Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Hasting's ex ecution

Eileen, There is actually a monument marking the place he is supposed to have died below Sandal castle. Don't know Where the paper crown tale began but his head had one put on it when stuck on Mickelgate Bar in York.
Paul
Sent from my HTC

----- Reply message -----
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To: <>
Subject: Re: Hasting's ex ecution
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 6:09 PM


Paul...I remember reading a rather lurid story about the death of RoY with an anthill and paper crown involved. I had hoped it was not true. . I always take these things with a pinch of salt as it is diabolically difficult in winkling out the truth from the crap...as someone said, I believe it was Churchill...'The victor writes the history'...The trouble is some historians who have written the books we all read have clearly taken leave of their common sense...the shrivelled arm...Richard enjoying a bowl of strawberries with plotting, assassination attempts and whatever going on around him...it's just so ludicrous...Eileen

Paul...I'm going to trace where I read that...it said that he was humiliated/mocked and made to sit on an ant hill and a crown ..paper??...put on his head before being executed.. Well we do know his head was set up on Micklegate along with Edmunds. I do hope this story is a fabrication and they both died in battle before the beheading....it may be Hancock or Jones...off to have a look...Eileen

Ah yes..apologies Paul...I have misremembered what I read...It's from Psychology of a Battle Bosworth..Michael Jones..He touches upon RoY death quite a bit...the horror of it and contemporaries, according to Jones, would have regarded the charge to help the foraging party as 'in cautious' and at worst a pointless waste with his death as a murder and the violation of his body 'a violation of honour. His decapitated head was ironically crowned in mockery of his pretentions to the crown.....as the legend evolved this imaginery became more pronounced and *and one version had him crowned and taunted on a hillock before being cruelly put to death* '. So there we have it... Unfortunately Jones hasn't given a reference for that...but I do recall reading it elsewhere where the hillock was an ant hill. Another prime example of how we have to be really wary of what we believe or what we discard. Eileen

Eileen,
Probably Shakespeare, who has him dragged before Queen Margaret who puts the crown on his head before having him killed. Of course, she wasn't actually there, so there you go! Another 'truth' from the Bard!
Edmund was killed on Wakefield bridge by Clifford, hence the Yorks later hatred of the Cliffords. Cis' brother, Warwick's father Salisbury, also had his head stuck on the Bar alongside York.
Paul

On 01/11/2014 21:24, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] wrote:
Paul...I'm going to trace where I read that...it said that he was humiliated/mocked and made to sit on an ant hill and a crown ..paper??...put on his head before being executed.. Well we do know his head was set up on Micklegate along with Edmunds.  I do hope this story is a fabrication and they both died in battle before the beheading....it may be Hancock or Jones...off to have a look...Eileen

Eileen wrote :

"[The story of the paper crown and the anthill is] from Psychology of a Battle Bosworth..Michael Jones..He touches upon RoY death quite a bit...the horror of it and contemporaries, according to Jones, would have regarded the charge to help the foraging party as 'in cautious' and at worst a pointless waste with his death as a murder and the violation of his body 'a violation of honour. His decapitated head was ironically crowned in mockery of his pretentions to the crown.....as the legend evolved this imaginery became more pronounced and *and one version had him crowned and taunted on a hillock before being cruelly put to death* '. So there we have it... Unfortunately Jones hasn't given a reference for that...but I do recall reading it elsewhere where the hillock was an ant hill. Another prime example of how we have to be really wary of what we believe or what we discard."

Carol responds:

That's the trouble, isn't it--even reputable historians repeating stories as if they were facts without citing a source! The much-maligned Sir Clements Markham has a note that you may find elucidating:

"The weight of authority is decisively against the Duke of York having been taken prisoner, and in favour of his having been killed in the battle. William of Worcester says: 'Ubi occubuerunt in campo Dux Eborum, Thomas Nevill,' &c. The Croyland chronicler, Fabyan, Polydore Virgil, Hall, and Stow concur. Hall says, 'He, manfully fighting, within half an hour was slain and dead.' But Whethamstede states that the Duke was taken prisoner and grossly insulted: that he was set upon an ant-hill, a crown of woven grass was put on his head, and that the soldiers bowed their heads before him, saying in derision: 'Hail, King without a kingdom!' [John Bostock of] Whethamstede adds, 'non aliter quam Judæi coram Domino.' But [Bostock] was Abbot of St. Albans, and violently prejudiced against the Lancastrians for their marauding and pillaging in his neighbourhood. It is generally stated that Queen Margaret took part in the barbarities of her adherents. Stow, for instance, says that Lord Clifford cut off the Duke's head, put a paper crown on it, stuck it on a pole, and presented it to the Queen, who 'was not lying far from the field.' But there is clear proof that the Queen was actually in Scotland when the battle of Wakefield was fought. William of Worcester says: 'Dicto bello finito Regina Margareta venit ab Scotia Eboraco.' This is confirmed by the Croyland chronicler, who says, 'Inpartibus borealibus morabatur.' Margaret had nothing to do with the Lancastrian barbarities, except that she allowed the heads to remain on the gates of York. She was forced to tolerate the deeds of her savage adherents."

