Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h

Nico wrote –

I think the idea that Margaret was sad and lonely sounds like the perspective of a chauvinistic and narrow minded older man. Why should Margaret have been any lonelier or sad than anyone else of her class or generation, just because she didn't have biological children?

Me –

Oh, I do so agree. And if the Warbecks were such a prominent and wealthy family, why was their son not immediately recognised and identified as such by others – and why did his mother never claim him at the end? And why didn’t Tudor – who battled for years against the claims of this young man – bring one of this prominent Warbeck family over to announce the shameful truth? This oh-so-prominent family stayed absent and silent, and so did their neighbours, family, trading partners and everyone else who would surely have known him as an imposter – if that is what he was.

There seems no authentic reason to connect the two.

Barbara

…… which doesn’t quite tally with what she said when we met – that she has an open mind. JA-H will clear the problem up soon, no doubt.

From: [mailto:]
Sent: 09 October 2014 20:22
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h

You need to read Ian Arthurson; I can't positively paraphrase it. And I think you'll agree that even Wroe says he was an imposter. H

Nico said –

I don't know for sure whether Warbeck was Richard of York, but it makes more sense that the official story.

Me –

That’s the point really, isn’t it. The existing story has so many holes and is so unlikely, it points to somethigng being carefully covered up. And why cover-up anything if the actual truth was that the fraud clearly existed?

I’ve also wondered how a foreign citizen could be legally executed in England for treason?

Barbara

Paul -

For me the evidence that makes me believe Perkin was Richard was the
fact that Henry refused to allow Elizabeth of York to meet or see him,

Me –

Do we have that documented in any way, Paul? Or is it just the lack of any documented meeting which we accept as proof they didn’t meet?

If EofY was genuinely forbidden to meet Perkin, then that is surely massively important.

Barbara

&& which doesn't quite tally with what she said when we met  that she has an open mind. JA-H will clear the problem up soon, no doubt.

From: [mailto:]
Sent: 09 October 2014 20:22
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h

You need to read Ian Arthurson; I can't positively paraphrase it. And I think you'll agree that even Wroe says he was an imposter. H 

Stephen,
Regarding the Wroe book on Perkin Warbeck, I agree that everybody should keep an open mind on any historical subject.

Having read Arthurson but not Wroe, I would say that if she was in any doubt about the fact that Warbeck was an impostor it obviously doesn't come across in the book. One of the reviewers on Amazon says that when she started reading the book she believed that Henry had killed the 'Princes' but by the end of the book she was convinced that it was Richard.

Kind regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad From: 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h
Sent: Thu, Oct 9, 2014 8:07:15 PM

&& which doesn't quite tally with what she said when we met  that she has an open mind. JA-H will clear the problem up soon, no doubt.

From: [mailto:]
Sent: 09 October 2014 20:22
To:
Subject: Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h

You need to read Ian Arthurson; I can't positively paraphrase it. And I think you'll agree that even Wroe says he was an imposter. H

Barbara,
From what I understand, a foreigner can't be executed for treason.  The Oxford Dictionary definition is:(also high treason) [mass noun] The crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government: I remember reading that (Wroe I think) the legal definition was something of a dilemma for Henry, since Perkin was Flemish, but he decided to execute him anyway.
As for the the Elizabeth of York meeting Perkin question, the official story is that she didn't meet him, but it is hard to imagine that she was not curious to meet him, and if she was denied that opportunity she wouldn't feel negatively about it.  She may not of spoken to him, but Perkin was present at the Court for more about 8 months, and appeared at official functions such as the one where he met ambassadors.  Surely she would have attended those occasions and seen him.  The usual version is that Henry didn't let her meet Perkin, and she was so convinced that he was an imposter that she didn't even question HT, because she knew Henry was such a paragon of truth and wisdom.  If that is true, I find it difficult to have much respect for her.
EofY is something of an enigma for me.  I'm really curious about the dynamic of her relationship with Henry, but I felt none the wiser even after reading Alison Weir and Amy Licence.  Unfortunately, I don't really rate either of them that highly of them as historians, so I'm hoping Thomas Penn can shed some light on her.
I'm very suspicious of the 'Good Queen Bess' myth.  I suspect she may have been every bit as ambitious as her mother, Henry and Margaret Beaufort, but covered it up with charm and leaving all the ruthless business to Henry.  She may have recognized Perkin, and known Henry was lying, but said nothing because he stood in the way of her ambitions for herself and her children.
A few things suggest to me that she may not have been the warmest of people.  First of all, there is that letter to the Duke of Norfolk about marrying Richard.  It really does look like she saw an opportunity there, and poor sick Anne Neville was in the way.  It certainly isn't a tactful thing to write however you look at it.  As you mention, EW gets banished to Bermondsey Abbey, and dies impoverished.  EofY isn't recorded as having any objections.  Nor is she recorded as protesting about Warwick being imprisoned in the Tower for all those years.  Also, when Arthur dies, Henry is in bits, not her.  She's there comforting him, saying that they can have more children.  If I died, and my mother reacted like that, I'd haunt her!
Perhaps I'm being unfair and she was a marvellous person who was horribly oppressed by Henry, and was totally powerless, but I'm not convinced.  He needed her as much as she needed him - maybe more, and she must have known it.
Nico


On Friday, 10 October 2014, 1:56, "'barbara' barbaragd@... []" <> wrote:


  Paul - For me the evidence that makes me believe Perkin was Richard was the
fact that Henry refused to allow Elizabeth of York to meet or see him,  Me  Do we have that documented in any way, Paul? Or is it just the lack of any documented meeting which we accept as proof they didn't meet?If EofY was genuinely forbidden to meet Perkin, then that is surely massively important.Barbara

Actually, having read the book and questioned Wroe at a meeting (on 2 April 2005 in Witham as it happens), she has definite doubts on the subject!

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 10 October 2014 13:23
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h

Stephen,
Regarding the Wroe book on Perkin Warbeck, I agree that everybody should keep an open mind on any historical subject.

