections previously listed wouldn't necessarily by themselves
illegitimize Edward's children) that Edward was still married to
Eleanor Butler at the time of his "pretenced" marriage!
Then (i quote):
"Also it appeareth evidently and followeth, that
all th'issue and Children of the seid King Edward, been Bastards, and unable to
inherite or to clayme any thing by Inheritance, by the Lawe and Custome of
Englond."
Which is why I've been writing that TR *didn't*
declare Edward's childrens illegitimate, it *recognized* that they
were.
For Parliament to "declare" Edward's children
illegitimate, Parliament would have to have the legal authority to do so, but
the only authority with the power to declare someone illegitimate was the
Church. However, Parliament could *recognize* a situation that met well-known
standards of inheritance (even though clerical), law and custom (both civil)."
and that, or so I believe, is what TR does.
Parliament could "legitimize" Edward's children, as
it had the Beauforts, but that would have meant recognizing that they *were*
illegitimate (otherwise, why?), something HT apparently didn't
want.
Doug
ps - do you (or anyone) have a copy of the Act of
Reversal that could be posted here?
"Interesting point about TR not legitimizing
Edward's sons. Are you sure that's true? As far as I know, the church hadn't
declared them illegitimate, only Parliamnet, which repeated the declaration (and
all the rest of Richard's claim) unread. If Richard II (or his Parliament) could
legitimize the clearly illegitimate Beauforts, couldn't Henry's Parliament
legitimize Edward's children (whose illegitimacy had been demonstrated to the
satisfaction of Richard's Parliament but clearly not to that of all Englishmen)
even though Edward's children aren't mentioned in the act of reversal, which is
careful not to quote TR for fear of preserving its words?"
//snip//
Dour here:
(sorry, couldn't resist!)
It may only be my reading, but I can't find
anything in TR where *Parliament* declares Edward's offspring illegitimate. TR,
after stating the conditions under which Edward's "pretenced" marriage to EW
took place (no banns, profane site, sorcery), then adds (knowing full well
the objections previously listed wouldn't necessarily by themselves
illegitimize Edward's children) that Edward was still married to
Eleanor Butler at the time of his "pretenced" marriage!
Then (i quote):
"Also it appeareth evidently and followeth, that
all th'issue and Children of the seid King Edward, been Bastards, and unable to
inherite or to clayme any thing by Inheritance, by the Lawe and Custome of
Englond."
Which is why I've been writing that TR *didn't*
declare Edward's childrens illegitimate, it *recognized* that they
were.
For Parliament to "declare" Edward's children
illegitimate, Parliament would have to have the legal authority to do so, but
the only authority with the power to declare someone illegitimate was the
Church. However, Parliament could *recognize* a situation that met well-known
standards of inheritance (even though clerical), law and custom (both civil)."
and that, or so I believe, is what TR does.
Parliament could "legitimize" Edward's children, as
it had the Beauforts, but that would have meant recognizing that they *were*
illegitimate (otherwise, why?), something HT apparently didn't
want.
Doug
ps - do you (or anyone) have a copy of the Act of
Reversal that could be posted here?
Re: Repeal of TR (Was: Richmond)
2014-07-13 00:42:24
Doug wrote: "Dour here:(sorry, couldn't resist!)"Carol responds:Okay, I deserved that for not catching my typo! I still have tears in my eyes from laughing. But I may call you "Dour" in future, so watch out!Doug wrote:"It may only be my reading, but I can't find
anything in TR where *Parliament* declares Edward's offspring illegitimate. TR,
after stating the conditions under which Edward's "pretenced" marriage to EW
took place (no banns, profane site, sorcery), then adds (knowing full well
the objections previously listed wouldn't necessarily by themselves
illegitimize Edward's children) that Edward was still married to
Eleanor Butler at the time of his "pretenced" marriage!" [snip quote]"Which is why I've been writing that TR *didn't*
declare Edward's childrens illegitimate, it *recognized* that they
were. [snip] Parliament could "legitimize" Edward's children, as
it had the Beauforts, but that would have meant recognizing that they *were*
illegitimate (otherwise, why?), something HT apparently didn't
want. "ps - do you (or anyone) have a copy of the Act of
Reversal that could be posted here?"Carol again:Warning--very long post coming up!Very interesting reasoning. What do others think, especially those with a legal background or a special interest in TR/Eleanor Talbot Butler?As it happens, I did have a URL for the Act of Reversal but it appears to be a dead link, fortunately preserved by the invaluable Wayback Machine: Original Text - Titulus Regious - Statutes of King Henry VII Original Text - Titulus Regious - Statutes of King Henry... An Act for the Resitution of King Henry VI and the Royal Title of Henry VIII. View on web.archive.org Preview by Yahoo The relevant portion reads:"¶ Where afore this tyme, Richard, late Duke of Glouc', and after in dede and not of right King of England, called Richard the IIId,
caused a false and seditious Bille of false and malicious ymaginacones,
ayenst all good and true disposicion, to be put unto hyme, the
beginning of which Bill is thus:
¶ Please it youre noble Grace to understand the Considerac`ons, Ellecc`on and Petic`on under written, &c.
