Ceremony

I love it!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 9:29 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Ceremony

Yes I was waiting for that moment :) There was a guy in the queue yesterday (a Brummie monarchist) who said it was dreadful that Starkey had insulted 'that nice lady who looked so upset' - seems deep within the British male the spirit of chivalry lives on. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 26 March 2015, 14:24
Subject: Re: Ceremony

I was soooooooo relieved when they didn't wheel Starkey on.....

Eileen

Yes Paul the fight indeed goes on! I saw Robert Lindsay as Shakespeare's Richard and he was actually very good - and to be fair he kept plugging Philippa L's book. JAH beware of cameras - not good on Twitter, really not good. As for Fellowes - how much did Starkey pay him? The poem lovely - perhaps less is more? And, OK hit me, but I'm growing to like PG through this; of all of them given air time she's stuck to her guns. And we need her and Benedict C for the cause, however much we like to think we don't. H
From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, 26 March 2015, 14:04
Subject: Ceremony

Wonderful service, although I was expecting more form the poem.
However, the C4 coverage left a lot to be desired.
For example what the hell was Robert Lindsay doing there? His only claim
or connection is that he played a badly reviewed version of Shakespeare.
And it drove me mad how they kept saying "he is playing/played Richard"
when what they meant was Shakespeare's Richard.
Julian Fellowes, so historically accurate [not] when writing Dowton,
states that the dig proved Shakespeare was right, and that Richard not
only killed his two nephews but also "murdered" Hastings! That's a new
one. Never called 'murder' before. Another bloody actor spouting off
with no research or knowledge!
Loved John Ashdown-Hill's raised eyebrows in the cathedral when praise
was heaped on the university for their discovery, but not his rather
silly plug for his books after.
The fight goes on.
Paul

Yes Paul the fight indeed goes on! I saw Robert Lindsay as Shakespeare's Richard and he was actually very good - and to be fair he kept plugging Philippa L's book. JAH beware of cameras - not good on Twitter, really not good. As for Fellowes - how much did Starkey pay him? The poem lovely - perhaps less is more? And, OK hit me, but I'm growing to like PG through this; of all of them given air time she's stuck to her guns. And we need her and Benedict C for the cause, however much we like to think we don't. H
From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []"
To:
Sent: Thursday, 26 March 2015, 14:04
Subject: Ceremony

Wonderful service, although I was expecting more form the poem.
However, the C4 coverage left a lot to be desired.
For example what the hell was Robert Lindsay doing there? His only claim
or connection is that he played a badly reviewed version of Shakespeare.
And it drove me mad how they kept saying "he is playing/played Richard"
when what they meant was Shakespeare's Richard.
Julian Fellowes, so historically accurate [not] when writing Dowton,
states that the dig proved Shakespeare was right, and that Richard not
only killed his two nephews but also "murdered" Hastings! That's a new
one. Never called 'murder' before. Another bloody actor spouting off
with no research or knowledge!
Loved John Ashdown-Hill's raised eyebrows in the cathedral when praise
was heaped on the university for their discovery, but not his rather
silly plug for his books after.
The fight goes on.
Paul

I think we were all prepared for something tawdry and unbecoming King Richard III. Even with the faux pas and gaffes, sleepers and armored, it was splendid. I am so happy to be alive and to have seen this from find to funeral.

I thought PL was totally bereaved, and so very elegant. Thanks to everyone who has sent their descriptions, feelings, and information!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 10:07 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Ceremony

Yes...agree Hilary....am beginning to warm towards PG...yikes..!

Felt warm towards Robert Lindsay too...who said he wouldn't play a Shakespearean version of Richard again since reading PL's book...

For me the only tiny fly in the ointment was Fellows...and I wonder why he was invited and asked his views,,,he came across as rather silly actually...and I don't intend to let a fool getting his history wrong ruin it for me..

Was taken aback with JA-H plug of his books which I thought was a bit naughty...not the right place or time...

Thought PL behaved throughout with dignity although she must have been feeling emotional...because although it was a wonderful, uplifting thing..to see Richard getting the dignity denied to him on his first burial it was also a very moving thing..to see Richard's coffin lowered into the tomb for the final time with such care..very mixed feelngs...

At the end of the day...who would ever, in their wildest dreams thought this day would ever happen...?

She is the wife of the Earl of Wessex. The other English King to die in battle for a thousand years was Harold II, formerly Earl of Wessex.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 26 March 2015 19:18
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Ceremony

I haven't seen this mornings proceedings as yet (night worker) But I am stunned just how little there is on the TV and AOL (nothing on AOL )etc about this amazing event. Why do they keep saying 'it's a once in a lifetime event'? It isn't once in a life time, I can't remember this happening before...ever! And it will probably never happen again. They found a King for goodness sake! Yet he isn't being buried in Westminster . He isn't laying with his wife and they can only send the wife of Edward to the ceremony.

