Thomas More, Thomas Moyle and the Kent Connection

Those of you who were kind enough to read my ramblings may remember that a while ago I pointed out that Sir Thomas Moyle (of Richard of Eastwell fame) seems to have been directly related to the Tyrells and Hautes. During the past couple of weeks I've been looking again at those surrounding the sainted Thomas. You see, I can't get my head round his 'history' for the following reasons:

1. If it's straightforward history then why did he write it? He didn't get on with HT and presenting H8 with it would be like giving the current royal family another history of the Duke of Windsor or Diana. He surely had much better things on which to exercise his brilliant mind, even if Ackroyd has him as an aspiring Tudor Tacitus? And if Morton told him all this by 1500 (when he died), why on earth hadn't he or Morton (more importantly) told HT that the princes were definitely dead? They clearly hadn't because HT spent his life chasing shadows and it HT had known the French also would have known. Would they have financed expeditions of pretenders had they known that HT wouldn't be in the least rattled?

2. If it's some sort of humorous parody then why wait until 14-18 years' after Morton's death to write it and for what audience would it be?

3.Is it a mission whose real aim is one thing and that is to confirm that Edward's sons did not survive? The blackening of Richard is a by-product - you have to provide the villain. Leslau, and latterly Baldwin, have More in a different camp, actually acting to protect someone who still survived.

There seems to be consensus that More wrote his work between 1513 and 1518 and one of the people who came into his life around then, or even just before was Will Roper who married his daughter. Now Will wasn't just an aspiring young man as he is portrayed in a 'Man for All Seasons'. He came from a long line of lawyers who had done well under the Tudors. Daddy was Sheriff of Kent and Attorney General, grandad was Surveyor of Customes of the Cinque Ports (useful) and great grandads, going back to the 14th century were JPs. But the most interesting great grandad was Ralph Roper, who had married Beatrice Lewkenor (yes the Lewkenors again). Beatrice had been married before to Thomas Kempe and was the mother of Archbishop of York/Canterbury John Kempe, whom you may recall a youthful Stillington reported to the Pope for 'fixing' a prebendary. The Archbishop died in 1454 but his brothers' descendents lived on in the family home over the garden fence from Sir Thomas Moyle at Wye, Kent and one of them married Moyle's daughter.

Now all this could mean something or it could mean nothing but it seems to me highly co-incidental. I've always found it hard to decide whether the Hautes and the Tyrells were serving the Yorkists, Henry Tudor, or the Woodvilles (who also originally hailed from Kent, the Ropers came from Canterbury). And there is a non-barking dog in that Moyle, in his conversation with 'Richard Plantagenet' just omits to ask about the possibility of the acquisition of a wife or family during his meanderings. It also throws into question some of the things which happened during the reign of H8 purportedly for other reasons but I'm still looking at that. I shall not be writing my Alison Weir novel yet :) H (sorry for the length)

Those of you who were kind enough to read my ramblings may remember that a while ago I pointed out that Sir Thomas Moyle (of Richard of Eastwell fame) seems to have been directly related to the Tyrells and Hautes. During the past couple of weeks I've been looking again at those surrounding the sainted Thomas. You see, I can't get my head round his 'history' for the following reasons:

1. If it's straightforward history then why did he write it? He didn't get on with HT and presenting H8 with it would be like giving the current royal family another history of the Duke of Windsor or Diana. He surely had much better things on which to exercise his brilliant mind, even if Ackroyd has him as an aspiring Tudor Tacitus? And if Morton told him all this by 1500 (when he died), why on earth hadn't he or Morton (more importantly) told HT that the princes were definitely dead? They clearly hadn't because HT spent his life chasing shadows and it HT had known the French also would have known. Would they have financed expeditions of pretenders had they known that HT wouldn't be in the least rattled?

2. If it's some sort of humorous parody then why wait until 14-18 years' after Morton's death to write it and for what audience would it be?

3.Is it a mission whose real aim is one thing and that is to confirm that Edward's sons did not survive? The blackening of Richard is a by-product - you have to provide the villain. Leslau, and latterly Baldwin, have More in a different camp, actually acting to protect someone who still survived.

There seems to be consensus that More wrote his work between 1513 and 1518 and one of the people who came into his life around then, or even just before was Will Roper who married his daughter. Now Will wasn't just an aspiring young man as he is portrayed in a 'Man for All Seasons'. He came from a long line of lawyers who had done well under the Tudors. Daddy was Sheriff of Kent and Attorney General, grandad was Surveyor of Customes of the Cinque Ports (useful) and great grandads, going back to the 14th century were JPs. But the most interesting great grandad was Ralph Roper, who had married Beatrice Lewkenor (yes the Lewkenors again). Beatrice had been married before to Thomas Kempe and was the mother of Archbishop of York/Canterbury John Kempe, whom you may recall a youthful Stillington reported to the Pope for 'fixing' a prebendary. The Archbishop died in 1454 but his brothers' descendents lived on in the family home over the garden fence from Sir Thomas Moyle at Wye, Kent and one of them married Moyle's daughter.

Now all this could mean something or it could mean nothing but it seems to me highly co-incidental. I've always found it hard to decide whether the Hautes and the Tyrells were serving the Yorkists, Henry Tudor, or the Woodvilles (who also originally hailed from Kent, the Ropers came from Canterbury). And there is a non-barking dog in that Moyle, in his conversation with 'Richard Plantagenet' just omits to ask about the possibility of the acquisition of a wife or family during his meanderings. It also throws into question some of the things which happened during the reign of H8 purportedly for other reasons but I'm still looking at that. I shall not be writing my Alison Weir novel yet :) H (sorry for the length)

"[snip] During the past couple of weeks I've been looking again at those surrounding the sainted Thomas. You see, I can't get my head round his 'history' for the following reasons:

1. If it's straightforward history then why did he write it? He didn't get on with HT and presenting H8 with it would be like giving the current royal family another history of the Duke of Windsor or Diana. He surely had much better things on which to exercise his brilliant mind, even if Ackroyd has him as an aspiring Tudor Tacitus? And if Morton told him all this by 1500 (when he died), why on earth hadn't he or Morton (more importantly) told HT that the princes were definitely dead? They clearly hadn't because HT spent his life chasing shadows and it HT had known the French also would have known. Would they have financed expeditions of pretenders had they known that HT wouldn't be in the least rattled?

2. If it's some sort of humorous parody then why wait until 14-18 years' after Morton's death to write it and for what audience would it be?

3.Is it a mission whose real aim is one thing and that is to confirm that Edward's sons did not survive? The blackening of Richard is a by-product - you have to provide the villain. Leslau, and latterly Baldwin, have More in a different camp, actually acting to protect someone who still survived. [snip]"

Carol responds:

It definitely wasn't straightforward history. That's what Polydore Vergil was trying to write (to the extent that a moralizing humanist fully committed to the Tudor dynasty and short on sources for Richard's reign was capable of straightforward history). If it was a humorous parody (humorous only to those capable of recognizing the irony and distortions), both the target and the audience must have been Polydore Vergil himself--or possibly Erasmus, if he was familiar with Vergil's manuscript, which was still a work in progress. He would also have targeted Rous and possibly Bernard Andre (and Morton if he really supplied a manuscript) if this was the case. He seems (note *seems*) to be ridiculing the practice of using rumor and speculation ("some wise men deem," etc.) and elaborate fictional dialogue. Then, again, he did the same thing (even to putting his villain in the privy) with Martin Luther, so he may even have been ridiculing himself.

As for his mission being to confirm that Edward's sons did not survive, he undermined himself by saying that the tale was only one of many versions that he had heard (highly elaborated though he didn't admit that) and adding that he had also heard that one or both survived.

Polydore Vergil also has (a very reluctant) Sir James Tyrell (executed in 1502, the year after Vergil came to England) in charge of the murders of the "Princes." Morton could not have been the source of this tale since he died in 1500. It has to be More himself, elaborating on and altering Vergil's version (and also changing the date if I recall correctly).

I don't know what More was up to, but if it had anything to do with Richard of Eastwell, why didn't he publish that portion of the tale?