¶ Which Bille, after that, with all the continue of the same, by
auctoritee of Parliament, holden the first yeere of the usurped Reigne
of the said late King Richard IIId, was ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved and authorised; as in the same more plainly appeareth.
The King, atte the speciall instance, desire and prayer of the
Lordes Spirituell and Temporell, and Comons, in the psent Parlement
assembled, woll it be ordeined, stablished and enacted, by the advys of
the said Lordes Spuell and Temporell, and the Comunes, in this present
Parlement assembled, and by auctoritee of the same, that the said Bill,
Acte and Ratificacion, and all the circumstances and dependants of the
same Bill and Acte, for the false and seditious ymaginac`ons and
untrouths thereof, be void, adnulled, repelled, irrite, and of noe force
ne effecte.
And that it be ordeined by the said auctoritee, that the said
Bill be cancelled, destrued, and that the said Acte, Record and
enrollinge, shall be taken and avoided out of the Roll and Records of
the said Parliament of the said late King, and brente, and utterly
destroyed.
And over this, be it ordeined by the same auctoritee, that every
p1soune haveing anie Coppie or Remembraunces of the said Bill or Acte,
bring unto the Chaunceller of England for the tyme being, the same
Coppies and Remembraunces, or utterlie destrue theym, afore the Fest of
Easter next comen, upon Peine of ymprissonment, and makeing fyne and
ransome to the Kinge atte his will.
So that all thinges said and remembred in the said Bill and Acte
thereof maie be for ever out of remembraunce, and allso forgott."By quoting only the unspecific beginning of the bill and failing to specify the supposedly offensive content (not to mention destroying the original and making it illegal to possess a copy or "remembrance" of TR), Henry's Parliament made certain that it was indeed, if not forever, at least during the reigns of the Tudors, "out of remembraunce, and allso forgott."Carol again:No mention is made of the legitimacy or otherwise of Edward's children or the validity of his marriage to EW (though in another part of the bill, her property is restored to her, possibly for Henry to take away). Most historians claim that the bill was necessary to relegitimize EoY to make Tudor's marriage valid or his heirs unquestionably legitimate, but it appears to me that their intent was to invalidate (or erase) Richard's claim and label him, officially, in Parliament, as a tyrant and usurper. To openly mention Edward's children, either to legitimize them or declare them legitimate, would recall the reasons why they were declared illegitimate in the first place and necessitate an investigation (which Henry specifically didn't want--he pardoned Stillington to prevent it) and would also, if they declared Edward's children legitimate, make Edward V the rightful king if he was alive.To prevent that, Parliament made sure to state that nothing in the present bill affected the right of HT to the throne. Even so, they made the bill as vague as possible, merely reversing and invalidating the "imaginations and untruths" in the previous "seditious" bill while making no effort to prove them false and making sure not to restate them.It's as if the U.S. Congress were to label the Bill of Rights a seditious and false bill and repeal it unread, making it illegal to own a copy or even an allusion to it. Fortunately for all Americans, that's impossible in an age of printing, much less the Internet.At any rate, Dour (short for "Doug, my dear"!), I think your argument stands based on the content of the Act of Annulment.Note that there are links to Titulus Regius (original wording and modern translation) and Richard's Act of Attainder of Margaret Beaufort at the bottom of the page. (I tested them to make sure that they work.)Carol
anything in TR where *Parliament* declares Edward's offspring illegitimate. TR,
after stating the conditions under which Edward's "pretenced" marriage to EW
took place (no banns, profane site, sorcery), then adds (knowing full well
the objections previously listed wouldn't necessarily by themselves
illegitimize Edward's children) that Edward was still married to
Eleanor Butler at the time of his "pretenced" marriage!" [snip quote]"Which is why I've been writing that TR *didn't*
declare Edward's childrens illegitimate, it *recognized* that they
were. [snip] Parliament could "legitimize" Edward's children, as
it had the Beauforts, but that would have meant recognizing that they *were*
illegitimate (otherwise, why?), something HT apparently didn't
want. "ps - do you (or anyone) have a copy of the Act of
Reversal that could be posted here?"Carol again:Warning--very long post coming up!Very interesting reasoning. What do others think, especially those with a legal background or a special interest in TR/Eleanor Talbot Butler?As it happens, I did have a URL for the Act of Reversal but it appears to be a dead link, fortunately preserved by the invaluable Wayback Machine: Original Text - Titulus Regious - Statutes of King Henry VII Original Text - Titulus Regious - Statutes of King Henry... An Act for the Resitution of King Henry VI and the Royal Title of Henry VIII. View on web.archive.org Preview by Yahoo The relevant portion reads:"¶ Where afore this tyme, Richard, late Duke of Glouc', and after in dede and not of right King of England, called Richard the IIId,
