Henry V and the Southampton plot

I believe the reason why Edmund Mortimer was not charged with a crime, is
because he was the one who revealed the plot to the authorities.

Barton
----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, 15 November, 2004 04:52
Subject: Digest Number 666


>
>
> There are 10 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. "Henry V and the Southampton plot" by V.B. Pugh
> From: "stephenmlark" <smlark@...>
> 2. Re: "Henry V and the Southampton plot" by V.B. Pugh
> From: "Brian Wainwright" <Brian@...>
> 3. Re: "Henry V and the Southampton plot" by V.B. Pugh
> From: Megan Lerseth <megan_phntmgrl@...>
> 4. Re: "Henry V and the Southampton plot" by V.B. Pugh
> From: "stephenmlark" <smlark@...>
> 5. Re: "Henry V and the Southampton plot" by V.B. Pugh
> From: Megan Lerseth <megan_phntmgrl@...>
> 6. Re: Starkey's "Monarchy"
> From: "Eric Thompson" <ej.thompson@...>
> 7. RE: Norwich study day
> From: marion davis <phaecilia@...>
> 8. How tall was Queen Anne Neville?
> From: marion davis <phaecilia@...>
> 9. How tall was Queen Anne Neville?
> From: marion davis <phaecilia@...>
> 10. Re: RE: Norwich study day
> From: "Stephen Lark" <smlark@...>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:06:16 -0000
> From: "stephenmlark" <smlark@...>
> Subject: "Henry V and the Southampton plot" by V.B. Pugh
>
>
> Has anyone read this? I am thinking of buying it as Richard's
> grandfather is one of the three defendants, just two months before
> Agincourt.
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:19:07 -0000
> From: "Brian Wainwright" <Brian@...>
> Subject: Re: "Henry V and the Southampton plot" by V.B. Pugh
>
> Yes, it's a very valuable book if you're interested in that era, and
contains a a great deal about Richard of Conisbrough and his siblings.
(Indeed probably *everything* that is known as far as Richard himself is
concerned, which is not much.) In that regard it's probably the most
accessible source available, and I used it a fair bit when writing my novel
about Constance of York, even though I disagreed with some of Pugh's
conclusions! Lots of references given too and it contains Richard's
confession, which has been heavily mutilated by time.
>
> Brian
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: stephenmlark
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 4:06 PM
> Subject: "Henry V and the Southampton plot"
by V.B. Pugh
>
>
>
> Has anyone read this? I am thinking of buying it as Richard's
> grandfather is one of the three defendants, just two months before
> Agincourt.
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:25:00 -0800 (PST)
> From: Megan Lerseth <megan_phntmgrl@...>
> Subject: Re: "Henry V and the Southampton plot" by V.B. Pugh
>
>
>
> I am a bit of a novice as far as this period of history is concerned- I
really have only been terribly interested in the Wars of the Roses since I
discovered Richard III last summer, and virtually all of the books I've read
on the subject have been about him. What was the Southhampton Plot?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:48:20 -0000
> From: "stephenmlark" <smlark@...>
> Subject: Re: "Henry V and the Southampton plot" by V.B. Pugh
>
>
> --- In , Megan Lerseth
> <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am a bit of a novice as far as this period of history is
> concerned- I really have only been terribly interested in the Wars of
> the Roses since I discovered Richard III last summer, and virtually
> all of the books I've read on the subject have been about him. What
> was the Southhampton Plot?
> >
> >
> >
>
> What I know is that Henry V was preparing for another French campaign
> (to include Agincourt). In August there was an apparent plot to
> dethrone or kill him and crown Edmund Mortimer who had a far superior
> claim (being Richard II's true heir). Three men were tried in an
> impromptu courthouse (now a high street pub) and beheaded, including
> the Earl of Cambridge (our Richard's grandfather). Cambridge's
> childless elder brother, Edward, died during the campaign and thus
> his four-year-old son became Duke of York.
> Was there really such a plot? I don't know which is why I wish to
> read Pugh. Yorkists were always being stitched up (as they were so
> regularly after Bosworth) but my preliminary feeling is that there
> may have been one. This is because Mortimer was not tried whereas he
> would have been if Henry V had invented the whole thing.
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:52:17 -0800 (PST)
> From: Megan Lerseth <megan_phntmgrl@...>
> Subject: Re: "Henry V and the Southampton plot" by V.B. Pugh
>
> Thank you very much! (If there's such a thing as a medieval history
teenybopper, that's me.)
>
> stephenmlark <smlark@...> wrote:
> --- In , Megan Lerseth
> <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am a bit of a novice as far as this period of history is