Carol

Hi Doug, Are you saying that someone else suggested that Roper wrote the history because I didn't know that? I just came at it from the position of a family which crops up a lot of the time in this, that's how I work so some names might mean nothing to me but when I come to look them up later I understand' As for the non-barking dog, well it was a shot in the dark but I reckon if Richard of Eastwell did any meandering it wasn't in England; it can't be a co-incidence that Eastwell and Wye are about as near to Calais as one can get without getting wet feet. Calais, not Bruges, is the place to disappear, as we know from the numerous agents who went backwards and forwards with impunity under the guise of the Staple during HT's reign. The Tyrells, Darcys (sorry forgot them) and Hautes had strong connections there through the Whetehills. What is strange is that, though I've tended to dismiss Leslau because his dates are wrong, one of his theories is that the older prince was disguised as Edward Guildford. The Guildfords also have very strong connections with Calais and these people. More work to do. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2014, 15:36
Subject: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle and the Kent Connection

Hilary wrote:  Those of you who were kind enough to read my ramblings may remember that a while ago I pointed out that Sir Thomas Moyle (of Richard of Eastwell fame) seems to have been directly related to the Tyrells and Hautes. During the past couple of weeks I've been looking again at those surrounding the sainted Thomas. You see, I can't get my head round his 'history' for the following reasons: 1. If it's straightforward history then why did he write it? He didn't get on with HT and presenting H8 with it would be like giving the current royal family another history of the Duke of Windsor or Diana. He surely had much better things on which to exercise his brilliant mind, even if Ackroyd has him as an aspiring Tudor Tacitus? And if Morton told him all this by 1500 (when he died), why on earth hadn't he or Morton (more importantly) told HT that the princes were definitely dead? They clearly hadn't because HT spent his life chasing shadows and it HT had known the French also would have known. Would they have financed expeditions of pretenders had they known that HT wouldn't be in the least rattled? 2. If it's some sort of humorous parody then why wait until 14-18 years' after Morton's death to write it and for what audience would it be? 3.Is it a mission whose real aim is one thing and that is to confirm that Edward's sons did not survive? The blackening of Richard is a by-product - you have to provide the villain. Leslau, and latterly Baldwin, have More in a different camp, actually acting to protect someone who still survived. Doug here: A question for you: Do we know just how much of Sir Thomas' History was actually written by him and not his son-in-law(I believe it was?)? Has there ever been a line-by-line or word-by-word examination by someone who has studied Sir Thomas' writings and could give an expert's opinion on what Sir Thomas wrote (style, word usage, etc) and what was added to prepare the manuscript/s for publication, which we know did occur? Because, and depending on how much of the original still exists in today's editions, there's another possibility: might the edition that was finally published have been published as an attempt to show Sir Thomas' loyalty to the Tudors? Are there any modern editions of the History which look at the question of what was definitely written by Sir Thomas, what probably was by him and what is definitely not in his style? I don't know of any, but if there is one it would certainly be an interesting read! Hilary continued: There seems to be consensus that More wrote his work between 1513 and 1518 and one of the people who came into his life around then, or even just before was Will Roper who married his daughter. Now Will wasn't just an aspiring young man as he is portrayed in a 'Man for All Seasons'. He came from a long line of lawyers who had done well under the Tudors. Daddy was Sheriff of Kent and Attorney General, grandad was Surveyor of Customes of the Cinque Ports (useful) and great grandads, going back to the 14th century were JPs. But the most interesting great grandad was Ralph Roper, who had married Beatrice Lewkenor (yes the Lewkenors again). Beatrice had been married before to Thomas Kempe and was the mother of Archbishop of York/Canterbury John Kempe, whom you may recall a youthful Stillington reported to the Pope for 'fixing' a prebendary. The Archbishop died in 1454 but his brothers' descendents lived on in the family home over the garden fence from Sir Thomas Moyle at Wye, Kent and one of them married Moyle's daughter. Now all this could mean something or it could mean nothing but it seems to me highly co-incidental. I've always found it hard to decide whether the Hautes and the Tyrells were serving the Yorkists, Henry Tudor, or the Woodvilles (who also originally hailed from Kent, the Ropers came from Canterbury). And there is a non-barking dog in that Moyle, in his conversation with 'Richard Plantagenet' just omits to ask about the possibility of the acquisition of a wife or family during his meanderings. It also throws into question some of the things which happened during the reign of H8 purportedly for other reasons but I'm still looking at that. I shall not be writing my Alison Weir novel yet :) H (sorry for the length)  Doug here: Not sure about that non-barking dog because if Richard of Eastwell had married and had a family, why was he wandering around alone? Why wasn't he spending his declining years with them? Doesn't mean Richard hadn't had a family and they'd all died, say, but one would think that if there were any surviving children, or grandchildren, Richard would have been living with them. Did Richard's profession require him to move around and go to where there was work? Or was that a decision made for safety's sake? If Richard was one of Edward's sons, he'd likely want to avoid London and the few other large towns; if only because those who employed good stone masons had money and those who had money tended to move in circles that over-lapped with those in government circles. Doug (who doesn't think your post was too long at all)

Hi Hlary,

Wonder what you think about this theory. Lesley Boatwright was rather inclined to think the reclusive, Latin-reading "Richard Plantagenet" was most probably a former monk left wandering the lanes after the Dissolution, and that he gave an account of himself he thought would go down well with Sir Thomas Moyle.

Marie

Hi Marie, she could be right, she could be wrong. It might be a fluke that he chose Sr Thomas but I'd have thought him brave if he did considering Moyle was/had been an MP. What I do think is that if 'Richard' isn't our man then our last hope has gone. I've come to respect Baldwin over the years and the fact he even considers all this does influence me. I am now convinced, after Arthurson's excellent work, that Warbeck was Warbeck, not our man - his life was too well-documented, as were the lives of his parents before and after his death. What seems to be emerging from my stuff is that there were two clear groups, if you can call them that, from the early 1480s onwards. One is the MB network which is extensive and covers the NW, SW and Wales - what I call crudely the nationalist (in the most loose sense) and chip on shoulder party. These would rebel, join Henry Tudor and do well under him, unless they developed another chip. But cross to East Anglia, the East Midlands, London, Kent and Essex and you have a different group. Some, like the Howards, are Yorkist, some like the Hautes and Tyrells are perhaps Woodville/Yorkists and who knows about the City of London but it links in with them all. The occasional one, like Sir Richard Haute, strays into the rebellion camp, but they mainly keep their heads down until they start to do rather well under Henry VIII. In fact if you think about it, most of the important Tudor post H7 players, Cromwell, Brandon, the Howards, Wolsey, Walsingham came from this area. And poor old Yorkshire/Northumberland is stranded again with the death of Richard. Going back to the other Richard, it did occur to me that, if by some subterfuge, EW secured the escape of her sons, they wouldn't go to Bruges. Auntie Margaret would send them straight back to Richard. And, even if Buckingham or someone else did, Bruges is surely too much of a risk whilst Richard lives. Calais, on the other hand, is the springboard to Europe - not just Flanders but Portugal, Spain, Italy. One thing Arthurson points out is how fluid European society was - it was a bit like the EU. England wasn't an isolated island, Europeans came and went all the time under the guise of trade or scholarship. The boys could re-invent themselves in say, an Italian university, and emerge new people whom it would be difficult to detect. Finally, what I find strange about the Moyle thing is why, as Speaker of the House of Commons to the Tudors, he chose to mention the RP matter. Is is that kings still had some mystique and he felt he had to mark the passing of one, if only in a clandestine way? H

Yep, Hilary,

I take your point about Calais, but we don't actually know that RP (if that is who he was) approached Sir Thomas Moyle. Firstly it must be remembered that the story was not written down until a later century - another view is that it was simply a tale dreamed up to account for the presence of the name Richard Plantagenet in the burial register. So that is the first hurdle, and it is a big one considering how prone the early moderns were to spin historical yarns.

Second, even if you accept the story in toto, wasn't it the idea that RP came to Sir Thomas' attention because of his habit of keeping himself aloof from the other bricklayers and reading Latin? In other words, he was at Moyle because there was work at Moyle, not because he was seeking out Sir Thomas. Lesley's view, when we discussed it, was that reading Latin suggests he was not merely an educated man but a cleric. Sir Thomas was rabidly anti-monastic but, as you have rightly deduced, came from a family with close links to Tyrell. The guy may therefore have surmised that he would do better with Sir Thomas by claiming to be a son of Richard III than a former monk caught by the enemy clinging on to his old monastic habits.

Also, I have to say, Eastwell is 25 miles inland from Dover so the Calais connection, whilst possible, is by no means the only option.

Sorry to put a downer on this. Your theory might be right but it's not provable - or maybe it is but it would take some really large new find. Personally, I found David Baldwin's book on the subject went way beyond what could legitimately be called history. It's an interesting idea, though.