caused a false and seditious Bille of false and malicious ymaginacones,
ayenst all good and true disposicion, to be put unto hyme, the
beginning of which Bill is thus:
¶ Please it youre noble Grace to understand the Considerac`ons, Ellecc`on and Petic`on under written, &c.
¶ Which Bille, after that, with all the continue of the same, by
auctoritee of Parliament, holden the first yeere of the usurped Reigne
of the said late King Richard IIId, was ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved and authorised; as in the same more plainly appeareth.
The King, atte the speciall instance, desire and prayer of the
Lordes Spirituell and Temporell, and Comons, in the psent Parlement
assembled, woll it be ordeined, stablished and enacted, by the advys of
the said Lordes Spuell and Temporell, and the Comunes, in this present
Parlement assembled, and by auctoritee of the same, that the said Bill,
Acte and Ratificacion, and all the circumstances and dependants of the
same Bill and Acte, for the false and seditious ymaginac`ons and
untrouths thereof, be void, adnulled, repelled, irrite, and of noe force
ne effecte.
And that it be ordeined by the said auctoritee, that the said
Bill be cancelled, destrued, and that the said Acte, Record and
enrollinge, shall be taken and avoided out of the Roll and Records of
the said Parliament of the said late King, and brente, and utterly
destroyed.
And over this, be it ordeined by the same auctoritee, that every
p1soune haveing anie Coppie or Remembraunces of the said Bill or Acte,
bring unto the Chaunceller of England for the tyme being, the same
Coppies and Remembraunces, or utterlie destrue theym, afore the Fest of
Easter next comen, upon Peine of ymprissonment, and makeing fyne and
ransome to the Kinge atte his will.
So that all thinges said and remembred in the said Bill and Acte
thereof maie be for ever out of remembraunce, and allso forgott."By quoting only the unspecific beginning of the bill and failing to specify the supposedly offensive content (not to mention destroying the original and making it illegal to possess a copy or "remembrance" of TR), Henry's Parliament made certain that it was indeed, if not forever, at least during the reigns of the Tudors, "out of remembraunce, and allso forgott."Carol again:No mention is made of the legitimacy or otherwise of Edward's children or the validity of his marriage to EW (though in another part of the bill, her property is restored to her, possibly for Henry to take away). Most historians claim that the bill was necessary to relegitimize EoY to make Tudor's marriage valid or his heirs unquestionably legitimate, but it appears to me that their intent was to invalidate (or erase) Richard's claim and label him, officially, in Parliament, as a tyrant and usurper. To openly mention Edward's children, either to legitimize them or declare them legitimate, would recall the reasons why they were declared illegitimate in the first place and necessitate an investigation (which Henry specifically didn't want--he pardoned Stillington to prevent it) and would also, if they declared Edward's children legitimate, make Edward V the rightful king if he was alive.To prevent that, Parliament made sure to state that nothing in the present bill affected the right of HT to the throne. Even so, they made the bill as vague as possible, merely reversing and invalidating the "imaginations and untruths" in the previous "seditious" bill while making no effort to prove them false and making sure not to restate them.It's as if the U.S. Congress were to label the Bill of Rights a seditious and false bill and repeal it unread, making it illegal to own a copy or even an allusion to it. Fortunately for all Americans, that's impossible in an age of printing, much less the Internet.At any rate, Dour (short for "Doug, my dear"!), I think your argument stands based on the content of the Act of Annulment.Note that there are links to Titulus Regius (original wording and modern translation) and Richard's Act of Attainder of Margaret Beaufort at the bottom of the page. (I tested them to make sure that they work.)Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (Was: Richmond)
2014-07-13 00:47:53
Carol wrote:"Warning--very long post coming up!"Very interesting reasoning. What do others think, especially those with a legal background or a special interest in TR/Eleanor Talbot Butler?"As it happens, I did have a URL for the Act of Reversal but it appears to be a dead link, fortunately preserved by the invaluable Wayback Machine: Original Text - Titulus Regious - Statutes of King Henry VII [snip]"Carol responds:Yahoo hid part of my previous post. To see the whole thing, click "Show Message History."I hate Yahoo!Carol
Newsweek Article
2014-07-14 08:19:07
Some mangled reasoning, but interesting all the same. Don't go by the first
line.