Again, the British public have got it right, and the presiding Monarchy wrong.This is an AMAZING, event from start to finish.and it should be publicised so. God rest Richard III!

-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Bain pbain@... [] < >
To: < >
Sent: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:26
Subject: RE: Ceremony

I think we were all prepared for something tawdry and unbecoming King Richard III. Even with the faux pas and gaffes, sleepers and armored, it was splendid. I am so happy to be alive and to have seen this from find to funeral.

I thought PL was totally bereaved, and so very elegant. Thanks to everyone who has sent their descriptions, feelings, and information!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 10:07 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Ceremony

Yes...agree Hilary....am beginning to warm towards PG...yikes..!

Felt warm towards Robert Lindsay too...who said he wouldn't play a Shakespearean version of Richard again since reading PL's book...

For me the only tiny fly in the ointment was Fellows...and I wonder why he was invited and asked his views,,,he came across as rather silly actually...and I don't intend to let a fool getting his history wrong ruin it for me..

Was taken aback with JA-H plug of his books which I thought was a bit naughty...not the right place or time...

Thought PL behaved throughout with dignity although she must have been feeling emotional...because although it was a wonderful, uplifting thing..to see Richard getting the dignity denied to him on his first burial it was also a very moving thing..to see Richard's coffin lowered into the tomb for the final time with such care..very mixed feelngs...

At the end of the day...who would ever, in their wildest dreams thought this day would ever happen...?

Just watching a follow,up,programme...Fellowes has just said that finding Richard proved that Shakespeare was right because he was a hunchback!...Helen Castor quickly corrected him...but my God...the ignorance of the man,,,! they are now showing getting the tombstone into the cathedral....it's a mammoth task...Richard is being done proud,,,Eileen

I agree. It appears none of the closest descendants of Richard have children. Even being childless by choice myself I do find that quite sad.

Gillian

I agree. It appears none of the closest descendants of Richard have children. Even being childless by choice myself I do find that quite sad.

Gillian

Would of been appropriate then if the present Earl of Wessex had attended maybe.


-----Original Message-----
From: 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... [] <>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 19:59
Subject: RE: Ceremony

She is the wife of the Earl of Wessex. The other English King to die in battle for a thousand years was Harold II, formerly Earl of Wessex. From: [mailto:]
Sent: 26 March 2015 19:18
To:
Subject: Re: Ceremony I haven't seen this mornings proceedings as yet (night worker) But I am stunned just how little there is on the TV and AOL (nothing on AOL )etc about this amazing event. Why do they keep saying 'it's a once in a lifetime event'? It isn't once in a life time, I can't remember this happening before...ever! And it will probably never happen again. They found a King for goodness sake! Yet he isn't being buried in Westminster. He isn't laying with his wife and they can only send the wife of Edward to the ceremony. Again, the British public have got it right, and the presiding Monarchy wrong.This is an AMAZING, event from start to finish.and it should be publicised so. God rest Richard III! -----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:26
Subject: RE: Ceremony I think we were all prepared for something tawdry and unbecoming King Richard III. Even with the faux pas and gaffes, sleepers and armored, it was splendid. I am so happy to be alive and to have seen this from find to funeral. I thought PL was totally bereaved, and so very elegant. Thanks to everyone who has sent their descriptions, feelings, and information! From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 10:07 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Ceremony Yes...agree Hilary....am beginning to warm towards PG...yikes..! Felt warm towards Robert Lindsay too...who said he wouldn't play a Shakespearean version of Richard again since reading PL's book... For me the only tiny fly in the ointment was Fellows...and I wonder why he was invited and asked his views,,,he came across as rather silly actually...and I don't intend to let a fool getting his history wrong ruin it for me.. Was taken aback with JA-H plug of his books which I thought was a bit naughty...not the right place or time... Thought PL behaved throughout with dignity although she must have been feeling emotional...because although it was a wonderful, uplifting thing..to see Richard getting the dignity denied to him on his first burial it was also a very moving thing..to see Richard's coffin lowered into the tomb for the final time with such care..very mixed feelngs... At the end of the day...who would ever, in their wildest dreams thought this day would ever happen...?

[The entire original message is not included.]