Marie

Don't worry, I retain an open mind. I certainly didn't buy Baldwin's Colchester and Henry VII connection but I don't buy that this guy was Richard's son either. Maybe he was an 'Anastasia'? H

I agree with Carol that "Richard Plantagenet of Eastwell" was not Richard III's son. Why should he have acknowledged 2 illegitimate children and not others (like Anne Hopper)? I do not know who the guy was, but no son of King Richard III's. For what my opinion is worth, a simple misspelling makes more sense to me than unsubstantiated legends and mirror climbings. Mac

I just think there is still so much we don't know...sadly I have to say I think on so much stuff we will never, ever know..not for sure anyway. Warbeck , Richard of Eastwell, the fate of the 'Princes' etc ...just so much has been lost to us and we cannot know for sure was is true or what is completely rubbish, modern day historians get it wrong too..it's really frustrating. we can only surmise but I do think, under the circumstances that is perfectly acceptable as long as we know that is all it is and it is quite fun. I suppose hundreds of years hence,,if mankind survives..they will be debating on what exactly went on in the 20/20st centuries...because I believe we are still being lied to and coverups everywhere...nothing will change. Eileen

Well bricklaying is a skill Doug I guess. I remember some years ago looking out of an office window for several days and seeing some poor chap the bosses had hired attempting to build a wall. He was really struggling and I presume he had been hired because he gave the cheapest quote. We felt so sorry for him.. Anyway a short time later the wall collapsed..yes bricklaying is a skill...which then begs the question...if you say the monks hired workers...how this 'monk' acquired that skill...hmmmm...smells fishy to me...Eileen

Hilary wrote::

"David Baldwin is an extremely good and commited Ricardian scholar and university Lecturer. I don't dismiss him lightly and was glad to see him at last getting credit for the Leicester find which he discussed in print long before the latest relevations."

Marie:

Baldwin's not the only university lecturer writing about these times and, whilst I respect what he has done, he did not come up with the idea that Richard's remains still lay in the ground where the Greyfriars church had stood rather than having been dug up and thrown in the river, and he was arguing for a different site (it's all about where in the Greyfriars precinct the church was likely to have stood - there were two views on this). He's been put forward by Leicester Uni as the man whose articles enabled the find because Leicester Uni is where he works.

Eileen wrote:

"Well bricklaying is a skill Doug I guess. I remember some years ago looking out of an office window for several days and seeing some poor chap the bosses had hired attempting to build a wall. He was really struggling and I presume he had been hired because he gave the cheapest quote. We felt so sorry for him.. Anyway a short time later the wall collapsed..yes bricklaying is a skill...which then begs the question...if you say the monks hired workers...how this 'monk' acquired that skill...hmmmm...smells fishy to me."

Marie:

I agree it's fishy. I'm not sure the bricklaying didn't get into the story because there were two things people knew about Eastwell at the time in question: the building of the house and the burial of a Richard Plantagenet.

The possible explanations, as you or someone else remarked, are almost endless. It's an interesting subject for a novel but no single theory should be the subject of a history book because there's not enough to support. Baldwin evidently knew monks didn't do their own building, which is why he gave us the scenario of Richard placing his nephew as a humble lay brother at Colchester Abbey. That he would have regarded that as a proper role for his brother's child - even a bastard - doesn't seem convincing to me, and the idea that Henry VII and his wife (the poor lay brother's sister, queen of England) knew he was there and did nothing to better his lot is not the most plausible suggestion I've heard.

How about this Richard Plantagenet was, as the story says, someone educated around Lutterworth in Leicestershire who did not know who his parents were, a boy around 16 or a little less at Bosworth who encountered Richard before the battle. But he merely fantasised that this sorrowful bereaved king was his real father and he would acknowledge him once the fighting was over. Richard is killed so the bubble never gets burst. Over the years he comes more and more to believe this fantasy, and one day is able to turn it to his advantage.

There is a discrepancy between the bricklaying and the Latin however you look at it, but he may have been a jobbing labourer rather than a skilled bricklayer - the story doesn't get written down for ages so who knows how many details of it are reliable? There have always been educated people whose lives have gone awry and who have ended up at the bottom of society after a good start. Or he may have turned up at Eastwell for any number of other reasons. Who knows what the truth was?

Eileen wrote:

"Well bricklaying is a skill Doug I guess. I remember some years ago looking out of an office window for several days and seeing some poor chap the bosses had hired attempting to build a wall. He was really struggling and I presume he had been hired because he gave the cheapest quote. We felt so sorry for him.. Anyway a short time later the wall collapsed..yes bricklaying is a skill...which then begs the question...if you say the monks hired workers...how this 'monk' acquired that skill...hmmmm...smells fishy to me."

Marie:

I agree it's fishy. I'm not sure the bricklaying didn't get into the story because there were two things people knew about Eastwell at the time in question: the building of the house and the burial of a Richard Plantagenet.

The possible explanations, as you or someone else remarked, are almost endless. It's an interesting subject for a novel but no single theory should be the subject of a history book because there's not enough to support. Baldwin evidently knew monks didn't do their own building, which is why he gave us the scenario of Richard placing his nephew as a humble lay brother at Colchester Abbey. That he would have regarded that as a proper role for his brother's child - even a bastard - doesn't seem convincing to me, and the idea that Henry VII and his wife (the poor lay brother's sister, queen of England) knew he was there and did nothing to better his lot is not the most plausible suggestion I've heard.

How about this Richard Plantagenet was, as the story says, someone educated around Lutterworth in Leicestershire who did not know who his parents were, a boy around 16 or a little less at Bosworth who encountered Richard before the battle. But he merely fantasised that this sorrowful bereaved king was his real father and he would acknowledge him once the fighting was over. Richard is killed so the bubble never gets burst. Over the years he comes more and more to believe this fantasy, and one day is able to turn it to his advantage.

There is a discrepancy between the bricklaying and the Latin however you look at it, but he may have been a jobbing labourer rather than a skilled bricklayer - the story doesn't get written down for ages so who knows how many details of it are reliable? There have always been educated people whose lives have gone awry and who have ended up at the bottom of society after a good start. Or he may have turned up at Eastwell for any number of other reasons. Who knows what the truth was?

Hilary wrote::

"David Baldwin is an extremely good and commited Ricardian scholar and university Lecturer. I don't dismiss him lightly and was glad to see him at last getting credit for the Leicester find which he discussed in print long before the latest relevations."

Marie:

Baldwin's not the only university lecturer writing about these times and, whilst I respect what he has done, he did not come up with the idea that Richard's remains still lay in the ground where the Greyfriars church had stood rather than having been dug up and thrown in the river, and he was arguing for a different site (it's all about where in the Greyfriars precinct the church was likely to have stood - there were two views on this). He's been put forward by Leicester Uni as the man whose articles enabled the find because Leicester Uni is where he works.

Tamara:

And if Leicester Uni really thought Baldwin was all that, why didn't they then act on his ideas when he first put them forth lo those many years ago, back before "There is no such thing as society" Thatcher had plundered the universities and they actually could have paid for the dig themselves? It's been a car park since the 1960s -- it's not as if they'd have had to knock down a building to do it.

Instead, they had to be kicked into doing it by Ms. Langley and the Society, which paid for a good bit of the cost.

Members of the ULeics digging team even admitted on camera (for "The King in the Car Park" production) that they never expected to find Richard, or even the Greyfriars choir. At best they'd hoped to rough out the outer bounds of Greyfriars. That's not what they'd have been saying if they'd really been heeding Baldwin from the start.

Yep,,we have to proceed with such caution...even bona fide historians are perfectly capable of errors...you buy a book, digest it and bingo you find out on here, well, it didnt quite happen like that. A book I really enjoyed was Jones' Bosworth book but I found out later something was, probably, incorrect.. This of course doesnt make the whole book rubbish but it makes you cautious...very, very cautious...and is of course disappointing..Eileen

Marie, I wouldn't say a bricklayer was at the bottom of society, (not that we know that Richard of Eastwell definitely was a skilled bricklayer), but bricklaying was then, and is now, a very skilled occupation.
Craft skills were very well regarded at that time as was reflected in the many craftsmen's guilds that were brought into being..

Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Eileen wrote:

"Well bricklaying is a skill Doug I guess.  I remember some years ago looking out of an office window for several days and seeing some poor chap the bosses had hired attempting to build a wall.  He was really struggling and I presume he had been hired  because he gave the cheapest quote.  We felt so sorry for him.. Anyway a short  time later the wall collapsed..yes bricklaying is a skill...which then begs the question...if you say the monks hired workers...how this 'monk' acquired that skill...hmmmm...smells fishy to me."

Marie:

I agree it's fishy. I'm not sure the bricklaying didn't get into the story because there were two things people knew about Eastwell at the time in question: the building of the house and the burial of a Richard Plantagenet.

The possible explanations, as you or someone else remarked, are almost endless. It's an interesting subject for a novel but no single theory should be the subject of a history book because there's not enough to support. Baldwin evidently knew monks didn't do their own building, which is why he gave us the scenario of Richard placing his nephew as a humble lay brother at Colchester Abbey. That he would have regarded that as a proper role for his brother's child - even a bastard - doesn't seem convincing to me, and the idea that Henry VII and his wife (the poor lay brother's sister, queen of England) knew he was there and did nothing to better his lot is not the most plausible suggestion I've heard.