Having read Arthurson but not Wroe, I would say that if she was in any doubt about the fact that Warbeck was an impostor it obviously doesn't come across in the book. One of the reviewers on Amazon says that when she started reading the book she believed that Henry had killed the 'Princes' but by the end of the book she was convinced that it was Richard.

Kind regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

From: 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... [] < >;
To: < >;
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h
Sent: Thu, Oct 9, 2014 8:07:15 PM

…… which doesn’t quite tally with what she said when we met – that she has an open mind. JA-H will clear the problem up soon, no doubt.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 09 October 2014 20:22
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h

You need to read Ian Arthurson; I can't positively paraphrase it. And I think you'll agree that even Wroe says he was an imposter. H

Judy wrote:

And also, though a number of people have protested, I have carefully translated the so-called "infamous" Christmas passage in Crowland, "...eisdem colore et forma..." to refer to the actual appearance of Bess and Queen Anne. In Latin, the word "colore" refers to complexion, and "forma" to the figure (usually female). The two together are a clincher, similar to the phrase in law "arbitrary and capricious" - you never see one word without the other. Just to be certain of my Latin in re: Crowland, I went back to my Cassell's and then my Wheelock.

Marie responds:

Judy, I'm not protesting, but a very erudite Latin scholar, Lesley Boatwright, who sadly died a couple of years back ( Amazon.co.uk: Lesley Boatwright: Books ), and another good Latinist, the historian Livia Visser-Fuchs, have both looked at this question in the past and both concluded the passage refers to the gowns. See "The Christmas Dresses" in the Files section of the forum.

Eileen wrote:

David ..What points to Richard having kept the Portuguse marriage negotiations so secret that his closest advisers did not know? I would have thought it was very likely that it was they, the advisers, that were pushing for it knowing that Anne's death was imminent and thus putting Richard in a vunerable position.

Marie responds:

Indeed you're right. as it happens I have recently obtained a copy of the exchequer warrant of March 1485 for the up-front payment to Brampton for his visit to Portugal, and it starts:

"Where we have at this tyme by thadvice of oure Counsaill ordeigned and appointed oure trusty and right welbeloved Sir Edward Brampton knyght to passe oute of this oure Royaume unto the parties of Portingale in ambassiate ther to doo as we have commaunded him on oure behalf...."

Eileen wrote:

Marie..we had a discussion about this a very long time ago when I said I thought it, the marriage negotiations rather cold blooded taking place before Anne was yet in her grave. You explained to me that, cant remember your exact words, in all likelihood the Counsel were pushing for this as soon as it had become clear that the Queen's illness was terminal and Richard may not have had or needed to have had much input at this stage. You wisely pointed out that these negotiations would not have detracted from the grief that Richard was feeling at that time and he would known that a second marriage would be imminent because of his position. You made me understand...to my relief.

Stephen,
Regarding the Wroe book on Perkin Warbeck, I agree that everybody should keep an open mind on any historical subject.

Having read Arthurson but not Wroe, I would say that if she was in any doubt about the fact that Warbeck was an impostor it obviously doesn't come across in the book. One of the reviewers on Amazon says that when she started reading the book she believed that Henry had killed the 'Princes' but by the end of the book she was convinced that it was Richard.

Kind regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

&& which doesn't quite tally with what she said when we met  that she has an open mind. JA-H will clear the problem up soon, no doubt.

From: [mailto:]
Sent: 09 October 2014 20:22
To:
Subject: Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h

You need to read Ian Arthurson; I can't positively paraphrase it. And I think you'll agree that even Wroe says he was an imposter. H

Who else might have known Richard of Shrewsbury? His cousin, whom Carson calls the “Third Prince”? Another reason why he was executed, perhaps?

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 10 October 2014 20:39
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h

Yes thats it Nico..it was first published in 1830. You can get it online but I managed to get a lovely copy the other day very reasonably...its really is a little gem. Its also got a very useful index at the back chockablok with lots of interesting details...Ive noticed that Elizabeth used a lot of black, especially black velvet in the last year or so of her life. Presumably she was in mourning still for Arthur...compared to the gorgious fabrics listed in Edwards wardrobe accounts everything must have been maybe rather more dour as far as I can make out.

Your comments on Elizabeth are very interesting...and I agree with much of it.

I love all this minutiae..its so frustrating there is so much that we dont know. Eileen

"Indeed you're right. as it happens I have recently obtained a copy of the exchequer warrant of March 1485 for the up-front payment to Brampton for his visit to Portugal, and it starts:

"Where we have at this tyme by thadvice of oure Counsaill ordeigned and appointed oure trusty and right welbeloved Sir Edward Brampton knyght to passe oute of this oure Royaume unto the parties of Portingale in ambassiate ther to doo as we have commaunded him on oure behalf....""

Carol responds:

Thanks for that quotation, Marie. Rather a contrast to the council trying to dissuade Richard from marrying EoY, as Croyland would have it! (Of course, we already know that Richard publicly denied the EoY rumors and showed genuine grief over Anne's death at that time.)

Carol

I think I read in Ashdown-Hill's "The last days of Richard III" that there is documental evidence that Edward Woodville was at the Portoguese court after Bosworth trying to negotiate to replace Richard with HT in the marriage with Joana and HT apparently reverted to the old EoY plan only when Joana turned him down flat. I think it is possible that HT's reluctance in marrying EoY was linked to the necessity to repeal Richard's Titulus Regius thus making both Elizabeth AND her brothers legittimate in a moment when the fate of Edward IV's male offsprings was uncertain. Mac

