Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Plots
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Plots
2004-09-27 17:11:15
----- Original Message -----
From: brunhild613
To:
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Plots
>
> My ideas are unprovable.
>
> I have the notion that Buckingham may never have been
> on Richard's side.
I am inclined to this view too!
>
> I think it's possible that Margaret Beaufort,
> Buckingham's aunt-by-marriage, may have convinced
> Buckingham to help them set up Richard to take the
> blame for the removal of Edward V and Richard of York.
>
> Once they thought Edward V and Richard of York were
> out of their way, Henry Tudor's supporters abandoned
> Buckingham to Richard.
>
> Then they waited until events in 1485 allowed them to
> overthrow Richard.
>
> Just my interpretation of events. I'm open to new
> ideas.
>
> Marion
>
>
It would certainly explain a great deal of his behaviour, Marion.
>
>
>
> Marion,
> All of my ideas are just speculation as well. I agree that
Buckingham
> probably never *really* supported Richard, as the rebellion came
too soon after
> he'd been given lavish rewards.
> Buckingham may have been just "scouting out the territory,"
weighing his
> options in the interim before making the rebellion he knew he'd
ultimately make.
> Perhaps he planned to obtain all the gifts which Richard would
bestow for
> the purpose of spending that wealth in the future fight against
Richard.
Equally good theory. I think, with his royal blood, he may well have
had dreams of the crown, and some resentment of the Yorkists for not
giving him the place he felt was his due.
> Maybe Buckingham thought that it would be to his advantage to
use Richard to get
> rid of his own [Buckingham's] enemies, just to have less to
deal with in the
> future. Margaret Beaufort's relationship to Buckingham could
certainly have
> allowed her to influence him. Maybe she even claimed that
Henry's claims
> were merely a front to draw Richard into a lethal fight, after
which Buckingham
> could assert his own superior claim to the throne--superior to
Tudor's, I
> mean.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your ideas have plenty of merit, Pamela, but Henry of Richmond's
claim was superior to Henry of Buckingham's. Their mothers were
Beaufort cousins, both named Margaret and both Henries were born in
the same year. However, Margaret Tudor's father was older than
Margaret Stafford's. See my "Stafford Line" booklet.
> PS I don't trust Henry of B any more than you do, at least his
descendants were nice people!
>
> Stephen
I can't agree with you there Stephen. Any claim Buckingham had was
based on his descent from Thomas of Woodstock, youngest son of
Edward III, not the Beauforts, of that I am fairly sure. It seems
tio me there is no useful purpose in claiming descent from a bastard
and barred line over a legitimate if junior one. I am not even
convinced about his descendants being nice - his son was a traitor.
I suppose he could have been a nice traitor, but since by definition
treason is morally reprehensible the case isn't strong. The Bucks
must have died out by the early 1600s - or been deprived? - since
the title was regranted to George Villiers as 1st duke. Silly habit,
that, isn't it? What would he really have been, sixth duke?
B
>
>
1)Woodstock came behind both the Yorkist ancestor brothers. The Swynfords were legitimised and did not recognise their disbarment, thus Henry of Buckingham saw himself as coming through Gaunt (senior to Woodstock). Henry VII saw this as his main claim by descent.
2)Edward of Buckingham had a big mouth (Burke's says so) and lived the high life but being accused of treason under the Tudors does not make you guilty nor, if guilty, a bad person. He was the last Stafford Duke, making George Villiers sr. the 4th in effect, but his heirs are Barons Stafford today (you won't need to wait much longer for the booklet!)J.M. Robinson is very informative.
3) After all, Warwick, Lady Margaret, Montague, Edmund of Suffolk and Dorset were all executed for treason but did nothing reprehensible. Thomas is different as is his aunt, Lady Margaret Bulmer, but William Howard (descended from all three Stafford Dukes) was only convicted after Titus Oates' perjury and his wife Mary (nee Stafford) was made a Countess when this came out.
4) There were ten Dukes of Buckingham in all and there are some excellent websites about the other houses.
Stephen
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: brunhild613
To:
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Plots
>
> My ideas are unprovable.
>
> I have the notion that Buckingham may never have been
> on Richard's side.
I am inclined to this view too!
>
> I think it's possible that Margaret Beaufort,
> Buckingham's aunt-by-marriage, may have convinced
> Buckingham to help them set up Richard to take the
> blame for the removal of Edward V and Richard of York.
>
> Once they thought Edward V and Richard of York were
> out of their way, Henry Tudor's supporters abandoned
> Buckingham to Richard.
>
> Then they waited until events in 1485 allowed them to
> overthrow Richard.
>
> Just my interpretation of events. I'm open to new
> ideas.
>
> Marion
>
>
It would certainly explain a great deal of his behaviour, Marion.
