a "loyal servant of Edward IV" we never hear about

David wrote: //snip// "However, the underlying statement is true - whichever historian is quoting it. The rebels of 1483 were men of substance from across the south and west of England who had much more to lose from rebelling than to gain. I don't think my post said at all that they were doing it for the love of Tudor - it is generally accepted that the initial uprisings were aimed at restoring Edward V. I am sure that after the word of the Prince's deaths went around they would become an 'anyone but Richard' party, with Tudor as a candidate who had not previously upset anyone." Doug here: I quite agree that, if one did accept that the Princes were dead, then those opposed to Richard would likely adopt an 'anyone but Richard' policy. The only question is why, if they actually did so, did they opt for Henry Tudor? If those rebelling did so *because* they didn't believe Edward IV's children were illegitimate, then why, after the rumors of the Princes' "deaths," didn't they acknowledge Buckingham as their *legitimate* candidate for the throne? Or Edward of Warwick? Attainders could be, and often were, reversed and the fact that Richard had physical possession of Warwick needn't have mattered - it hadn't stopped the Lancastrians when the Yorkists had custody of Henry VI! And then there's the Earl of Lincoln, although he may have been too "tainted" by his support of Richard. Although Buckingham had done so as well at one point... David continued: "The point I was making was that you can not infer the doctors' attitude to the pre-contract from the fact that they themselves did not rebel." Doug here: Yes, one *can* infer their "attitudes" by their actions, or non-actions. Whether the doctors really, truly, in-their-hearts believed the evidence presented to the Council and the Three Estates, and later endorsed by Parliament via Titulus Regius may be debated, but the only actual evidence we have on their "attitude" is that they accepted it. David concluded: "The point about the American Revolutionary Way is an interesting one. I came across it from family history research, there were many Empire Loyalists - Americans fighting for the British. Many had their lands confiscated after the war." Doug here: The generally recognized figure for the "United Empire Loyalists" who left the U.S. is 100,000 men, women and children, which is about 3% of the then-total population. I'm afraid I don't have the figures on how many of that particular group had been dispossessed *prior* to their departing. Although, if I understand it correctly, *most* confiscations were done in lieu of tax payments - the owners often having decamped from a locality they found, shall we say, less than supportive. The number of those loyalists, former one presumes, who'd had lands or other property confiscated, but decided to remain anyway, isn't known as best I can tell. Doug Doug