Warwick was disbarred from the crown because of his father's Attainder. This was mentioned in TR but was not part of the Act. Therefore the repealing of TR did not affect Warwick's status. In fact all the current descendants of Richard's siblings today are descended from Clarence and Clarence's Attainder has never been reversed.
Mac wrote :
"I think it is possible that HT's reluctance in marrying EoY was linked to the necessity to repeal Richard's Titulus Regius thus making both Elizabeth AND her brothers legittimate in a moment when the fate of Edward IV's male offsprings was uncertain."
Carol responds:
I agree, not to mention that if her brothers were dead, repealing Titulus Regius would make Edward of Warwick the rightful king since it also reversed his attainder. But marrying her without reversing TR meant marrying a bastard. I think Henry would have preferred that, actually. It was his Parliament, many of whom were former Yorkists, who wanted it repealed and Henry, I think, who insisted on its being burned unread with all copies destroyed. He knew quite well what repealing it did. I suspect that even if EoY had begged him on her knees in tears to release her little c
ousin from the Tower, he would never have done it because he (Edward of Warwick) now had a valid claim in the absence of his cousins. I think Henry also hesitated to marry EoY because he didn't want to rule as her husband. He made sure that he was crowned before their marriage (claiming the throne by right of conquest) and had her crowned as queen consort only after she'd borne a son.
As for the original question, why Richard didn't marry EoY off to keep her safe from Henry, maybe he thought she was safer or just as safe in the North with the Earl of Lincoln. Or maybe he figured that Henry couldn't or wouldn't marry her while Titulus Regius was still in effect. Or maybe he was just saying to Henry, "I'm not afraid of you." Just guessing, of course.
Carol

Correct. The Exeter line is as plentiful as that of Clarence and is unattainted. There may be, depending on the Marguerite question, an extant Suffolk line represented in London and Paris.

Pamela was also correct that the 1477/8 attainder barred Clarence’s descendants from the throne – and still does.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 11 October 2014 19:50
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h

Hi, Pamela -
I'm no expert but I don't think it is correct to say all the present-day descendants of Richard's siblings are descended from Clarence. As I recall, the Ibsen descendants whose DNA was used to identify Richard's are descended from Richard's older sister Anne.

Johanne
(currently wedged between two snoozing dogs, so I can't check my copy of JAG for verification.)

--- Original Message ---

From: "Pamela Furmidge pamela.furmidge@... []" < >
Sent: 11 October, 2014 12:26 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h

Warwick was disbarred from the crown because of his father's Attainder. This was mentioned in TR but was not part of the Act. Therefore the repealing of TR did not affect Warwick 's status. In fact all the current descendants of Richard's siblings today are descended from Clarence and Clarence's Attainder has never been reversed.
Mac wrote :
"I think it is possible that HT's reluctance in marrying EoY was linked to the necessity to repeal Richard's Titulus Regius thus making both Elizabeth AND her brothers legittimate in a moment when the fate of Edward IV's male offsprings was uncertain."
Carol responds:
I agree, not to mention that if her brothers were dead, repealing Titulus Regius would make Edward of Warwick the rightful king since it also reversed his attainder. But marrying her without reversing TR meant marrying a bastard. I think Henry would have preferred that, actually. It was his Parliament, many of whom were former Yorkists, who wanted it repealed and Henry, I think, who insisted on its being burned unread with all copies destroyed. He knew quite well what repealing it did. I suspect that even if EoY had begged him on her knees in tears to release her little c
ousin from the Tower, he would never have done it because he (Edward of Warwick) now had a valid claim in the absence of his cousins. I think Henry also hesitated to marry EoY because he didn't want to rule as her husband. He made sure that he was crowned before their marriage (claiming the throne by right of conquest) and had her crowned as queen consort only after she'd borne a son.
As for the original question, why Richard didn't marry EoY off to keep her safe from Henry, maybe he thought she was safer or just as safe in the North with the Earl of Lincoln. Or maybe he figured that Henry couldn't or wouldn't marry her while Titulus Regius was still in effect. Or maybe he was just saying to Henry, "I'm not afraid of you." Just guessing, of course.
Carol

Re the translation - thanks, Paul. Tell your sister not to feel pressured, though.

Marie

Of course there are - I was thinking of the members of the PA, who, I believe, are all descended from Clarence.
----Original message----
From :







Correct. The Exeter line is as plentiful as that of
Clarence and is unattainted. There may be, depending on the Marguerite question,
an extant Suffolk line represented in London and Paris.

Pamela was also correct that the 1477/8
attainder barred Clarence's descendants from the throne  and still does.
From:

[mailto:]
Sent: 11 October 2014 19:50
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h


Hi, Pamela -
I'm no expert but I don't think it is correct to say all the present-day
descendants of Richard's siblings are descended from Clarence. As I recall, the
Ibsen descendants whose DNA was used to identify Richard's are descended from
Richard's older sister Anne.
Johanne
(currently wedged between two snoozing dogs, so I can't check my copy of JAG
for verification.)
--- Original Message ---
From: "Pamela Furmidge pamela.furmidge@...
[]" <>
Sent: 11 October, 2014 12:26 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h

Warwick
was disbarred from the crown because of his father's Attainder. This was
mentioned in TR but was not part of the Act. Therefore the repealing of TR did
not affect Warwick's
status. In fact all the current descendants of Richard's siblings today are
descended from Clarence and Clarence's Attainder has never been reversed.
Mac wrote :
"I think it is possible that HT's reluctance in marrying EoY was linked to
the necessity to repeal Richard's Titulus Regius thus making both Elizabeth AND
her brothers legittimate in a moment when the fate of Edward IV's male offsprings
was uncertain."
Carol responds:
I agree, not to mention that if her brothers were dead, repealing Titulus
Regius would make Edward of Warwick the rightful king since it also reversed
his attainder. But marrying her without reversing TR meant marrying a bastard.
I think Henry would have preferred that, actually. It was his Parliament, many
of whom were former Yorkists, who wanted it repealed and Henry, I think, who
insisted on its being burned unread with all copies destroyed. He knew quite
well what repealing it did. I suspect that even if EoY had begged him on her
knees in tears to release her little c
ousin from the Tower, he would never have done it because he (Edward of
Warwick) now had a valid claim in the absence of his cousins. I think Henry
also hesitated to marry EoY because he didn't want to rule as her husband. He
made sure that he was crowned before their marriage (claiming the throne by
right of conquest) and had her crowned as queen consort only after she'd borne
a son.
As for the original question, why Richard didn't marry EoY off to keep her safe
from Henry, maybe he thought she was safer or just as safe in the North with
the Earl of Lincoln. Or maybe he figured that Henry couldn't or wouldn't marry
her while Titulus Regius was still in effect. Or maybe he was just saying to
Henry, "I'm not afraid of you." Just guessing, of course.
Carol