http://www.newsweek.com/did-richard-iii-kill-princes-tower-258395
Sandra
=^..^=
line.
http://www.newsweek.com/did-richard-iii-kill-princes-tower-258395
Sandra
=^..^=
Re: Newsweek Article
2014-07-14 13:53:23
Hi, Sandra Some mangled reasoning is right! She goes from one argument for Richard killing the boys, to an argument against him doing it, to another argument in favour of his being guilty, to another argument for his innocence, and so on and so on, and of course throws in some arguments for Henry VII and Buckingham being responsible. Yes, it is interesting but there is no evidence so far as I am aware that the tombs of the boys (if there had been such known to the public) would have been even more popular pilgrimage spots than Henry VI's. Henry after all was particularly known for his piety during his lifetime, so it is not surprising that he became known for miracles after his death. And off-hand I can't think of any saints who were venerated as being children of tender years, although of course there may be some I'm not aware of. Best, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 4:19 AMTo: Subject: Newsweek Article Some mangled reasoning, but interesting all the same. Don't go by the first line.http://www.newsweek.com/did-richard-iii-kill-princes-tower-258395 Sandra=^..^=
Re: Newsweek Article
2014-07-14 13:58:00
I agree with you, Sandra, interesting with mangled reasoning is spot on, plus some dodgy grammar. "The truth emerged" ...since the matter is still hotly debated, it is still just an opinion, however confident the author might be!I certainly question her logic here: But Richard knew the princes would likely attract a
cult with a far larger following than that for Henry, because in the
murdered boys the religious qualities of royalty were combined with the
innocence and purity of childhood. Having the princes vanish suited
Richard, for without a grave there could be no focus for a cult, and
without bodies there would be no relics either. Nevertheless, Richard wanted the Edwardian Yorkists to know
the princes were dead so they would transfer their loyalties to him.
But when the boys' mother, Elizabeth Woodville, was given the news they
were dead, she called for vengeance. And Henry Tudor's mother, Margaret
Beaufort, suggested how that might come about. A promised marriage
between Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York would unite the old
Lancastrian affinity with Edwardian Yorkists and bring Richard down.In that case, after HT took the throne, why didn't EW or EofY ever build so much as memorial or establish a chantry to the Princes memory. I have always found it very strange that there is no record that ever they did anything at all to honour the Princes' memory. That would have been contrary to the religious custom of the time - something Leanda de Lisle was keen to point out in her
book.If it was the murder of the Princes that set EW off to plot with MB, as the article suggests, then EW must have had a good reason to be certain they were dead. Why did we never get to hear of it during HT's
reign? Also, it would have been to HT's advantage to let it be known that the Princes were dead, regardless of the 'competition' to Henry VI's memorial. It would have at least have been a deterrent to pretenders and those who supported them. Nico On Monday, 14 July 2014, 8:19, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Some mangled reasoning, but interesting all the same. Don't go by the first
line.
http://www.newsweek.com/did-richard-iii-kill-princes-tower-258395
Sandra
=^..^=
cult with a far larger following than that for Henry, because in the
murdered boys the religious qualities of royalty were combined with the
innocence and purity of childhood. Having the princes vanish suited
Richard, for without a grave there could be no focus for a cult, and
without bodies there would be no relics either. Nevertheless, Richard wanted the Edwardian Yorkists to know
the princes were dead so they would transfer their loyalties to him.