How about this Richard Plantagenet was, as the story says, someone educated around Lutterworth in Leicestershire who did not know who his parents were, a boy around 16 or a little less at Bosworth who encountered Richard before the battle. But he merely fantasised that this sorrowful bereaved king was his real father and he would acknowledge him once the fighting was over. Richard is killed so the bubble never gets burst. Over the years he comes more and more to believe this fantasy, and one day is able to turn it to his advantage.

There is a discrepancy between the bricklaying and the Latin however you look at it, but he may have been a jobbing labourer rather than a skilled bricklayer - the story doesn't get written down for ages so who knows how many details of it are reliable? There have always been educated people whose lives have gone awry and who have ended up at the bottom of society after a good start. Or he may have turned up at Eastwell for any number of other reasons.  Who knows what the truth was?

Jess wrote:

"Marie, I wouldn't say a bricklayer was at the bottom of society, (not that we know that Richard of Eastwell definitely was a skilled bricklayer), but bricklaying was then, and is now, a very skilled occupation.
Craft skills were very well regarded at that time as was reflected in the many craftsmen's guilds that were brought into being."

Marie:

I didn't mean that, actually, Jess. What I was attempting to say was that, since our educated man down on his luck is *unlikely* to have been able to pass himself off as a bricklayer because that is skilled work (totally agree and, sorry, I thought that was clear in my post), he is more likely to have been working on the Eastwell project as a jobbing labourer - i.e. he would have been taking whatever bits of unskilled manual work he could get in order to fend off starvation.

Sandra..wouldnt it be funny if you were holding the book upside down and they didnt let on they had noticed?

Jess wrote:

"Marie, I wouldn't say a bricklayer was at the bottom of society, (not that we know that Richard of Eastwell definitely was a skilled bricklayer), but bricklaying was then, and is now, a very skilled occupation.
Craft skills were very well regarded at that time as was reflected in the many craftsmen's guilds that were brought into being."

Marie:

I didn't mean that, actually, Jess. What I was attempting to say was that, since our educated man down on his luck is *unlikely* to have been able to pass himself off as a bricklayer because that is skilled work (totally agree and, sorry, I thought that was clear in my post), he is more likely to have been working on the Eastwell project as a jobbing labourer - i.e. he would have been taking whatever bits of unskilled manual work he could get in order to fend off starvation.

That's right Doug, particularly as most of the monks had been in the sheep-farming and brewing industries which now became the preserve of local farmers. It's another area where it's hard to tease out what the truth is because, like the 'princes' it is a very emotional issue. I was surprised to find that many of our upper-crust abbesses went on to live a long and fruitful life, no doubt their connections insulated them. They certainly weren't wondering round with the begging bowl. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 November 2014, 16:37
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle and the Kent Connection

Eileen wrote:
Plus an ex-priest would probably have the skill to work as a bricklayer...didn't they do all types of stuff for themselves in a monastery whilst an ex-prince would probably struggle with the complexities of bricklaying..that's if any of it ever happened ..which I doubt... Doug here: My understanding of the Dissolution was that many (most?) monasteries, convents and Abbeys held very reduced populations, with much of the land being rented out and the necessary labor being done by hired workers. If I recall correctly, that was one of the major complaints; the monks no longer *did* their own labor and, except for possibly some teaching of local children, were idle coupon-clippers. Of course, we really only have the prosecution's brief to go by (the Acts dissolving the monasteries/convents), so we need to be cautious about just how accurate those claims were, but it *is* documented that, while the number of monasteries had decreased slightly, the number of monks had decreased even more. Doug

Hilary wrote

"Poor old David Baldwin to attract such enmity because he used to work for the University of Leicester. And poor old Liecester University which actually has one of the best History faculties in the country and has had for decades. I suppose you all don't like Rhoda Edwards because it produced her? I joke."

Mac answers

Many a truth was said in jesting, and I personally find it irritating that whenever one does not share anyone's opinion you accuse them of enmity, Hilary. I would not have any problems going out for a pint with David Baldwin as a person, this does not mean I am ready to swallow anything he writes or acknowledge him a discovery he did not take part in. E.g. in his rather balanced "Richard III" his assumption that Richard's tutelage under Warwick started rather than ended (as Kendall says) in 1465 is backed up by evidence and makes more sense that Kendall's one, while I find his reasoning on the EoY's case to be not very well thought of and ultimately dependant on the same old slanderous tune.

As for Rhoda Edwards, Baldwin and Uni Leicester as the (only?) common link between the two, I do not believe in anyone being entirely and only the product of their education, age and environment, or where did HVIII get the idea one can behead women when this practice would have probably helped Richard with Margaret Beaufort, but was not exploited? Therefore, I find it perfectly normal that any University can host (not produce) minds of varying degrees of ability and competence with very different outputs in terms of academic work, or we would have thousands of Einsteins, not just one. Regards. Mac

Jess wrote:

"Marie, I wouldn't say a bricklayer was at the bottom of society, (not that we know that Richard of Eastwell definitely was a skilled bricklayer), but bricklaying was then, and is now, a very skilled occupation.
Craft skills were very well regarded at that time as was reflected in the many craftsmen's guilds that were brought into being."

Marie:

I didn't mean that, actually, Jess. What I was attempting to say was that, since our educated man down on his luck is *unlikely* to have been able to pass himself off as a bricklayer because that is skilled work (totally agree and, sorry, I thought that was clear in my post), he is more likely to have been working on the Eastwell project as a jobbing labourer - i.e. he would have been taking whatever bits of unskilled manual work he could get in order to fend off starvation.

Eileen wrote: Well bricklaying is a skill Doug I guess. I remember some years ago looking out of an office window for several days and seeing some poor chap the bosses had hired attempting to build a wall. He was really struggling and I presume he had been hired because he gave the cheapest quote. We felt so sorry for him.. Anyway a short time later the wall collapsed..yes bricklaying is a skill...which then begs the question...if you say the monks hired workers...how this 'monk' acquired that skill...hmmmm...smells fishy to me... Doug here To be fair, the Church was still viewed as a way to better oneself, so there's always the possibility that if Richard Plantagenet was a monk who'd been turfed out, he'd just gone back to the type of work he thought he'd gotten away from! The story told by Richard, and related by Williamson,certainly would fit in with what could very well have happened to Edward after his uncle assumed the throne. Especially if there'd already been one attempt on their lives (which is my personal view of what Buckingham, partially, was up to). Richard of Shrewsbury, quietly and under a false name, gets sent to Burgundy, while Edward is stashed away in some out-of-the-way manor where an eye can be kept on him, for his own safety as well as his uncle's. An interesting thought just occurred to me (literally!): Presuming Richard was Edward, what was there to prevent him from also being a monk? A 14-year-old traveling on his own wo uldn't last long, he'd have to hide somewhere and what better place to seek sanctuary than in a monastery? If something such as that did occur, there's the explanation for Edward not making any attempts to claim the throne  if he'd taken vows of celib acy he couldn't provide an heir and his brother Richard would be next in line anyway! Nor would he necessarily qualify for a Papal Dispensation to release him from his vows as he wasn't the sole remaining, living son of his father. Doug (Have I met Hilary's, I think it was, request for a Poirot finish?)

Richard had only two brothers who reached adulthood and his father was an only son. Unless grandfather Cambridge or great-uncle York had illegitimate lines, of which we know nothing, leading down to this boy, only Edward, George or Richard could be his father IF the Y- matches. I have heard no more about exhumation plans in this case.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 24 November 2014 17:29
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle and the Kent Connection

Sandra wrote :

"Richard III could only acknowledge the children he knew of. There might be any number of reasons why a woman would choose not to reveal her son’s true parentage. And any number of reasons why she might then choose to do it after all. I don’t think Richard III’s failure to acknowledge “Richard Plantagenet of Eastwell” can be taken as evidence that the child was not his."

Carol responds:

Except that, according to the story, Richard did know about him or he could not have spoken to the boy on the eve of the battle and promised to acknowledge him the next day if he won. Not to mention how uncharacteristic such behavior would be for Richard.

BTW, is the plan to disinter "Richard Plantagenet" and compare his Y chromosome to Richard's still in place? That wouldn't prove he was Richard's son (or Edward's or George's, for that matter, but it would prove that he was a Plantagenet). But, then, they'd have to check Edward's to make sure he was legitimate and whether his Y-DNA matched that of one or both Richards--at which point, the scientists would need to bring in the bones in the urn and see where, if anywhere, they fit in.

Carol

Sandra wrote :

"Richard III could only acknowledge the children he knew of. There might be any number of reasons why a woman would choose not to reveal her son's true parentage. And any number of reasons why she might then choose to do it after all. I don't think Richard III's failure to acknowledge Richard Plantagenet of Eastwell can be taken as evidence that the child was not his." Carol responds:

Except that, according to the story, Richard did know about him or he could not have spoken to the boy on the eve of the battle and promised to acknowledge him the next day if he won. Not to mention how uncharacteristic such behavior would be for Richard.