The Plantagenet Alliance.
----Original message----
From :







What is the PA, pray tell?
Johanne
--- Original Message ---
From: "Pamela Furmidge pamela.furmidge@... []" <>
Sent: 12 October, 2014 1:39 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h

Of course there are - I was thinking of the members of the PA, who, I believe, are all descended from Clarence.
----Original message----
From :
Correct. The Exeter line is as plentiful as that of
Clarence and is unattainted. There may be, depending on the Marguerite question,
an extant Suffolk line represented in London and Paris.
Pamela was also correct that the 1477/8
attainder barred Clarence's descendants from the throne  and still does.
From:

[mailto:]
Sent: 11 October 2014 19:50
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h
Hi, Pamela -
I'm no expert but I don't think it is correct to say all the present-day
descendants of Richard's siblings are descended from Clarence. As I recall, the
Ibsen descendants whose DNA was used to identify Richard's are descended from
Richard's older sister Anne.
Johanne
(currently wedged between two snoozing dogs, so I can't check my copy of JAG
for verification.)
--- Original Message ---
From: "Pamela Furmidge pamela.furmidge@...
[]" <>
Sent: 11 October, 2014 12:26 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Proof of the existence of a
daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h
Warwick
was disbarred from the crown because of his father's Attainder. This was
mentioned in TR but was not part of the Act. Therefore the repealing of TR did
not affect Warwick's
status. In fact all the current descendants of Richard's siblings today are
descended from Clarence and Clarence's Attainder has never been reversed.
Mac wrote :
"I think it is possible that HT's reluctance in marrying EoY was linked to
the necessity to repeal Richard's Titulus Regius thus making both Elizabeth AND
her brothers legittimate in a moment when the fate of Edward IV's male offsprings
was uncertain."
Carol responds:
I agree, not to mention that if her brothers were dead, repealing Titulus
Regius would make Edward of Warwick the rightful king since it also reversed
his attainder. But marrying her without reversing TR meant marrying a bastard.
I think Henry would have preferred that, actually. It was his Parliament, many
of whom were former Yorkists, who wanted it repealed and Henry, I think, who
insisted on its being burned unread with all copies destroyed. He knew quite
well what repealing it did. I suspect that even if EoY had begged him on her
knees in tears to release her little c
ousin from the Tower, he would never have done it because he (Edward of
Warwick) now had a valid claim in the absence of his cousins. I think Henry
also hesitated to marry EoY because he didn't want to rule as her husband. He
made sure that he was crowned before their marriage (claiming the throne by
right of conquest) and had her crowned as queen consort only after she'd borne
a son.
As for the original question, why Richard didn't marry EoY off to keep her safe
from Henry, maybe he thought she was safer or just as safe in the North with
the Earl of Lincoln. Or maybe he figured that Henry couldn't or wouldn't marry
her while Titulus Regius was still in effect. Or maybe he was just saying to
Henry, "I'm not afraid of you." Just guessing, of course.
Carol

Nico said

EofY is something of an enigma for me

Me

Yes, the business of first saying that Warbeck was a foreigner and then executing him for treason has always seemed ludicrous to me – and since Warbeck’s trial was in secret and no documents exist regarding it, it is hard to see how Tudor explained his decision. Nor why a number of lords/citizens did not ask questions. Perhaps they did.

EofY’s letter wasn’t – to the best of my knowledge – about marrying Richard – but about marrying Manuel of Portugal. It has often been misread, but the truth seems fairly clear. However her remarks about Anne’s death being protracted seem childishly selfish and silly – also unpleasant.

I have always seen her as immature and I cannot quote sources at this stage, but am fairly sure I have read that Henry treated her with kindness and affection, but kept her strictly out of any political decisions or state matters of any kind. They did not – I believe – spend that much time together in the same palaces at the same times, and were together far less often than Richard with Anne. I am inclined to see her as sweet, silly and childish.

Either that – or perhaps that is simply how Tudor treated her – affectionate but patronising – partly because he wanted to be seen as king in his own right, and partly because that was his nature – maybe also because that’s how she was. I certainly see nothing particularly positive concerning their ‘love match’ – nor would I take anything Weir or Licence have to say about her. We know so little and mine are all guesses too. But at least logical ones??

But surely if she had met Warbeck, her reaction would have been used as important by one side or the other – depending on her recognition or otherwise. I know they had not been together for a number of years, but I easily recognised people in their twenties who I had not seen since childhood. Enough remains familiar – even more especially within the family – and especially if it is possible to relate shared memories.

Cheers - Barbara

I think I read in Ashdown-Hill's "The last days of Richard III" that there is documental evidence that Edward Woodville was at the Portoguese court after Bosworth trying to negotiate to replace Richard with HT in the marriage with Joana and HT apparently reverted to the old EoY plan only when Joana turned him down flat.

Sandra,

Regarding Henry's search for an alternative bride for himself in Portugal...

It would indeed be very interesting and also quite shocking if it were true - but it isn't. It seems to be a case of JAH's being misremembered in order to support the myth of Henry's reluctance to marry Elizabeth.

What JAH actually says is that Henry picked up the marriage plans of Richard - but on one side only. He also tried to use the loose wording of the agreement that did not specify which of Edward's daughters were to marry. So the prospective agreement with Portugal did not include Henry.

JAH is almost certainly correct to identify Edward Woodville as Henry's agent as he seems to be identified as Lord Scales on the monument to the dead of Saint Aubin des Cormiers.

I have read somewhere that there were doubts as to whether or not the wording of Clarence's attainder actually barred rights to the crown. I don't know of that is true.