But when the boys' mother, Elizabeth Woodville, was given the news they
were dead, she called for vengeance. And Henry Tudor's mother, Margaret
Beaufort, suggested how that might come about. A promised marriage
between Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York would unite the old
Lancastrian affinity with Edwardian Yorkists and bring Richard down.In that case, after HT took the throne, why didn't EW or EofY ever build so much as memorial or establish a chantry to the Princes memory. I have always found it very strange that there is no record that ever they did anything at all to honour the Princes' memory. That would have been contrary to the religious custom of the time - something Leanda de Lisle was keen to point out in her
book.If it was the murder of the Princes that set EW off to plot with MB, as the article suggests, then EW must have had a good reason to be certain they were dead. Why did we never get to hear of it during HT's
reign? Also, it would have been to HT's advantage to let it be known that the Princes were dead, regardless of the 'competition' to Henry VI's memorial. It would have at least have been a deterrent to pretenders and those who supported them. Nico On Monday, 14 July 2014, 8:19, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Some mangled reasoning, but interesting all the same. Don't go by the first
line.
http://www.newsweek.com/did-richard-iii-kill-princes-tower-258395
Sandra
=^..^=
Re: Newsweek Article
2014-07-14 13:59:09
Wasn't there a small child, supposedly killed by some Jews called Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln? From: "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:(Snip)Yes, it is interesting but there is no evidence so far as I am aware that the tombs of the boys (if there had been such known to the public) would have been even more popular pilgrimage spots than Henry VI's. Henry after all was particularly known for his piety during his lifetime, so it is not surprising that he became known for miracles after his death. And off-hand I can't think of any saints who were venerated as being children of tender years, although of course there may be some I'm not aware of. Best, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 4:19 AMTo: Subject: Newsweek Article Some mangled reasoning, but interesting all the same. Don't go by the first line.http://www.newsweek.com/did-richard-iii-kill-princes-tower-258395 Sandra=^..^=
"With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 4:19 AMTo: Subject: Newsweek Article Some mangled reasoning, but interesting all the same. Don't go by the first line.http://www.newsweek.com/did-richard-iii-kill-princes-tower-258395 Sandra=^..^=
Re: Newsweek Article
2014-07-14 14:31:07
Hi, Pamela You may be right but I have never heard of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln. Was he actually made a saint, or was that an informal declaration, much like the reference to Henry VI as Saint Henry ? Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 9:56 AMTo: Subject: Re: Newsweek Article Wasn't there a small child, supposedly killed by some Jews called Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln? From: "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:(Snip)Yes, it is interesting but there is no evidence so far as I am aware that the tombs of the boys (if there had been such known to the public) would have been even more popular pilgrimage spots than Henry VI's. Henry after all was particularly known for his piety during his lifetime, so it is not surprising that he became known for miracles after his death. And off-hand I can't think of any saints who were venerated as being children of tender years, although of course there may be some I'm not aware of. Best, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 4:19 AMTo: Subject: Newsweek Article Some mangled reasoning, but interesting all the same. Don't go by the first line.http://www.newsweek.com/did-richard-iii-kill-princes-tower-258395 Sandra=^..^=
Re: Newsweek Article
2014-07-14 14:37:23
I imagine it was an informal sainthood, but it does also point to the fact that children were thought innocent and therefore a cult around the princes because of their youth might be feasible. From: "Johanne Tournier wrote:
Hi, Pamela You may be right but I have never heard of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln. Was he actually made a saint, or was that an informal declaration, much like the reference to Henry VI as Saint Henry ? Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 9:56 AMTo: Subject: Re: Newsweek Article Wasn't there a small child, supposedly killed by some Jews called Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln? From: "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:(Snip)Yes, it is interesting but there is no evidence so far as I am aware that the tombs of the boys (if there had been such known to the public) would have been even more popular pilgrimage spots than Henry VI's. Henry after all was particularly known