Markham, Clements R. (Clements Robert) (2011-06-28). Richard III: His Life & Character Reviewed in the light of recent research (Kindle Locations 451-457). . Kindle Edition.

You can read it for yourself here: http://books.google.com/books?id=XvvRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA17&dq=Richard+Duke+of+York+paper+crown+ant+hill&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_FpVVKipCNDnoASmkYDACA&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Richard%20Duke%20of%20York%20paper%20crown%20ant%20hill&f=false

Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/mpqxdfl

So as I understand it, John Bostock, aka Whethamstede, is the source of the story, and the sixteenth-century antiquary John Stow repeated it (changing the grass crown to a paper one--I don't know if he included the ant hill. Note that Hall characteristically adds details and a bit of dialogue. He also invented the story of Edmund, a maidenly boy of twelve, murdered by Lord Clifford.)

Oddly, though he dismisses Whehamstede's version of events, Markham treats Stow's version (the paper crown) as true. To me, itt looks as if the Duke of York (and presumably Edmund and the others involved in the story) died in battle, and the part about the heads on the gates of York (Markham's "Lancastrian barbarities") appears to be true, but whether York was mocked and "crowned" seems doubtful.

I haven't translated the Latin, but most of it is pretty basic. Now to track down Bostock/Whethamstede to find when the tale originated. I should also check Stow's version if I can find it.

Carol

Carol earlier:

"Now to track down Bostock/Whethamstede to find when the tale originated. I should also check Stow's version if I can find it."

Carol again:

Okay, John Whethamstede (birth name John Bostock) died in January 1465 (presumably modern dating since my source--sorry!--is Wikipedia. That makes the grass crown/ant hill story quite early since the Duke of York died in December 1460 and Whethampstede must have written his chronicle (or whatever it was) some time between those two dates (more likely between January 1461 and December 1464).

The paper (as opposed to grass) crown appears to come from William of Wyrcester, A doctoral dissertation by Danna Piroyanski quotes him as saying ""Caput quoque duds Eboraci in despectu oronaverunt carta" 'cites the source as "'Caput quoque duds Eboraci in despectu oronaverunt carta" and cites her source as "'Wilhelmi Wyrcester Annales: Rerum Anglicarum,' in Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars in France, During the Reign of Henry the Sixth, I. Stevenson (ed.) 2 vols. , RS 22(1861-64), vol. 11, part 11, pp. 743-93 (quote on p.
775)."

The manuscript was completed in 1468, so his version of the story is no more than eight years old and possibly less. Since he was close to the Duke of York and Edward IV, his version seems likely to be true.

BTW, I found Markham's book online here if anyone is interested: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm

Carol

""Caput quoque duds Eboraci in despectu oronaverunt carta" 'cites the source as "'Caput quoque duds Eboraci in despectu oronaverunt carta" and cites her source as "'Wilhelmi Wyrcester Annales: Rerum Anglicarum,' in Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars in France, During the Reign of Henry the Sixth, I. Stevenson (ed.) 2 vols. , RS 22(1861-64), vol. 11, part 11, pp. 743-93 (quote on p.
775)."

The manuscript was completed in 1468, so his version of the story is no more than eight years old and possibly less. Since he was close to the Duke of York and Edward IV, his version seems likely to be true.

BTW, I found Markham's book online here if anyone is interested: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36451/36451-h/36451-h.htm

Carol

Carol incoherently wrote:

"The paper (as opposed to grass) crown appears to come from William of Wyrcester, A doctoral dissertation by Danna Piroyanski quotes him as saying ""Caput quoque duds Eboraci in despectu oronaverunt carta" 'cites the source as "'Caput quoque duds Eboraci in despectu oronaverunt carta" and cites her source as "'Wilhelmi Wyrcester Annales: Rerum Anglicarum,'"

Carol again:

Apologies for the garbling. Those sentences should read: "The paper (as opposed to grass) crown appears to come from William of Wyrcester, A doctoral dissertation by Danna Piroyanski quotes him as saying ""Caput quoque ducis Eboraci in despectu oronaverunt carta" and cites her source as "'Wilhelmi Wyrcester Annales: Rerum Anglicarum,'" [etc.]


"Duds" for "ducis" is a transcription error in the .pdf file. The rest of the garbling is a cut-and-paste error on my part. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.