>
>
>
> Marion,
> All of my ideas are just speculation as well. I agree that
Buckingham
> probably never *really* supported Richard, as the rebellion came
too soon after
> he'd been given lavish rewards.
> Buckingham may have been just "scouting out the territory,"
weighing his
> options in the interim before making the rebellion he knew he'd
ultimately make.
> Perhaps he planned to obtain all the gifts which Richard would
bestow for
> the purpose of spending that wealth in the future fight against
Richard.
Equally good theory. I think, with his royal blood, he may well have
had dreams of the crown, and some resentment of the Yorkists for not
giving him the place he felt was his due.
> Maybe Buckingham thought that it would be to his advantage to
use Richard to get
> rid of his own [Buckingham's] enemies, just to have less to
deal with in the
> future. Margaret Beaufort's relationship to Buckingham could
certainly have
> allowed her to influence him. Maybe she even claimed that
Henry's claims
> were merely a front to draw Richard into a lethal fight, after
which Buckingham
> could assert his own superior claim to the throne--superior to
Tudor's, I
> mean.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your ideas have plenty of merit, Pamela, but Henry of Richmond's
claim was superior to Henry of Buckingham's. Their mothers were
Beaufort cousins, both named Margaret and both Henries were born in
the same year. However, Margaret Tudor's father was older than
Margaret Stafford's. See my "Stafford Line" booklet.
> PS I don't trust Henry of B any more than you do, at least his
descendants were nice people!
>
> Stephen
I can't agree with you there Stephen. Any claim Buckingham had was
based on his descent from Thomas of Woodstock, youngest son of
Edward III, not the Beauforts, of that I am fairly sure. It seems
tio me there is no useful purpose in claiming descent from a bastard
and barred line over a legitimate if junior one. I am not even
convinced about his descendants being nice - his son was a traitor.
I suppose he could have been a nice traitor, but since by definition
treason is morally reprehensible the case isn't strong. The Bucks
must have died out by the early 1600s - or been deprived? - since
the title was regranted to George Villiers as 1st duke. Silly habit,
that, isn't it? What would he really have been, sixth duke?
B
>
>
1)Woodstock came behind both the Yorkist ancestor brothers. The Swynfords were legitimised and did not recognise their disbarment, thus Henry of Buckingham saw himself as coming through Gaunt (senior to Woodstock). Henry VII saw this as his main claim by descent.
2)Edward of Buckingham had a big mouth (Burke's says so) and lived the high life but being accused of treason under the Tudors does not make you guilty nor, if guilty, a bad person. He was the last Stafford Duke, making George Villiers sr. the 4th in effect, but his heirs are Barons Stafford today (you won't need to wait much longer for the booklet!)J.M. Robinson is very informative.
3) After all, Warwick, Lady Margaret, Montague, Edmund of Suffolk and Dorset were all executed for treason but did nothing reprehensible. Thomas is different as is his aunt, Lady Margaret Bulmer, but William Howard (descended from all three Stafford Dukes) was only convicted after Titus Oates' perjury and his wife Mary (nee Stafford) was made a Countess when this came out.
4) There were ten Dukes of Buckingham in all and there are some excellent websites about the other houses.
Stephen
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.
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Plots
2004-09-27 18:57:46
> I can't agree with you there Stephen. Any claim Buckingham had
was
> based on his descent from Thomas of Woodstock, youngest son of
> Edward III, not the Beauforts, of that I am fairly sure. It
seems
> tio me there is no useful purpose in claiming descent from a
bastard
> and barred line over a legitimate if junior one. I am not even
> convinced about his descendants being nice - his son was a
traitor.
> I suppose he could have been a nice traitor, but since by
definition
> treason is morally reprehensible the case isn't strong. The
Bucks
> must have died out by the early 1600s - or been deprived? -
since
> the title was regranted to George Villiers as 1st duke. Silly
habit,
> that, isn't it? What would he really have been, sixth duke?
> B
> >
> >
>
> 1)Woodstock came behind both the Yorkist ancestor brothers. The
Swynfords were legitimised and did not recognise their disbarment,
I already made that point, but whether they recognised their
disbarment or not is immaterial. They WERE disbarred. A legal
judgement is not dependent upon the victim accepting the decision.
thus Henry of Buckingham saw himself as coming through Gaunt (senior
to Woodstock). Henry VII saw this as his main claim by descent.
Henry VII's perception is also immaterial de facto. Since he also
accepted that his own descent and claim were acceptable/strong -
which we all know to be wrong by all laws of heritance of the time -
it is no recommendation for his opinion of Buckingham's. Nor is
Buckingham's own, paricularly. Are you basing the above "he saw
himself" on written evidence by the duke himself? If so could you
quote it? I should find that very interesting. Buckingham's descent
was so good, one way or another, that Beaufort descent from Gaunt is
something he could not only afford to ignore but may have chosen to
do, given its taint. Of course different Buckingham's may have
viewed it differently.