for his piety during his lifetime, so it is not surprising that he became known for miracles after his death. And off-hand I can't think of any saints who were venerated as being children of tender years, although of course there may be some I'm not aware of. Best, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 4:19 AMTo: Subject: Newsweek Article Some mangled reasoning, but interesting all the same. Don't go by the first line.http://www.newsweek.com/did-richard-iii-kill-princes-tower-258395 Sandra=^..^=
Hi, Pamela You may be right but I have never heard of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln. Was he actually made a saint, or was that an informal declaration, much like the reference to Henry VI as Saint Henry ? Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 9:56 AMTo: Subject: Re: Newsweek Article Wasn't there a small child, supposedly killed by some Jews called Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln? From: "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:(Snip)Yes, it is interesting but there is no evidence so far as I am aware that the tombs of the boys (if there had been such known to the public) would have been even more popular pilgrimage spots than Henry VI's. Henry after all was particularly known
for his piety during his lifetime, so it is not surprising that he became known for miracles after his death. And off-hand I can't think of any saints who were venerated as being children of tender years, although of course there may be some I'm not aware of. Best, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 4:19 AMTo: Subject: Newsweek Article Some mangled reasoning, but interesting all the same. Don't go by the first line.http://www.newsweek.com/did-richard-iii-kill-princes-tower-258395 Sandra=^..^=
Re: Newsweek Article
2014-07-14 15:20:44
So there is no evidence that they died before 1485, no evidence therefore that Richard could have told EW they were dead, no evidence that she plotted with MB or favoured a marriage ........Sounds more like bad fiction to me.
Re: Newsweek Article
2014-07-14 17:34:53
Buckingham may have encouraged Richard to have the princes murdered,
hoping to see the House of York extinguished and that of Lancaster
restored, with Henry Tudor, or himself, as king. It is even possible
Buckingham was acting on Margaret's advice, as she hoped to clear the
way for her son. But this does not absolve Richard.I was also surprised by this comment, since I have come across other articles where Leanda de Lisle seems to be a fan of Margaret Beaufort: Here is one:http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/422378/Don-t-always-blame-the-mothersAnother question is that if they venerated children as pure and innocent in the middle ages, how could Richard (or MB) have been a 'man of the times' by murdering the Princes? It does seem there were some cults around children such as Little St. Hugh of Lincoln and William of Norwich. It doesn't appear that either were formally canonized, but there were venerated for a time as Christian martyrs. This is no longer encouraged due to the anti-semitism involved in both cases. So, I think there was some concept of childhood innocence at the time.Nico On Monday, 14 July 2014, 15:20, "stephenmlark@... []" <> wrote:
So there is no evidence that they died before 1485, no evidence therefore that Richard could have told EW they were dead, no evidence that she plotted with MB or favoured a marriage ........Sounds more like bad fiction to me.
hoping to see the House of York extinguished and that of Lancaster
restored, with Henry Tudor, or himself, as king. It is even possible
Buckingham was acting on Margaret's advice, as she hoped to clear the
way for her son. But this does not absolve Richard.I was also surprised by this comment, since I have come across other articles where Leanda de Lisle seems to be a fan of Margaret Beaufort: Here is one:http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/422378/Don-t-always-blame-the-mothersAnother question is that if they venerated children as pure and innocent in the middle ages, how could Richard (or MB) have been a 'man of the times' by murdering the Princes? It does seem there were some cults around children such as Little St. Hugh of Lincoln and William of Norwich. It doesn't appear that either were formally canonized, but there were venerated for a time as Christian martyrs. This is no longer encouraged due to the anti-semitism involved in both cases. So, I think there was some concept of childhood innocence at the time.Nico On Monday, 14 July 2014, 15:20, "stephenmlark@... []" <> wrote:
So there is no evidence that they died before 1485, no evidence therefore that Richard could have told EW they were dead, no evidence that she plotted with MB or favoured a marriage ........Sounds more like bad fiction to me.
Re: Newsweek Article
2014-07-14 23:33:31
Also the comment about the Princes being " imprisoned " in the Tower, surely M/s Lisle knows that prospective Monarchs went to live at the Tower before their coronation. It is also said that H7 was the Lancastrian heir, how many times do we have to say that he had no claim to be the heir of Lancaster because John of Gaunt became Duke of Lancaster through his wife Blanche and then the Dukedom went to his and Blanche's legitimate son, Henry Bolingbroke. His Beaufort children had no claim to the Dukedom let alone the throne. Mary
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.