> concerned- I really have only been terribly interested in the Wars of
> the Roses since I discovered Richard III last summer, and virtually
> all of the books I've read on the subject have been about him. What
> was the Southhampton Plot?
> >
> >
> >
>
> What I know is that Henry V was preparing for another French campaign
> (to include Agincourt). In August there was an apparent plot to
> dethrone or kill him and crown Edmund Mortimer who had a far superior
> claim (being Richard II's true heir). Three men were tried in an
> impromptu courthouse (now a high street pub) and beheaded, including
> the Earl of Cambridge (our Richard's grandfather). Cambridge's
> childless elder brother, Edward, died during the campaign and thus
> his four-year-old son became Duke of York.
> Was there really such a plot? I don't know which is why I wish to
> read Pugh. Yorkists were always being stitched up (as they were so
> regularly after Bosworth) but my preliminary feeling is that there
> may have been one. This is because Mortimer was not tried whereas he
> would have been if Henry V had invented the whole thing.
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:52:44 -0000
> From: "Eric Thompson" <ej.thompson@...>
> Subject: Re: Starkey's "Monarchy"
>
>
> --- In , "stephenmlark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
> >
> > Are you enjoying it so far? Richard will probably be mentioned in a
> > week or two.
>
> Most disappointing.
>
> Starkey is an expert on the Tudor court, and should stick to that.
> I doubt if I shall bother to watch any more.
>
> It's all too clearly intended to act as propaganda for the monarchy as
> the saviour of the people - something I find rather hard to swallow.
>
> I rather regret having bought the book, well produced though it is.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:38:34 -0800 (PST)
> From: marion davis <phaecilia@...>
> Subject: RE: Norwich study day
>
> Stephen wrote:
>
> Carole Rawcliffe: good and a little gruesome.
>
> ****
>
> What was her topic? Was she speaking on the
> Staffords?
>
> ****
>
> Jones: Good and controversial. Expect his Hastings
> book in early 2006.
>
> ****
>
> That's good news! What else did he speak about?
>
> ****
>
> Ann Wroe: Good and different to hear it verbally.
>
> ****
>
> Is she working on another book? If so, what's her new
> topic?
>
>
>
> TIA!
>
> Marion
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
> www.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:40:16 -0800 (PST)
> From: marion davis <phaecilia@...>
> Subject: How tall was Queen Anne Neville?
>
> I've just been looking at Graham Turner's painting,
> Investiture in York, which is very impressive. You
> can see it at:
>
> http://www.studio88.co.uk/
>
> I noticed that Richard is taller than Anne.
>
> But if my understanding is correct, Anne and Elizabeth
> of York were close in size, and Elizabeth was about
> 5'9''.
>
> So wouldn't Anne have been taller than Richard?
>
> Does anyone know?
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
> www.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:44:00 -0800 (PST)
> From: marion davis <phaecilia@...>
> Subject: How tall was Queen Anne Neville?
>
> I've just been looking at Graham Turner's painting,
> Investiture in York, which is very impressive. You
> can see it at:
>
> http://www.studio88.co.uk/
>
> I noticed that Richard is taller than Anne.
>
> But if my understanding is correct, Anne and Elizabeth
> of York were close in size, and Elizabeth was about
> 5'9''.
>
> So wouldn't Anne have been taller than Richard?
>
> Does anyone know?
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
> www.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:21:12 -0000
> From: "Stephen Lark" <smlark@...>
> Subject: Re: RE: Norwich study day
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: marion davis
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 11:38 PM
> Subject: RE: Norwich study day
>
>
> Stephen wrote:
>
> Carole Rawcliffe: good and a little gruesome.
>
> ****
>
> What was her topic? Was she speaking on the
> Staffords?
>
> No, medical history. The day's theme was "the death of Kings".
>
> ****
>
> Jones: Good and controversial. Expect his Hastings
> book in early 2006.
>
> ****
>
> That's good news! What else did he speak about?
>
> Richard, Duke of York (1411-60). He couldn't help mentioning the
Hypothesis three times.
> ****
>
> Ann Wroe: Good and different to hear it verbally.
>
> ****
>
> Is she working on another book? If so, what's her new
> topic?
>
> Rather different, I'm afraid: Shelley. Weir's subject would have been
Edward II. Phil Stone listed the causes of death of several monarchs,
including Pharoahs (his other historical period). Lots of illustrations. S.
>
> TIA!
>
> Marion
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
> www.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