Kind regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h
Sent: Sat, Oct 11, 2014 2:15:21 PM

This is truly interesting, Mac, and if it's true, I wonder how on earth Henry was going to explain it to the Yorkists who had supported him solely because of his promise to marry Elizabeth, thus restoring Edward IV's line? Would they have accepted Joanna? Or would he have had a full-scale rebellion on his hands almost before the throne was warm? He was certainly taking a huge chance. Agreed wholeheartedly that Henry was loath to have Elizabeth because of Titulus Regius, which it suited him to keep. I rather like the thought that he was forced to marry her after all, but I'm not certain if she deserved him. There certainly seem to be a lot of question marks hanging over her. Maybe they richly deserved each other. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 2:11 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h

I think I read in Ashdown-Hill's "The last days of Richard III" that there is documental evidence that Edward Woodville was at the Portoguese court after Bosworth trying to negotiate to replace Richard with HT in the marriage with Joana and HT apparently reverted to the old EoY plan only when Joana turned him down flat.

I did not misremember JAH after all. Reference to the possibility that HT initially tried to adopt Richard III's entire marriage plan with himself as prospected groom for Joana can be found in the Notes section, note 27 to chapter 2 of "The last days of Richard III", page 173 in the updated edition of 2013.

Dom Manuel was later offered Elizabeth's and Cecily's younger sister Anne of York as prospected bride, not Cecily, but that offer was turned down too.

Being "flexible" with respect to the prospected bride in dynastic marriage agreements in the presence of siblings was common practice at the time due to the high mortality rate. A similar clause was included in the Treaty of Picquigny when EoY was betrothed to the French Dauphin and even HT in December 1483 had sworn to marry EoY, or the sister next in line should she predecease the intended wedding.

However, the vague wording used by Richard's ambassadors in the marriage negotiations (referring to Edward's IV daughter, with no royal title), was probably used to slide over EoY's illegitimacy more than in the traditional "plan b" practice, since Cecily was already married to Ralph Scrope and the other sisters had not reached the age of consent yet. Mac

Mac wrote:

"Dom Manuel was later offered Elizabeth's and Cecily's younger sister Anne of York as prospected bride, not Cecily, but that offer was turned down too."

Marie adds:

Probably not turned down flat because a dispensation for the marriage was actually obtained from the Pope. Unfortunately for Anne, no sooner had the dispensation arrived than King John's son and heir Afonso died, leaving Manuel as heir to the Portuguese throne, and so in order to maintain alliances he decided to marry fonso's widow, Isabel of Aragon, instead.

Nico wrote: "I have some questions about the general reliability of Buck."

Mac writes: Kendall shares your opinion and dismisses the whole "EoY's letter argument" as unsubstantial

Nico wrote: I think it was Alison Weir that suggested that EW may have had something to do with it, but I'm not convinced.

Mac writes: Kendall's bio on Richard III was published in 1955. Even without the documents on the Portoguese marriage negotiations he very logically deducted Richard could have no interest in EoY as a prospected bride, but her mother may have had, out of ambition to have one of her offsprings back on the throne of England, which she did obtain after all. The rumours Richard had to publicly refute may have originated by the joint forces of his enemies' slanders and EW's hints at her willingness to consider wedding her daughter to the widower king, without the widower king ever having agreed to such incestous plan.

I can also add I once saw EW's and EoY's signatures put one after the other on a web page that I cannot trace right now, and they were practically identical, but I do not think Buck was such an expert in graphology to make comparisons (if he had the means to make comparisons at all) and, as I said, I do not think that letter ever existed in the first place or that it was a genuine product of EoY's hand.

Nico wrote "[Weir] also mentioned that EofY had a book with a flattering comment about Richard" I think she referred to a copy of "Tristan and Isolde" Richard presented her (along with another book, Boetius I think). The book contains Richard's signature and motto "Loyalte me lie" underneath which she added her motto as princess "sans remouvir" if I remember correctly. I am not sure one can call this flattering or clue to anything but a change in ownership of the book.

Richard clearly had no interest in EoY, and I personally take his public declaration of grief for his wife's Death on March 30th at face value, along with the words from the 1485 March exchequer warrant Marie Walsh kindly supplied for the up-front payment to Brampton for his visit to Portugal, that I am copying for your reference :
"Where we have at this tyme by thadvice of oure Counsaill ordeigned and appointed oure trusty and right welbeloved Sir Edward Brampton knyght to passe oute of this oure Royaume unto the parties of Portingale in ambassiate ther to doo as we have commaunded him on oure behalf...." Richard was clearly prompted by his council to seek a new wife hastily while still mourning for his wife, he does not sound like someone who was relieved by a burden with the death of his wife and I do not think he had those words written in that phrasing with a thought of what posterity might think of his feelings and actions over 500 years later.

As for EoY, I personally think evidence is too scant to speculate on feelings, if any. Given the circumstances of her upbringing, my personal opinion is that she was largely her mother's daughter, brought up with the habit to consider herself a prospected bride to a royal as a position befitting the eldest daughter of the king of England. I find someone else's comment on documents showing she spent less time in the same palaces as HVII in 18 years marriage than Richard and Anne in 13 particularly interesting. Whether she resented HVII's absence or enjoyed it, is matter of speculation, but imho the fairy tale of the bride and groom from opposing houses getting married, uniting their factions and eventually living happily ever after was largely an invention, like the Tudor rose, a family portrait that was functional to the image of the newly established regime. Regards. Mac

Marie added "[Manuel] in order to maintain alliances decided to marry Alfonso's widow, Isabel of Aragon, instead [of Anne of York]

True, JAH also mentions this, he does not mention the papal dispensation, a clear clue that the negotiations had gone a long way, so thank you very much for adding this information. Mac

I did not misremember JAH after all. Reference to the possibility that HT initially tried to adopt Richard III's entire marriage plan with himself as prospected groom for Joana can be found in the Notes section, note 27 to chapter 2 of "The last days of Richard III", page 173 in the updated edition of 2013.

Dom Manuel was later offered Elizabeth's and Cecily's younger sister Anne of York as prospected bride, not Cecily, but that offer was turned down too.