BTW, is the plan to disinter "Richard Plantagenet" and compare his Y chromosome to Richard's still in place? That wouldn't prove he was Richard's son (or Edward's or George's, for that matter, but it would prove that he was a Plantagenet). But, then, they'd have to check Edward's to make sure he was legitimate and whether his Y-DNA matched that of one or both Richards--at which point, the scientists would need to bring in the bones in the urn and see where, if anywhere, they fit in.

Carol

If anyone can prove, how would you even start? But, yes, those little grey cells are alive and well&&

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 3:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle andthe Kent Connection

I agree. Wow Hercule! And, absolutely daft as it may seem, we get closer to Leslau's version of one boy being (in his case) a Guildford and the other (in your case and his) a scholar/monk. You know the bricklaying bit can be a diversion - after all no-one saw him constructing anything did they? It's always useful when someone is dead and can't refute anything. Like you my money is on Buckingham or even Buckingham/MB/EW. I honestly don't think Richard or HT knew what had happened to them. As Pollard says (quoted by Paul) if Richard had been sensible he would have made sure they were dead; that was the medieval way of the world.

But a lot of work to prove all this H:)

From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 24 November 2014, 16:59
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle and the Kent Connection

Methinks your little grey cells are in superb working order, Doug.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: mailto:

Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 4:49 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle and the Kent Connection

Eileen wrote:

Well bricklaying is a skill Doug I guess. I remember some years ago looking out of an office window for several days and seeing some poor chap the bosses had hired attempting to build a wall. He was really struggling and I presume he had been hired because he gave the cheapest quote. We felt so sorry for him.. Anyway a short time later the wall collapsed..yes bricklaying is a skill...which then begs the question...if you say the monks hired workers...how this 'monk' acquired that skill...hmmmm...smells fishy to me...

Doug here

To be fair, the Church was still viewed as a way to better oneself, so there's always the possibility that if Richard Plantagenet was a monk who'd been turfed out, he'd just gone back to the type of work he thought he'd gotten away from!

The story told by Richard, and related by Williamson,certainly would fit in with what could very well have happened to Edward after his uncle assumed the throne. Especially if there'd already been one attempt on their lives (which is my personal view of what Buckingham, partially, was up to). Richard of Shrewsbury, quietly and under a false name, gets sent to Burgundy, while Edward is stashed away in some out-of-the-way manor where an eye can be kept on him, for his own safety as well as his uncle's.

An interesting thought just occurred to me (literally!): Presuming Richard was Edward, what was there to prevent him from also being a monk? A 14-year-old traveling on his own wo

uldn't last long, he'd have to hide somewhere and what better place to seek sanctuary than in a monastery? If something such as that did occur, there's the explanation for Edward not making any attempts to claim the throne  if he'd taken vows of celib

acy he couldn't provide an heir and his brother Richard would be next in line anyway! Nor would he necessarily qualify for a Papal Dispensation to release him from his vows as he wasn't the sole remaining, living son of his father.

Doug

(Have I met Hilary's, I think it was, request for a Poirot finish?)

We proceed with optimism Pamela. After all, who would have ever thought we'd live to see them find Richard? Somerwhere out there ..... :) H
From: "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 24 November 2014, 21:05
Subject: RE: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle andthe Kent Connection

If anyone can prove, how would you even start? But, yes, those little grey cells are alive and well&&

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 3:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle andthe Kent Connection I agree. Wow Hercule! And, absolutely daft as it may seem, we get closer to Leslau's version of one boy being (in his case) a Guildford and the other (in your case and his) a scholar/monk. You know the bricklaying bit can be a diversion - after all no-one saw him constructing anything did they? It's always useful when someone is dead and can't refute anything. Like you my money is on Buckingham or even Buckingham/MB/EW. I honestly don't think Richard or HT knew what had happened to them. As Pollard says (quoted by Paul) if Richard had been sensible he would have made sure they were dead; that was the medieval way of the world. But a lot of work to prove all this H:) From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 24 November 2014, 16:59
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle and the Kent Connection Methinks your little grey cells are in superb working order, Doug. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 4:49 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle and the Kent Connection Eileen wrote: Well bricklaying is a skill Doug I guess. I remember some years ago looking out of an office window for several days and seeing some poor chap the bosses had hired attempting to build a wall. He was really struggling and I presume he had been hired because he gave the cheapest quote. We felt so sorry for him.. Anyway a short time later the wall collapsed..yes bricklaying is a skill...which then begs the question...if you say the monks hired workers...how this 'monk' acquired that skill...hmmmm...smells fishy to me... Doug here To be fair, the Church was still viewed as a way to better oneself, so there's always the possibility that if Richard Plantagenet was a monk who'd been turfed out, he'd just gone back to the type of work he thought he'd gotten away from! The story told by Richard, and related by Williamson,certainly would fit in with what could very well have happened to Edward after his uncle assumed the throne. Especially if there'd already been one attempt on their lives (which is my personal view of what Buckingham, partially, was up to). Richard of Shrewsbury, quietly and under a false name, gets sent to Burgundy, while Edward is stashed away in some out-of-the-way manor where an eye can be kept on him, for his own safety as well as his uncle's. An interesting thought just occurred to me (literally!): Presuming Richard was Edward, what was there to prevent him from also being a monk? A 14-year-old traveling on his own wo uldn't last long, he'd have to hide somewhere and what better place to seek sanctuary than in a monastery? If something such as that did occur, there's the explanation for Edward not making any attempts to claim the throne  if he'd taken vows of celib acy he couldn't provide an heir and his brother Richard would be next in line anyway! Nor would he necessarily qualify for a Papal Dispensation to release him from his vows as he wasn't the sole remaining, living son of his father. Doug (Have I met Hilary's, I think it was, request for a Poirot finish?)

I'm sorry, what does a privileged background have to do with intelligence? On top of which, bricklaying is hard work, and not something someone who wasn't used to physical labor could have easily picked up.
Gilda



On Nov 24, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:


I suppose it would depend how long he had been working as a bricklayer.
An intelligent, educated man should have been able to learn the skills required more quickly than someone who came from a less privileged background and was slower to learn.
I feel sure we all know very intellectual people who are not good at practical tasks, but also others who are just good at everything.
Sorry I misunderstood what you were saying about bricklayers.

JessFrom: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 24/11/2014 00:06
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle and the Kent Connection

Jess wrote:

"Marie, I wouldn't say a bricklayer was at the bottom of society, (not that we know that Richard of Eastwell definitely was a skilled bricklayer), but bricklaying was then, and is now, a very skilled occupation.
Craft skills were very well regarded at that time as was reflected in the many craftsmen's guilds that were brought into being."

Marie:

I didn't mean that, actually, Jess. What I was attempting to say was that, since our educated man down on his luck is *unlikely* to have been able to pass himself off as a bricklayer because that is skilled work (totally agree and, sorry, I thought that was clear in my post), he is more likely to have been working on the Eastwell project as a jobbing labourer - i.e. he would have been taking whatever bits of unskilled manual work he could get in order to fend off starvation.

Jan wrote:

However, I still don't think that an education and the ability to read Latin would preclude someone from being a good bricklayer!

Marie:

No, but you have to find someone prepared to take the time to teach you and let you make a mess of things to start with, which for someone no longer young and not used to any kind of physical work might have been difficult. I suppose the only thing working to the advantage of an effete middle-aged would-be bricklayer in those days is that bricklayers may have been in relatively short supply.If he really had been a monk, he would have been in his fifties when that career came to an end for him.

I actually have another problem with Lesley's theory, in that I'm pretty sure that monks were given pensions when their monasteries were closed. If I had a regular pension, even if it were not sufficient to live on, my last choice would be to take up itinerant work.

By the by, for anyone interested in the Richard of Eastwell story, the Barton Papers Library contains all the relevant information - e.g. the late provenance and exact details of the story.

Same goes for anyone wishing to get to grips with the 20th-21st century debate about the whereabouts of Richard's remains - Papers Library can help. Catalogue is online.

Jan wrote:

However, I still don't think that an education and the ability to read Latin would preclude someone from being a good bricklayer!

Marie:

No, but you have to find someone prepared to take the time to teach you and let you make a mess of things to start with, which for someone no longer young and not used to any kind of physical work might have been difficult. I suppose the only thing working to the advantage of an effete middle-aged would-be bricklayer in those days is that bricklayers may have been in relatively short supply.If he really had been a monk, he would have been in his fifties when that career came to an end for him.