> 2)Edward of Buckingham had a big mouth (Burke's says so) and
lived the high life but being accused of treason under the Tudors
does not make you guilty nor, if guilty, a bad person. He was the
last Stafford Duke, making George Villiers sr. the 4th in effect,
but his heirs are Barons Stafford today (you won't need to wait much
longer for the booklet!)J.M. Robinson is very informative.
Very true, my comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. Treason in his
instance does, however, seem to have been genuine. Maybe it wasn't
so much that he wasn't nice as that he wasn't very bright???
> 3) After all, Warwick, Lady Margaret, Montague, Edmund of
Suffolk and Dorset were all executed for treason but did nothing
reprehensible. Thomas is different as is his aunt, Lady Margaret
Bulmer, but William Howard (descended from all three Stafford Dukes)
was only convicted after Titus Oates' perjury and his wife Mary (nee
Stafford) was made a Countess when this came out.
Dorset wasn't executed, I believe - didn't he die of natural causes
in 1501? - and in any case was completely unreliable to all sides.
Henry had him under enough bonds to demonstrate how far he felt he
could trust him. Montague died in battle. As for the others they are
part of the usual list of Tudor innocents. Can't think what the
Stuarts' were up apart from religious paranoia. ;-)
> 4) There were ten Dukes of Buckingham in all and there are some
excellent websites about the other houses.
Were the later ones all Villiers? Do you know why they restart the
count? It's terribly irritating. Buckingham seems to have been a bit
of an unlucky title, along with Gloucester.
B
>
> Stephen
> 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.
>
>
>
>
was
> based on his descent from Thomas of Woodstock, youngest son of
> Edward III, not the Beauforts, of that I am fairly sure. It
seems
> tio me there is no useful purpose in claiming descent from a
bastard
> and barred line over a legitimate if junior one. I am not even
> convinced about his descendants being nice - his son was a
traitor.
> I suppose he could have been a nice traitor, but since by
definition
> treason is morally reprehensible the case isn't strong. The
Bucks
> must have died out by the early 1600s - or been deprived? -
since
> the title was regranted to George Villiers as 1st duke. Silly
habit,
> that, isn't it? What would he really have been, sixth duke?
> B
> >
> >
>
> 1)Woodstock came behind both the Yorkist ancestor brothers. The
Swynfords were legitimised and did not recognise their disbarment,
I already made that point, but whether they recognised their
disbarment or not is immaterial. They WERE disbarred. A legal
judgement is not dependent upon the victim accepting the decision.
thus Henry of Buckingham saw himself as coming through Gaunt (senior
to Woodstock). Henry VII saw this as his main claim by descent.
Henry VII's perception is also immaterial de facto. Since he also
accepted that his own descent and claim were acceptable/strong -
which we all know to be wrong by all laws of heritance of the time -
it is no recommendation for his opinion of Buckingham's. Nor is
Buckingham's own, paricularly. Are you basing the above "he saw
himself" on written evidence by the duke himself? If so could you
quote it? I should find that very interesting. Buckingham's descent
was so good, one way or another, that Beaufort descent from Gaunt is
something he could not only afford to ignore but may have chosen to
do, given its taint. Of course different Buckingham's may have
viewed it differently.
> 2)Edward of Buckingham had a big mouth (Burke's says so) and
lived the high life but being accused of treason under the Tudors
does not make you guilty nor, if guilty, a bad person. He was the
last Stafford Duke, making George Villiers sr. the 4th in effect,
but his heirs are Barons Stafford today (you won't need to wait much
longer for the booklet!)J.M. Robinson is very informative.
Very true, my comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. Treason in his
instance does, however, seem to have been genuine. Maybe it wasn't
so much that he wasn't nice as that he wasn't very bright???
> 3) After all, Warwick, Lady Margaret, Montague, Edmund of
Suffolk and Dorset were all executed for treason but did nothing
reprehensible. Thomas is different as is his aunt, Lady Margaret
Bulmer, but William Howard (descended from all three Stafford Dukes)
was only convicted after Titus Oates' perjury and his wife Mary (nee
Stafford) was made a Countess when this came out.
Dorset wasn't executed, I believe - didn't he die of natural causes
in 1501? - and in any case was completely unreliable to all sides.
Henry had him under enough bonds to demonstrate how far he felt he
could trust him. Montague died in battle. As for the others they are
part of the usual list of Tudor innocents. Can't think what the
Stuarts' were up apart from religious paranoia. ;-)
> 4) There were ten Dukes of Buckingham in all and there are some
excellent websites about the other houses.
Were the later ones all Villiers? Do you know why they restart the
count? It's terribly irritating. Buckingham seems to have been a bit
of an unlucky title, along with Gloucester.
B
>
> Stephen
> 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.
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.