Being "flexible" with respect to the prospected bride in dynastic marriage agreements in the presence of siblings was common practice at the time due to the high mortality rate. A similar clause was included in the Treaty of Picquigny when EoY was betrothed to the French Dauphin and even HT in December 1483 had sworn to marry EoY, or the sister next in line should she predecease the intended wedding.

However, the vague wording used by Richard's ambassadors in the marriage negotiations (referring to Edward's IV daughter, with no royal title), was probably used to slide over EoY's illegitimacy more than in the traditional "plan b" practice, since Cecily was already married to Ralph Scrope and the other sisters had not reached the age of consent yet. Mac

Mac,
Thank you for that. I do have a copy of The Last Days... but it is older so my page numbers are different.

I assume that the wording of note 27 is the same - it sounds as though it is.

The problem here is that JAH starts that particular note with the words "it may even be that...", which makes me believe that the section that follows is pure speculation.

In fact, later in the note he uses Henry's reluctance to marry Elizabeth as 'evidence' that Henry might have been offering himself in a Portuguese marriage.

So in the context of our original discussion, this is begging the question - using what you are trying to demonstrate as part of its own proof.

So I suppose in answering Sandra's point as well, JAH's speculations are often quoted as facts or evidence by some Ricardians.


Kind regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad From: mac.thirty@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h
Sent: Mon, Oct 13, 2014 10:45:08 AM

I did not misremember JAH after all. Reference to the possibility that HT initially tried to adopt Richard III's entire marriage plan with himself as prospected groom for Joana can be found in the Notes section, note 27 to chapter 2 of "The last days of Richard III", page 173 in the updated edition of 2013.

Dom Manuel was later offered Elizabeth's and Cecily's younger sister Anne of York as prospected bride, not Cecily, but that offer was turned down too.

Being "flexible" with respect to the prospected bride in dynastic marriage agreements in the presence of siblings was common practice at the time due to the high mortality rate. A similar clause was included in the Treaty of Picquigny when EoY was betrothed to the French Dauphin and even HT in December 1483 had sworn to marry EoY, or the sister next in line should she predecease the intended wedding.

However, the vague wording used by Richard's ambassadors in the marriage negotiations (referring to Edward's IV daughter, with no royal title), was probably used to slide over EoY's illegitimacy more than in the traditional "plan b" practice, since Cecily was already married to Ralph Scrope and the other sisters had not reached the age of consent yet. Mac

David, you did not object my comment on the ground of JAH's assumption being a speculation, but on the ground that I was misremembering JAH's text, hence my citation of the note and related pages in my edition.

Given the time span indicated in the book for Edward Woodville's stay at the Portoguese court (I will let you look it up for yourself since you have the book), I personally find JAH's speculation on HT trying to hop on the ongoing marriage negotiations and replace Richard with himself as new king of England very reasonable, even if of course not divine truth. A better speculation than yours on the Lincoln Roll, if I may say it.

It was a question of dynastic alliances, the Portoguese royals had met neither Richard nor Henry personally, so if exchanging one prospected bride with her sister in case she predeceased was standard clause in the negotiations, why not exchange a dead king with one that was alive and kicking?

No moral scandal about it, just matter-of-fact considerations that did not, apparently, met the prospected bride's approval as far as Joana was concerned, but did not cast the whole business aside if they went so far as to have a papal dispensation issued for Manuel and Anne of York.

As for HT's reluctance, to which you now seem to concede, I think Carol has already thoroughly added to the discussion. Regards. Mac

Mac,
Thank you for that. I do have a copy of The Last Days... but it is older so my page numbers are different.

I assume that the wording of note 27 is the same - it sounds as though it is.

The problem here is that JAH starts that particular note with the words "it may even be that...", which makes me believe that the section that follows is pure speculation.

In fact, later in the note he uses Henry's reluctance to marry Elizabeth as 'evidence' that Henry might have been offering himself in a Portuguese marriage.

So in the context of our original discussion, this is begging the question - using what you are trying to demonstrate as part of its own proof.

So I suppose in answering Sandra's point as well, JAH's speculations are often quoted as facts or evidence by some Ricardians.


Kind regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

I did not misremember JAH after all. Reference to the possibility that HT initially tried to adopt Richard III's entire marriage plan with himself as prospected groom for Joana can be found in the Notes section, note 27 to chapter 2 of "The last days of Richard III", page 173 in the updated edition of 2013.

Dom Manuel was later offered Elizabeth's and Cecily's younger sister Anne of York as prospected bride, not Cecily, but that offer was turned down too.

Being "flexible" with respect to the prospected bride in dynastic marriage agreements in the presence of siblings was common practice at the time due to the high mortality rate. A similar clause was included in the Treaty of Picquigny when EoY was betrothed to the French Dauphin and even HT in December 1483 had sworn to marry EoY, or the sister next in line should she predecease the intended wedding.

However, the vague wording used by Richard's ambassadors in the marriage negotiations (referring to Edward's IV daughter, with no royal title), was probably used to slide over EoY's illegitimacy more than in the traditional "plan b" practice, since Cecily was already married to Ralph Scrope and the other sisters had not reached the age of consent yet. Mac

Hi Sandra,
Sorry to be replying to your post so late about the myth of Henry's reluctance to marry Elizabeth. No I was not hedging my bets, I do not believe he was reluctant nor was he looking for an alternative bride in Portugal. I admit that he was being circumspect and imposing his own timetable on events.

I was quoting the logic of JAH's note in The Last Days... that it was reasonable to suppose that Edward Woodville was negotiating a bride in Portugal for Henry because of his known reluctance - according to JAH.

This (JAH's note) was then quoted in support of the idea of Henry's reluctance. This circular argument amounts to no more than JAH thinks.

I will deal with the actual facts in a reply to Carol.