I actually have another problem with Lesley's theory, in that I'm pretty sure that monks were given pensions when their monasteries were closed. If I had a regular pension, even if it were not sufficient to live on, my last choice would be to take up itinerant work.

By the by, for anyone interested in the Richard of Eastwell story, the Barton Papers Library contains all the relevant information - e.g. the late provenance and exact details of the story.

Same goes for anyone wishing to get to grips with the 20th-21st century debate about the whereabouts of Richard's remains - Papers Library can help. Catalogue is online.

Hilary wrote:

"Did you pick up my question about the Steelyard, Marie? From what I can find online their records eventually went to Danzig? Has anyone looked at them for the 'York' period?"

Marie:

Yes I did, thanks. Not something I know anything much about I'm afraid, so it's over to you.

Jan wrote:

"I really don't know what I think about Richard of Eastwell, perhaps he was an imposter, perhaps not.
He may of course just have been a remarkable man that could turn his hand to anything.
I am put in mind of one of our oldest friends who is like this.
He had his own electronics design company, but also has medals for competitive ballroom dancing, and could have played golf professionally, he built a tractor shed, put a new roof on his house, will tackle any engineering project, writes computer programmes, is a brilliant mathematician, and is now in retirement, building boats!
Quite remarkable, and a lovely man too.
So if R of E was like that he wouldn't have had any problems building a wall!
Mind you our friend is pretty exceptional."

Marie replies:

I take your point, Jan. I think one of the problems with this thread is that several suggestions have got mixed together. I had put forward the idea (put forward to me by the late Lesley Boatwright) that RP may have been a monk thrown out of his monastery at the Dissolution. If so, then he would not - at this period - have led a physically active life up until that point. Had he been an educated laymen fond of dancing, riding and various outdoor sports then it may have been a different matter. Also, it is very easy in our period to find a course or a teach-yourself manual in any subject you want. Not so back then - you needed a master- and bricklaying is a skilled job.

Your friend's educational background will have stood him in good stead with his hobbies. And he would have had ballroom dancing lessons. Also, I don't think many people with his sort of personality have ever chosen to enter a monastery.

The whole story comes so long after the events it purports to describe, though, that I can't help feeling anyway that we're arguing the toss about the shadows of shadows. A fascinating and intriguing tale, but the only solid bit of evidence is the entry in the parish register, and even that is a later copy. What would interest me would be records of the Moyle family from the period when all this is supposed to have happened - if any such records survive. Otherwise it's rather on the level of Francis' Lovell's miraculously-articulated skeleton walled up at Minster Lovell, the 140-year-old Countess of Desmond's youthful frolics and Sir Henry Wyatt's torture by Richard with horse barnacles. Sorry if that sounds harsh. I've just been interested in this period too long. I've loved all but one of these stories and over time felt I had to abandon them.

Jan wrote:

"I really don't know what I think about Richard of Eastwell, perhaps he was an imposter, perhaps not.
He may of course just have been a remarkable man that could turn his hand to anything.
I am put in mind of one of our oldest friends who is like this.
He had his own electronics design company, but also has medals for competitive ballroom dancing, and could have played golf professionally, he built a tractor shed, put a new roof on his house, will tackle any engineering project, writes computer programmes, is a brilliant mathematician, and is now in retirement, building boats!
Quite remarkable, and a lovely man too.
So if R of E was like that he wouldn't have had any problems building a wall!
Mind you our friend is pretty exceptional."

Marie replies:

I take your point, Jan. I think one of the problems with this thread is that several suggestions have got mixed together. I had put forward the idea (put forward to me by the late Lesley Boatwright) that RP may have been a monk thrown out of his monastery at the Dissolution. If so, then he would not - at this period - have led a physically active life up until that point. Had he been an educated laymen fond of dancing, riding and various outdoor sports then it may have been a different matter. Also, it is very easy in our period to find a course or a teach-yourself manual in any subject you want. Not so back then - you needed a master- and bricklaying is a skilled job.

Your friend's educational background will have stood him in good stead with his hobbies. And he would have had ballroom dancing lessons. Also, I don't think many people with his sort of personality have ever chosen to enter a monastery.

The whole story comes so long after the events it purports to describe, though, that I can't help feeling anyway that we're arguing the toss about the shadows of shadows. A fascinating and intriguing tale, but the only solid bit of evidence is the entry in the parish register, and even that is a later copy. What would interest me would be records of the Moyle family from the period when all this is supposed to have happened - if any such records survive. Otherwise it's rather on the level of Francis' Lovell's miraculously-articulated skeleton walled up at Minster Lovell, the 140-year-old Countess of Desmond's youthful frolics and Sir Henry Wyatt's torture by Richard with horse barnacles. Sorry if that sounds harsh. I've just been interested in this period too long. I've loved all but one of these stories and over time felt I had to abandon them.

Sandra wrote :

"What I mean, Carol, is that Richard may have only just learned of him, and therefore could not have acknowledged the boy before."
Carol responds:

Not likely, is it, that he'd learn of an illegitimate son the night before a battle? But, in any case, the story has the boy being taken care of, not in person but by a gentleman acting as his father's agent, so even if the boy didn't know who his father was until that moment (unlikely again), but the father (Richard, according to the story) certainly knew of the boy's existence and provided for him--but without openly acknowledging him.

If I've misremembered the details, I'm sure that someone will correct me.

Carol

Jan here.Are there 2 Jans? I remember being pedantic about Kent geography recently but I didn't comment otherwise on the tale of Richard of Eastwell. Not that I am annoyed. It must be the fault of Yahoo's structure.


On 25 Nov 2014, at 14:59, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Jan wrote:

"I really don't know what I think about Richard of Eastwell, perhaps he was an imposter, perhaps not.
He may of course just have been a remarkable man that could turn his hand to anything.
I am put in mind of one of our oldest friends who is like this.
He had his own electronics design company, but also has medals for competitive ballroom dancing, and could have played golf professionally, he built a tractor shed, put a new roof on his house, will tackle any engineering project, writes computer programmes, is a brilliant mathematician, and is now in retirement, building boats!
Quite remarkable, and a lovely man too.
So if R of E was like that he wouldn't have had any problems building a wall!
Mind you our friend is pretty exceptional."

Marie replies:

I take your point, Jan. I think one of the problems with this thread is that several suggestions have got mixed together. I had put forward the idea (put forward to me by the late Lesley Boatwright) that RP may have been a monk thrown out of his monastery at the Dissolution. If so, then he would not - at this period - have led a physically active life up until that point. Had he been an educated laymen fond of dancing, riding and various outdoor sports then it may have been a different matter. Also, it is very easy in our period to find a course or a teach-yourself manual in any subject you want. Not so back then - you needed a master- and bricklaying is a skilled job.

Your friend's educational background will have stood him in good stead with his hobbies. And he would have had ballroom dancing lessons. Also, I don't think many people with his sort of personality have ever chosen to enter a monastery.

The whole story comes so long after the events it purports to describe, though, that I can't help feeling anyway that we're arguing the toss about the shadows of shadows. A fascinating and intriguing tale, but the only solid bit of evidence is the entry in the parish register, and even that is a later copy. What would interest me would be records of the Moyle family from the period when all this is supposed to have happened - if any such records survive. Otherwise it's rather on the level of Francis' Lovell's miraculously-articulated skeleton walled up at Minster Lovell, the 140-year-old Countess of Desmond's youthful frolics and Sir Henry Wyatt's torture by Richard with horse barnacles. Sorry if that sounds harsh. I've just been interested in this period too long. I've loved all but one of these stories and over time felt I had to abandon them.

Recently reading about Jack the Ripper and discovered that one nutcase wote to the Queen asking to be allowed to read the private palace correspondence as he was trying to prove the duke of Clarence, grandson of Queen Victoria and heir to the throne at the time after his father Edward, Prince of Wales, was in fact the Ripper. Now believe it or not the Queen actually replied, saying that there were no secret files in the palace and anyonw who asked could see them. She herself replied.
But when it comes to asking to have the bones in the Abbey forensically examined, silence, just a refusal from the Abbey.
Something that would help repair the damage to Richard's reputation and provide space in the Abbey, [as we all know they aren't anything to do with the sons of Edward IV] nothing. Lunatic trying to make her great grand uncle the Ripper, a letter!
Go figure!
Paul

Sorry Jess & Jan.

Not the first time I've mixed people up, unfortunately....

Marie

We have or at least used to have two Carols, two Pamelas, and two Jans!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 8:18 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle and the Kent Connection

Sorry Jess & Jan.

Not the first time I've mixed people up, unfortunately....

Marie

Sorry Jess & Jan.

Not the first time I've mixed people up, unfortunately....

Marie

Sorry Jess & Jan.

Not the first time I've mixed people up, unfortunately....