--- In , "BartonMaru"
<bartonmaru@c...> wrote:
> I believe the reason why Edmund Mortimer was not charged with a
crime, is
> because he was the one who revealed the plot to the authorities.
>
> Barton

Why? After all, he was the rightful King and was set to benefit but
he reported it and three of his chums were executed. Unless he knew
it would fail and acted to save his own head. I need that book more
than ever!

Incidentally:
1) "The Hundred Years' War as the cause of the Wars of the Roses" is
next year's Norwich theme. I would not be surprised if Jones were
talking about Agincourt; he should expect some Southampton questions!
2) Castelli's Pole and Barrington pages have been inactive for a
while so I am expecting an improved version soon.
3) Jennifer solved the puzzle and is receiving a copy of "The
Stafford Line" soon.

Stephen

You are making me very envious Stephen! Norwich seem to come up with a
great line up time after time. I've booked twice and have had to cancel
because of illness one time, and a sudden work commitment the other
time.
I must say I'm really looking forward to Michael Jones' take on
Agincourt.
In my mind Henry V went to war with France to try and stave off the
Wars of the Roses. I don't see the 100 Years War as a cause, rather as
a delayer of the civil conflict.
Paul
On Nov 17, 2004, at 09:39, stephenmlark wrote:

> Incidentally:
> 1) "The Hundred Years' War as the cause of the Wars of the Roses" is
> next year's Norwich theme. I would not be surprised if Jones were
> talking about Agincourt; he should expect some Southampton questions!
you're never too old to launch your dreams

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> You are making me very envious Stephen! Norwich seem to come up
with a
> great line up time after time. I've booked twice and have had to
cancel
> because of illness one time, and a sudden work commitment the other
> time.
> I must say I'm really looking forward to Michael Jones' take on
> Agincourt.
> In my mind Henry V went to war with France to try and stave off the
> Wars of the Roses. I don't see the 100 Years War as a cause, rather
as
> a delayer of the civil conflict.
> Paul

Norwich in November is just a fixture in my diary nowadays. It is
forty-five minutes out by train plus another forty-five on a bus to
the UEA or half an hour to the Assembly Rooms.
Jones is there every year. Carole Rawcliffe works at the UEA. I even
share a train home every year with the same friends.
Incidentally, my presentation on Thomas Stafford is in Ipswich on
February 12 and I may possibly be able repeat it to the Norfolk
branch some time.

Stephen

> On Nov 17, 2004, at 09:39, stephenmlark wrote:
>
> > Incidentally:
> > 1) "The Hundred Years' War as the cause of the Wars of the Roses"
is
> > next year's Norwich theme. I would not be surprised if Jones were
> > talking about Agincourt; he should expect some Southampton
questions!
> you're never too old to launch your dreams
>
>
>

--- In , "stephenmlark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "BartonMaru"
> <bartonmaru@c...> wrote:
> > I believe the reason why Edmund Mortimer was not charged with a
> crime, is
> > because he was the one who revealed the plot to the authorities.
> >
> > Barton
>
> Why? After all, he was the rightful King and was set to benefit but
> he reported it and three of his chums were executed. Unless he knew
> it would fail and acted to save his own head. I need that book more
> than ever!
>
> Incidentally:
> 1) "The Hundred Years' War as the cause of the Wars of the Roses"
is
> next year's Norwich theme. I would not be surprised if Jones were
> talking about Agincourt; he should expect some Southampton
questions!
> 2) Castelli's Pole and Barrington pages have been inactive for a
> while so I am expecting an improved version soon.
> 3) Jennifer solved the puzzle and is receiving a copy of "The
> Stafford Line" soon.
>
> Stephen

I have now borrowed Pugh and read it. In his opinion, there was a
plot to dethrone Henry V but NOT to kill him. It did not, therefore
amount to a capital offence for Cambridge, Masham or Grey.
Incidentally, Pugh's great detail about the Mortimer line showed that
our Richard had another controversial ancestor - Sir Roger Mortimer,
dhq'd in 1330 after organising the death of Edward II.

Fascinating. Medieval England really was a small world.

Stephen