Kind regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h
Sent: Mon, Oct 13, 2014 4:30:05 PM

David, I quote you from this morning:- It seems to be a case of JAH's being misremembered in order to support the myth of Henry's reluctance to marry Elizabeth. Now I quote you from this afternoon:- In fact, later in the note he uses Henry's reluctance to marry Elizabeth as 'evidence' that Henry might have been offering himself in a Portuguese marriage. So, Portuguese marriage or not, on the latest evidence even you concede Henry showed reluctance to marry Elizabeth. Or are you hedging your bets? Kind regards Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 5:13 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h

Mac,
Thank you for that. I do have a copy of The Last Days... but it is older so my page numbers are different.

I assume that the wording of note 27 is the same - it sounds as though it is.

The problem here is that JAH starts that particular note with the words "it may even be that...", which makes me believe that the section that follows is pure speculation.

In fact, later in the note he uses Henry's reluctance to marry Elizabeth as 'evidence' that Henry might have been offering himself in a Portuguese marriage.

So in the context of our original discussion, this is begging the question - using what you are trying to demonstrate as part of its own proof.

So I suppose in answering Sandra's point as well, JAH's speculations are often quoted as facts or evidence by some Ricardians.


Kind regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

I did not misremember JAH after all. Reference to the possibility that HT initially tried to adopt Richard III's entire marriage plan with himself as prospected groom for Joana can be found in the Notes section, note 27 to chapter 2 of "The last days of Richard III", page 173 in the updated edition of 2013.

Dom Manuel was later offered Elizabeth's and Cecily's younger sister Anne of York as prospected bride, not Cecily, but that offer was turned down too.

Being "flexible" with respect to the prospected bride in dynastic marriage agreements in the presence of siblings was common practice at the time due to the high mortality rate. A similar clause was included in the Treaty of Picquigny when EoY was betrothed to the French Dauphin and even HT in December 1483 had sworn to marry EoY, or the sister next in line should she predecease the intended wedding.

However, the vague wording used by Richard's ambassadors in the marriage negotiations (referring to Edward's IV daughter, with no royal title), was probably used to slide over EoY's illegitimacy more than in the traditional "plan b" practice, since Cecily was already married to Ralph Scrope and the other sisters had not reached the age of consent yet. Mac

David Durose wrote :

" It seems to be a case of JAH's being misremembered in order to support the myth of Henry's reluctance to marry Elizabeth. {snip} I have read somewhere that there were doubts as to whether or not the wording of Clarence's attainder actually barred rights to the crown. I don't know of that is true."

Carol responds:

Myth? Surely you can't deny that he tried to marry someone else (Maude Herbert), that he waited as long as possible both to marry her and to crown her, and that he claimed the crown "by right of conquest" rather than as her husband (which, presumably, was what the Yorkists wanted since both they and he knew that he had no claim through his own lineage).

Actual dates:

Henry's coronation: October 30. 1485

Repeal of Titulus Regius: November 7, 1485

Marriage to EoY::January 14, 1486

Birth of Arthur: September 20, 1486

Coronation of EoY as queen consort (with no political powers): November 25, 1487 (more than a year after Arthur's birth).

Call it a myth if you choose to do so, but there is certainly a foundation for that "myth." He certainly wasn't eager to marry her, even after she had been declared legitimate (or, rather, after the evidence of her illegitimacy was supposedly destroyed), much less to crown her!

As for what George's attainder does or doesn't say, I quoted the relevant portions in an earlier post, but you can read it for yourself in our Files. (I agree with you that it doesn't specifically bar his children from the throne, but the Three Estates certainly interpreted it that way in their petition to Richard. Whether Henry's Parliament's repeal of TR reversed that bar or not depends on whether we agree with the Three Estates (and Richard's Parliament) that George's attainder barred his children from the throne.

Either way, TR had been reversed but the Yorkists under Lincoln could have reinstated it (minus the provision on Edward of Warwick) had they won, at the same time reversing George's attainder. Tudor was obviously afraid of little Warwick as a viable candidate or he wouldn't have locked him in the Tower for life (and later executed him on trumped-up charges).

Does anyone know the date at which Edward of Warwick was transferred from MB's household to the Tower and where that fits with the repeal of TR on November 7, 1485? If it's soon after the repeal, that's strong evidence that Henry feared the repeal and only reluctantly agreed to it. That he feared an uprising in favor of Warwick is obvious from the boy's imprisonment both before and after the Battle of Stoke.

Carol

An Uncle who stole England's treasure and took to sea and gave the treasure to the pretender and eventual usurper of the throne. The people of England, both commons and nobles, suffered greatly under the Tudors. There was nothing chivalrous about Edward Woodville, he was a traitor. Mary

Mac wrote:

"Thank you Carol, if you find any historical reference on the thread of HT claiming he was Henry VI's younger son, I would find it very interesting. Even if it was "unintentional" or "imposed" propaganda, the implication for Margaret Beaufort's unchaste conduct is there AND I just love thinking of the allegedly pious but ever scheming My Lady the King's Mother being branded a whore by her own only son for lust of power just as George of Clarence had done with regards to the allegations on his brother Edward's illegitimacy."

Marie butts in:

I don't think the implication was that Margaret Beaufort had had sex with Henry VI - not at all. That would only have made Henry Tudor Henry VI's bastard, which wouldn't have been terribly useful dynastically. This was for the consumption of the French home market, and relied on the fact that most French people wouldn't have had much idea at all about the English royal family. The were, I think, being sold 'Henri de Richemond' (they *never* referred to him as Henry Tudor) as a legitimate son of Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou (and therefore, of course, not only the top Lancastrian claimant but also 3/4 French).

Mac wrote:

"Thank you Carol, if you find any historical reference on the thread of HT claiming he was Henry VI's younger son, I would find it very interesting. Even if it was "unintentional" or "imposed" propaganda, the implication for Margaret Beaufort's unchaste conduct is there AND I just love thinking of the allegedly pious but ever scheming My Lady the King's Mother being branded a whore by her own only son for lust of power just as George of Clarence had done with regards to the allegations on his brother Edward's illegitimacy."