Marie

Oh, I was being flippant  AGAIN! I absolutely agree with you, and cannot fathom why the Urn (boys/girls/dogs/cats???) is so sacred, and yet nobody has turned a hair over the remains of Richard III, who was a crowned King of England. And, I agree with your sister!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 11:48 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle andtheKent Connection

Pamela Bain wrote :

"Yes, well, she is protecting the "brand"!"

Carol responds:

It would seem that, having grown up with the legends (and the awful Royal Gallery portrait, which makes Richard look sinister), she believes (and wants to believe the legends). I don't know how important it is to her, but proving that the bones in the urn belong to, say, a pair of Saxon or Celtic girls, would prove that they are not the "Princes" and strengthen the case for Richard's innocence and cause (I hope) a reexamination of his claim to the throne. If the claim was just and he didn't murder the (supposed) rightful king and his brother, the regicide and usurper must be her ancestor, Henry VII, who defeated and posthumously deposed the the rightful king (killed by his men on his orders) and claimed his throne by right of conquest, having no other claim.

I don't know what difference it would make to her line or her right to rule, especially given that the Plantagenets and Tudor were all descended form at least two usurpers (William I and John), both of whom were succeeded by their sons and whose descendants never, so far as I know, had their right to the throne challenged on those grounds. Even Henry IV, another usurping ancestor of Henry Tudor, was eventually regarded (correct me if I'm wrong) as the rightful king (as was Tudor himself by all but the tattered remains of the Ricardian Yorkist faction).

So how would it hurt Elizabeth II to discover that the poor little murdered "Princes" were no such thing? All it would do is force her to rethink her view of two long-dead kings, one of them her distant ancestor.

But maybe she isn't the problem. It may just be that Westminster Abbey wants to respect the sanctity of Christian reburial. (And, of course, it seems clear that the current priest or bishop--whoever is in charge of the abbey) also believes and wants to believe the traditional story. After all, they also have a very showy tomb for Henry Vii and his wife.

Carol, who shocked her sister by whispering "horrible old hag" when she passed by Margaret Beaufort's tomb

Pamela Bain wrote :

"Yes, well, she is protecting the "brand"!"

Carol responds:

It would seem that, having grown up with the legends (and the awful Royal Gallery portrait, which makes Richard look sinister), she believes (and wants to believe the legends). I don't know how important it is to her, but proving that the bones in the urn belong to, say, a pair of Saxon or Celtic girls, would prove that they are not the "Princes" and strengthen the case for Richard's innocence and cause (I hope) a reexamination of his claim to the throne. If the claim was just and he didn't murder the (supposed) rightful king and his brother, the regicide and usurper must be her ancestor, Henry VII, who defeated and posthumously deposed the the rightful king (killed by his men on his orders) and claimed his throne by right of conquest, having no other claim.

I don't know what difference it would make to her line or her right to rule, especially given that the Plantagenets and Tudor were all descended form at least two usurpers (William I and John), both of whom were succeeded by their sons and whose descendants never, so far as I know, had their right to the throne challenged on those grounds. Even Henry IV, another usurping ancestor of Henry Tudor, was eventually regarded (correct me if I'm wrong) as the rightful king (as was Tudor himself by all but the tattered remains of the Ricardian Yorkist faction).

So how would it hurt Elizabeth II to discover that the poor little murdered "Princes" were no such thing? All it would do is force her to rethink her view of two long-dead kings, one of them her distant ancestor.

But maybe she isn't the problem. It may just be that Westminster Abbey wants to respect the sanctity of Christian reburial. (And, of course, it seems clear that the current priest or bishop--whoever is in charge of the abbey) also believes and wants to believe the traditional story. After all, they also have a very showy tomb for Henry Vii and his wife.

Carol, who shocked her sister by whispering "horrible old hag" when she passed by Margaret Beaufort's tomb

I can understand about not wanting to disturb a Christian burial, but it doesn't seem right either that these particular bones are publicized as belonging to specific people, when they most likely are not. Also, the fact that there is historical interest and unsolved mystery about them which encourages tourism and a lot of books with incorrect information adds to the bad taste element. Now that we have the technology to know one way or the other, it doesn't make sense not to do it.
Nico


On Wednesday, 26 November 2014, 22:58, "Janjovian janjovian@... []" <> wrote:


I suspect, but obviously don't know, that the queen regards the opening of the urn as the thin end of the wedge.
I think she might be worried that it will start a flood of requests to disinter her ancestors on a large scale.
Hey, but what do I know!

Jess From: mailto:
Sent: 26/11/2014 17:47
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle andtheKent Connection

Pamela Bain wrote :

"Yes, well, she is protecting the "brand"!"

Carol responds:

It would seem that, having grown up with the legends (and the awful Royal Gallery portrait, which makes Richard look sinister), she believes (and wants to believe the legends). I don't know how important it is to her, but proving that the bones in the urn belong to, say, a pair of Saxon or Celtic girls, would prove that they are not the "Princes" and strengthen the case for Richard's innocence and cause (I hope) a reexamination of his claim to the throne. If the claim was just and he didn't murder the (supposed) rightful king and his brother, the regicide and usurper must be her ancestor, Henry VII, who defeated and posthumously deposed the the rightful king (killed by his men on his orders) and claimed his throne by right of conquest, having no other claim.

I don't know what difference it would make to her line or her right to rule, especially given that the Plantagenets and Tudor were all descended form at least two usurpers (William I and John), both of whom were succeeded by their sons and whose descendants never, so far as I know, had their right to the throne challenged on those grounds. Even Henry IV, another usurping ancestor of Henry Tudor, was eventually regarded (correct me if I'm wrong) as the rightful king (as was Tudor himself by all but the tattered remains of the Ricardian Yorkist faction).

So how would it hurt Elizabeth II to discover that the poor little murdered "Princes" were no such thing? All it would do is force her to rethink her view of two long-dead kings, one of them her distant ancestor.

But maybe she isn't the problem. It may just be that Westminster Abbey wants to respect the sanctity of Christian reburial. (And, of course, it seems clear that the current priest or bishop--whoever is in charge of the abbey) also believes and wants to believe the traditional story. After all, they also have a very showy tomb for Henry Vii and his wife.

Carol, who shocked her sister by whispering "horrible old hag" when she passed by Margaret Beaufort's tomb

I agree wholeheartedly, Nico. To me there is something rather disgraceful about venerating, in a Christian cathedral, remains that are most probably Roman and may not be Christian at all, and certainly something sanctimonious about venerating them as murdered' 15th-century princes, who were probably not murdered at all. No one knows what happened to the boys, so dem bones' cannot possibly be set up as definitely theirs. Unless, of course, we have the chance to prove it one way or the other. As we are not to have that opportunity, I will continue to find the whole urn thing preposterous. Sorry, but I feel quite strongly about this. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 11:52 AM To: Subject: Re: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle andtheKent Connection

I can understand about not wanting to disturb a Christian burial, but it doesn't seem right either that these particular bones are publicized as belonging to specific people, when they most likely are not. Also, the fact that there is historical interest and unsolved mystery about them which encourages tourism and a lot of books with incorrect information adds to the bad taste element. Now that we have the technology to know one way or the other, it doesn't make sense not to do it.
Nico


On Wednesday, 26 November 2014, 22:58, "Janjovian janjovian@... []" <> wrote:


I suspect, but obviously don't know, that the queen regards the opening of the urn as the thin end of the wedge.
I think she might be worried that it will start a flood of requests to disinter her ancestors on a large scale.
Hey, but what do I know!

Jess From: mailto:
Sent: 26/11/2014 17:47
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle andtheKent Connection

Pamela Bain wrote :

"Yes, well, she is protecting the "brand"!"

Carol responds:

It would seem that, having grown up with the legends (and the awful Royal Gallery portrait, which makes Richard look sinister), she believes (and wants to believe the legends). I don't know how important it is to her, but proving that the bones in the urn belong to, say, a pair of Saxon or Celtic girls, would prove that they are not the "Princes" and strengthen the case for Richard's innocence and cause (I hope) a reexamination of his claim to the throne. If the claim was just and he didn't murder the (supposed) rightful king and his brother, the regicide and usurper must be her ancestor, Henry VII, who defeated and posthumously deposed the the rightful king (killed by his men on his orders) and claimed his throne by right of conquest, having no other claim.

I don't know what difference it would make to her line or her right to rule, especially given that the Plantagenets and Tudor were all descended form at least two usurpers (William I and John), both of whom were succeeded by their sons and whose descendants never, so far as I know, had their right to the throne challenged on those grounds. Even Henry IV, another usurping ancestor of Henry Tudor, was eventually regarded (correct me if I'm wrong) as the rightful king (as was Tudor himself by all but the tattered remains of the Ricardian Yorkist faction).

So how would it hurt Elizabeth II to discover that the poor little murdered "Princes" were no such thing? All it would do is force her to rethink her view of two long-dead kings, one of them her distant ancestor.