Carol

Carol quoted William Wyrcester (William of Worcester) as follows:

""Caput quoque duds Eboraci in despectu oronaverunt carta"

In the event that anyone is following this thread, "oronaverunt" should be "coronaverunt" ("was crowned" if my Latin is correct--it should be passive voice). "Carta" in this context would be "paper."

Carol

Carol I'm so glad that in the midst of this you stand up for the much-maligned Margaret. I think she is as much the victim of Shakespeare as Richard, the 'tiger's heart' etc. After all, you can't blame the Queen who has the courage to go to war to defend her husband and son - but it just 'wasn't done' in those days. And, on the subject of so-called child murders, there seems no such outcry about the deaths of Rutland and Edward of Lancaster who in todays terms are still very under-age. H

Thank you Carol...I am reassured that I am not losing the plot now re the anthill!
Re Clement Markham...yes..I have briefly taken a look at his book online and it is now on my book wish list,,,about 4th place! Eileen

Although of its time, it is a most interesting read.

JessFrom: cherryripe.eileenb@... []
Sent: 02/11/2014 13:31
To:
Subject: Re: The paper crown story (Was: Hasting's execution)

Thank you Carol...I am reassured that I am not losing the plot now re the anthill!
Re Clement Markham...yes..I have briefly taken a look at his book online and it is now on my book wish list,,,about 4th place! Eileen

Yes Jess...Quite dated now but that is ok with me. I bought and read the Privy Purse Expenses of EoY recently which is dated, yes but a delight to read which is quite rare nowadays. I'm rereading Kendall's Richard at the moment which was written...I believe...must check..in the 50s so I'm wondering if any of it is now incorrect...Eileen

Hilary wrote:

"Carol I'm so glad that in the midst of this you stand up for the much-maligned Margaret. I think she is as much the victim of Shakespeare as Richard, the 'tiger's heart' etc. After all, you can't blame the Queen who has the courage to go to war to defend her husband and son - but it just 'wasn't done' in those days. And, on the subject of so-called child murders, there seems no such outcry about the deaths of Rutland and Edward of Lancaster who in todays terms are still very under-age."

Carol responds:

Hi, Hilary. I'm not sure how I feel about Margaret of Anjou, but certainly she wanted to defend her son's right to succeed his father, and I agree that it's unfair to blame her for incidents that occurred when she wasn't present.

There was, of course, an outcry about the supposed murder of the "twelve"-year-old Edmund of Rutland, but when that was exposed as fiction, he became largely forgotten. (I like to imagine what life for the Yorkists would have been like if Edmund had survived. Would Edward have gotten away with his secret marriages? Would Edmund have kept Edward in line or joined him in his indulgences? Would George have rebelled if he wasn't next in line (before the birth of Edward's first son)? Would Edmund rather than Richard have become Protector? It seems a sad loss whose implications no one has fully considered--but, then, there's little point beyond a tinge of personal satisfaction in exploring what ifs.)

As for Edward of Lancaster, he's always "the young prince" in every chronicle or history I've read relating to his death. Almost no one considers that he was only a year younger than Richard, even born in the same month. And once chroniclers started (falsely) implicating Richard in his death (along with George and the much older Hastings), that similarity in ages disappeared altogether. You'd think he was thirty or forty rather than eighteen at Tewkesbury (and Barnet).

But if they'd encountered each other at Tewkesbury, it would have been two very young knights fighting to the death. Each was an enemy of the other's house--and if the young Richard loved Anne (which I realize we can't possibly determine), he would have had additional reason to consider Lancaster an enemy--as would EoL if he knew that Anne loved Richard (which, again, is impossible to determine).

If only Henry Bolingbroke hadn't deposed Richard II and the Yorkists, starting with Richard Duke of York, had come to the throne naturally (through the Mortimers). So many deaths would have been prevented. Richard would never have become king, but I think his intelligence and talent would have come to the fore despite his being the youngest of *four* brothers, and he would have been remembered as a diligent, loyal, and enlightened prince.

Carol

Eileen wrote :

"Thank you Carol...I am reassured that I am not losing the plot now re the anthill! Re Clement Markham...yes..I have briefly taken a look at his book online and it is now on my book wish list,,,about 4th place!"

Carol responds:

You're welcome. Sorry it took me so many posts to realize that the .pdf of the dissertation quoting William Wyrcester had butchered the Latin!

Carol

Eileen wrote :

"I'm rereading Kendall's Richard at the moment which was written...I believe...must check..in the 50s so I'm wondering if any of it is now incorrect."

Carol responds:

For one thing, he accepts the conclusions of Tanner and Wright in the 1930s that the bones in the urn are those of the "Princes." He also didn't realize that Richard and Anne had a papal dispensation. I'm sure that there are other examples as well. Still, it's the best biography we have.

Being interrupted and can't finish my post.

Carol