Marie butts in:

Mac wrote:

"Thank you Carol, if you find any historical reference on the thread of HT claiming he was Henry VI's younger son, I would find it very interesting. Even if it was "unintentional" or "imposed" propaganda, the implication for Margaret Beaufort's unchaste conduct is there AND I just love thinking of the allegedly pious but ever scheming My Lady the King's Mother being branded a whore by her own only son for lust of power just as George of Clarence had done with regards to the allegations on his brother Edward's illegitimacy."

Marie butts in:

I don't think the implication was that Margaret Beaufort had had sex with Henry VI - not at all. That would only have made Henry Tudor Henry VI's bastard, which wouldn't have been terribly useful dynastically. This was for the consumption of the French home market, and relied on the fact that most French people wouldn't have had much idea at all about the English royal family. The were, I think, being sold 'Henri de Richemond' (they *never* referred to him as Henry Tudor) as a legitimate son of Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou (and therefore, of course, not only the top Lancastrian claimant but also 3/4 French).

Carol:
"Also, and I think this is more important than has been realized, Morton had made sure that the new pope, Innocent VIII, was properly indoctrinated with Tudor propaganda. It's unfortunate that his predecessor, Sixtus IV, died in August 1484, just a few months before Tudor began making those outrageous claims to the throne. He would have been well aware of their falseness, and of Richard III's true character and rightful claim. Unlike "Innocent," he would have been highly unlikely to support the Tudor pretender."

Marie

Certainly Innocent was swayed by Morton, who was in Rome from at least January to May 1485 and told him some pretty tall stories. I'm not a great fan if the 'everything was the fault of the evil mastermind Bishop Morton' line of thinking, but his influence on Innocent VIII is pretty clear. I would recommend CSL Davies' article 'Bishop Morton and the Holy See'. I'm not totally convinced that Sixtus IV was a great fan of Richard's kingship, though. I've recently been looking at Richard's relations with Rome. Owing un part to Buckingham's Rebellion, he was unfortunately rather slow off the mark making his official submission to Rome, and rebel agents had very likely got the Pope's ear first. Sixtus had been a great fan of Edward IV so his natural response to Richard declaring Edward's marriage invalid is likely to have been a bit negative, particularly as Richard hadn't applied to Rome - or to any Church court - for ratification. Henry was extremely canny and got the Pope to rubber stamp everything he did. But I do agree that Innocent was a particular problem - he was more than a bit easily led and lacked the sense not to meddle in the internal political affairs of sovereign states.

Carol wrote:

"As for the earlier dispensation, it had been made when Elizabeth was legally illegitimate and Henry was claiming to be the Earl of Richmond. (In reality, that title had been taken away by Edward IV and was in the keeping of the crown.) Possibly, that was the real reason that Henry needed a new dispensation since the older one would surely have dealt with consanguinity. I think there was also the issue of force, a possible reluctance on EoY's part to marry the destroyer of the House of York (which would explain why none of the witnesses to the new dispensation was a Woodville), but Marie can tell you more about that."

Marie:

Well, I'm working on an article on all this, and it's too complex to go into properly here, but Elizabeth's legitimacy, or lack of same, would have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the dispensation. Bastardy was no impediment to marriage, and the calculation of consanguinity was exactly the same whether a child was born in or out of wedlock. Elizabeth's legitimacy was purely an English political concern - Henry could not hope to quieten any Yorkist sentiments - and prevent rebellion - by maintaining as his queen a woman who was merely a bastard of the House of York. He had to be able to claim that his heirs would also be the heirs of York.

Henry's reference to himself as 'Henricus Richemont' in his supplication for the 1484 dispensation would not have invalidated it, I'm sure. He did not name himself as *Earl* of Richmond, and his father had been Earl of Richmond so it seems to me that his use of Richmond as a surname was perfectly in order - certainly not beyond the limits of what was normal in such matters. We don't know precisely why this dispensation was not invoked in January 1486, but I think questions about consent may indeed be at the heart of it.

To go back to David's earlier point about Henry's willingness to marry Elizabeth, I'm afraid I really don't believe that this was his intention immediately after Bosworth. The article I'm working on sets out the reasons why I take this view. I'm sorry to be so vague but I don't want to give everything away in advance.

Carol wrote:I'm afraid I can't agree with your idealized version of Sir Edward
Woodville, who unquestionably robbed gold from a ship and most likely
also took the treasure from the Tower of London.

I have always been surprised that historians, even Baldwin, seem to gloss over and make excuses for this incident, as if it wasn't important.. Personally, I can't see how anyone wouldn't see this as treacherous. It says a lot about Edward Woodville and probably the character of the Woodvilles as a group. I don't know how much the women were involved or whether they were just dominated by the Woodville men.
Nico




On Thursday, 23 October 2014, 19:25, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:

















With Henry's track record, if Edward Woodville hadn't died in Brittany, his
head would have been lopped off sooner or later in England anyway. Henry liked
to bide his time and then give the thumbs down.

Sandra
=^..^=




From: mailto:

Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 7:18 PM
To:

Subject: Re: Re: Proof of the existence
of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h



An Uncle who stole England's treasure and took to sea and gave the treasure
to the pretender and eventual usurper of the throne. The people of England, both
commons and nobles, suffered greatly under the Tudors. There was nothing
chivalrous about Edward Woodville, he was a traitor.

Mary

As Gairdner, generally a hostile source, says, Richard’s accession was the result of a unique “constitutional election”.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 03 November 2014 12:42
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Proof of the existence of a daughter to Cicely Plantagenet and h

David, Richard did not mount a coup he was Lord Constable and he had been sent for by Hastings urging him to come to London as soon as possible because of the behaviour of the Woodvilles and because Edward had named him as Protector not the Woodvilles. If you read Annette Carson's" Maligned King" she explains how Edward had changed his will and Elizabeth was not included as she was in a previous will. The Woodvilles were definitely up to something during this period. There was a very good article in the Ricardian Bulletin a few years ago which details the ambush prepared for Richard by Rivers.Are you saying that Elizabeth didn't take money from the Treasury either?

Mary