But maybe she isn't the problem. It may just be that Westminster Abbey wants to respect the sanctity of Christian reburial. (And, of course, it seems clear that the current priest or bishop--whoever is in charge of the abbey) also believes and wants to believe the traditional story. After all, they also have a very showy tomb for Henry Vii and his wife.

Carol, who shocked her sister by whispering "horrible old hag" when she passed by Margaret Beaufort's tomb

[The entire original message is not included.]

Oh, I was being flippant  AGAIN! I absolutely agree with you, and cannot fathom why the Urn (boys/girls/dogs/cats???) is so sacred, and yet nobody has turned a hair over the remains of Richard III, who was a crowned King of England. And, I agree with your sister!

Eileen wrote :

"Hi Carol...I read in a Bulletin that it is definitely the Queen stopping the reexamination of the bones in the urn. she can do this because the Abbey is what is known as a 'Royal Peculiar' ....Eileen"

Carol responds:

"Peculiar," all right. (What strange terms you English have for legalities, as the young American notes in "Daughter of Time" though he's referring specifically to officials.) Do you agree with my reasoning? She can't be directly protecting her supposed "ancestors" as the "Princes" would have died childless if anyone murdered them as children. Is it the Tudor legacy she's protecting, or what could be her reason?

Carol

Yes, I did misread your post. I find nothing with which I disagree, with almost every post by every member! )ff to Turkey Day with my mother. God Bless everyone!

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 10:32 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle andtheKent Connection

Pamela Bain wrote :

Oh, I was being flippant – AGAIN! I absolutely agree with you, and cannot fathom why the Urn (boys/girls/dogs/cats???) is so sacred, and yet nobody has turned a hair over the remains of Richard III, who was a crowned King of England. And, I agree with your sister!

Carol responds:

You would have been shocked when I whispered that MB was a "horrible old hag"? Or maybe you misread my post. :-)

Carol

maybe we should sabotage it...lay in the road kicking and screaming...very unladylike...;0/ eileen

I think we may all be surprised at how many people will want to pay their respects on Richard's final journey.
It may set to rights what happened to his body after the Battle of Bosworth.
It could be both moving and dignified.

Jess From: mailto:
Sent: 28/11/2014 14:17
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle andtheKent Connection

maybe we should sabotage it...lay in the road kicking and screaming...very unladylike...;0/ eileen

Sandra wrote :

"She's probably quaking at the thought of Richard's supporters fluffing out their feathers and crowing in triumph from Land's End to John o' Groats!" Carol responds:

Your allusion has gone right over my American head. Can you explain your intended meaning?

Thanks,
Carol

I had forgotten that statement……so will they actually admit to the duplicity, or be like politicians who, despite being on tape saying one thing, they “evolve” and say something exactly in opposition?

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 12:14 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle andtheKent Connection

Of course everyone will have a different perception to this journey to Bosworth but the point I was most trying to make and which makes me most angry about the journey is that they have on one hand said the bones are too fragile to be moved to a place of sanctity and yet this happens. It is the hypocrisy of the situation which makes me cross...Eileen

Of course everyone will have a different perception to this journey to Bosworth but the point I was most trying to make and which makes me most angry about the journey is that they have on one hand said the bones are too fragile to be moved to a place of sanctity and yet this happens. It is the hypocrisy of the situation which makes me cross...Eileen

Ah...Judy...we have no differences in actual fact....well none that couldnt be put right with a chocolate brownie...Eileen :0)

This is my feeling too, Jess. Richard is being given now what he was denied then, and that is a journey into Leicester that is totally different from the awful way he was disposed of' in 1485. He will be treated as a king, not a defeated traitor, and he will have one heck of a lot of supporters to mourn him. But everyone views it differently, and I understand how others feel. One thing should unite us, though. Henry Tudor may have that truly magnificent tomb at Westminster Abbey, but just how many people mourned his death at the time? And how many mourn him now? Very few, I imagine. Whereas Richard's standards still draw us all. It's one in the remaining good eye for Henry, and rightly so. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 3:39 PM To: Subject: RE: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle andtheKent Connection

I think we may all be surprised at how many people will want to pay their respects on Richard's final journey.
It may set to rights what happened to his body after the Battle of Bosworth.
It could be both moving and dignified.

Jess From: mailto:
Sent: 28/11/2014 14:17
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle andtheKent Connection

maybe we should sabotage it...lay in the road kicking and screaming...very unladylike...;0/ eileen

But would he or anyone really want to go back to the place of their defeat; the place they lost their kingdom. If the coffin can travel round bumpy Leics roads in a hearse I would have thought it could go smoothly by train to York, where he would have loved to have been and where the City would pay its special respects. Is the Archbishop of York due to attend the ceremony does anyone know? H
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 29 November 2014, 16:12
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle andtheKent Connection


Doug wrote:
"When I first heard about the procession, I took it as a form of, well,
apology for the treatment carried out in 1485. Finally escorting Richard to
his final resting place in a befitting manner, as it were. Regardless of how
and why Richard died, he still deserved a respectful trip to Grey Friars and
hadn't gotten one."

Carol responds:

I'm sure you're right, Doug--doing it over again the way they should have done it the first time. I see it as a gesture of respect and, as you say, an apology.

Carol

Doug wrote:

"So the University is the only one involved in the procession from Bosworth to St Martin's? Somehow I imagined the jointness would have begun with the procession."

Marie:

It has been suggested to me that the reason ULAS wants to hang on to the remains until the reburial is in order to ensure that the procession will begin at the university, as the event will be televised - i.e. it is all about publicity. Having said that, I'm not averse to the Bosworth tour per se because it will be giving his remains the sort of journey to Leicester his body should have had, and was denied, first time around.

Eileen wrote:
Its a joint enterprise Doug... Sunday 22 March a hearse will leave the Uni and travel to Fenn Lane Farm then on to Dadlington and Sutton Cheyney - then Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre - onto Market Bosworth, Newbold Verdon and Desford before it returns to Leicester. Richard's mortal remains will re-enter Leicester via Bow Bridge and a horse draw carriage will then complete the journey through the city centre to the cathedral. Dr Buckley will then, finally, pass of the Ministry of Justice licence granted to the Uni to the Dean of Leicester. At that point the responsibility for the King passes from the Uni to the church...Amen to that.. As I said I have personally no* strong* objections to the journey..it is hardly for me to say...I am but a little tadpole in the scheme of things...it is just that suddenly it is OK to take the remains on a scenic tour but not OK to have permitted to take them to rest in a place of sanctity. Oh well ..It will all be behind us soon and we can then move on..Amen to that too.... Doug here: So the University is the only one involved in the procession from Bosworth to St Martin's? Somehow I imagined the jointness would have begun with the procession. It doesn't make the University's claim about the bones being too fragile any more believable, does it? Frankly, I'm sort of surprised the University didn't stress the need for security  after all, it's not as if royal remains haven't ever been the object of souvenir hunters! Doug

I don't think Northamptonshire would like to be classed as the East Midlands :) I'm not denying other people's rights to pay their respects, they'll get that in Leicester anyway, but its not about them, it's about him and what he would have wished. And I don't think anyone would wish to go back to the place where they were killed, particularly in defeat. Do we send our dead soldiers on a final trip to Afghanistan? H From: "Janjovian janjovian@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2014, 19:45
Subject: RE: Re: Thomas More, Thomas MoyleandtheKent Connection
Richard loved York, and as we know York loved him, but he was born and died in the East Midlands, so if those who live there now, and visitors, want to pay honourable respect, it really isn't entirely inappropriate.

Jess

From: mailto:
Sent: 30/11/2014 10:02
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas More, Thomas MoyleandtheKent Connection

But would he or anyone really want to go back to the place of their defeat; the place they lost their kingdom. If the coffin can travel round bumpy Leics roads in a hearse I would have thought it could go smoothly by train to York, where he would have loved to have been and where the City would pay its special respects. Is the Archbishop of York due to attend the ceremony does anyone know? H From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 29 November 2014, 16:12
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Thomas More, Thomas Moyle andtheKent Connection
Doug wrote:
"When I first heard about the procession, I took it as a form of, well,
apology for the treatment carried out in 1485. Finally escorting Richard to
his final resting place in a befitting manner, as it were. Regardless of how
and why Richard died, he still deserved a respectful trip to Grey Friars and
hadn't gotten one."

Carol responds:

I'm sure you're right, Doug--doing it over again the way they should have done it the first time. I see it as a gesture of respect and, as you say, an apology.

Carol

What has Northhamptonshire got to do with it?
Leicestershire I think you meant, which is East Midlands.
Paul

What has Northhamptonshire got to do with it?
Leicestershire I think you meant, which is East Midlands.
Paul