Mary he shocked all,the other guests didn't he...when he was with Robert Lindsey and Benedict Cumberbatch he was saying that of course Richard had murdered his nephews..then Helen Castor had to intervene with his remarks about Richard being a hunchback and as you said PG was visibly shocked.     I find it quite baffling that if you have been invited to be a guest and pass comments you do not look into the subject..there has been more than enough stuff available  about the difference between the two conditions....I thought he came across like the embarrassing relative that you get sounding off at a social event after having too much to drink and you just want to put a bag over their heads and lock them in a quiet room...it's really outrageous really.  No he is not as bad as Starkey but even so it's pretty shabby and thank God the only thing he achieved was to make himself look a right plonker.

I have not been able to watch all of the coverage yet as have been nursing a sick husband all week, but have seen most of the service and the documentaries. I did enjoy the complan service on Sunday and I loved the main part of the internment on Thursday. I wish the Requiem Mass had have been televised live, but have read the order of service and the Cardinals full sermon. I have also seen the minutes silence and the tomb, which is growing on me. I have to admit that Channel Four did a really good job, as did the BBC. There were not too many gaffs, but Sky aparantly, their News I assume, made some great clangers and it was not very good. An associate on another site said they had Michael Isbn (sorry for spelling) and his niece as coming from "Richard's loins". Powerful loins! However, as to the studio discussions, that is a different matter. First David Starkey was insulting and should apologise to Philippa Langley and Philippa Gregory, the first without whom none of this week would have been possible and the second, although her novels do have some strange ideas in them; are still very good and enjoyable and entertaining. She is also sensitive to the victims of history and deserves more respect than that. Even novelists should not be insulted just because you think you are a superior being from academia. In any event, I think she has a degree or other academic qualifications and even if you don't agree with her, she deserves respect and has an entitlement to her views. I found most of the discussion fascinating, especially Helen Castor, who has done a couple of excellent documentary series on the early queens and the lot of women facing birth and life in the medieval and Tudor periods. Her work on the Pastons is first class. She seemed to be one of the more balanced invited guests and her response to the questions on the Princes to me seemed reasonable: we just do not know. That is of course true. Everything other than the details of their last appearance in publis, in the gardens, plus some vague details from their doctor, is pure speculation with nothing to back up either claims that they escaped or were killed, and even if they died of natural causes or disease, where is the evidence? Why where they not buried with honour if the latter is true? If indeed they were murdered, there are more than one possible killers. I don't believe that Richard iii killed them or hid the knowledge of this alleged crime. I accepted that he was most probably innocent a long time ago, even before I had even heard of the RIII society; I studied the sources and experts from the time; and can conclude he did not kill them. Any court today would have to find him not guilty, especially without the bodies. Why do some people think he is definately guilty without any strong evidence? David Starkey may have a point about motives and he may have a point about the confession of Tyril but Henry and Elizabeth may have been in the Tower to ensure that he confessed to the right thing and not because they were interested. Tyrill had nothing to lose. From my vague memory, was he not actually on trial for other capital crimes anyhow? Perhaps he thought that by confessing to the murder of the Princes he would get a swifter death. Who knows? Or perhaps the entire tail is the product of imagination. Buckingham had motive, method, opportunity and the character flaws to commit murder. He was ambitious and self serving and changed sides to the people he believed could reward him most. I don't even buy his willingness to put Henry Tudor on the throne, even though his rebellion had Henry crossing the channel to take up the cause and the crown if Buckinghmam succeeded. Henry was waiting for the signal but was cautious when it came, wisely as it turned out. But was Buckinghma really backing Henry Tudor or was this a rouse? Would he have handed him over to the authorities to gain a pardon or even killed him and then seized the throne himself? It all seems to be about who can pay the most money and give out the most land. Richard had been good to his so called loyal supporters but obviously not good enough. Buckingham was greedy, jealous and very turnable. He could easily have killed the Princes either for his own ends, someone elses, or out of some misguided belief that Richard or Henry would reward him if he did. There are also other names that pop up when this subject comes to mind, Norfolk has been mentioned and even as an outsider, Margaret Beaufort. I don't accept it was Henry Tudor as he was not able to access the Tower to carry out the murder. But they may not even have been murdered. Dr Ashdown Hill stated that he believed that Edward died in 1483, not by being killed but by dying of disease, Philippa Gregory and others have suggested that he may have died of the plague, This is a reasonable assertion as he was visited by a doctor regularly and expessed fears of death, although melencolia or depression is a more likely reason for him to have such fears. However, again if Edward died of natural causes then why not have a funeral. Richard as we know was a pius man with care for souls and a particular interest in caring for the dead. Surely had he received the news that his young nephew had died he would have prepared his body and had him honourably interred. Legitimacy does not mean that he was not the son of a King and as a person of high status he would have been entitled to a public and honourable funeral. Even an ordinary person has the right to a proper burial, his status does not mean he was not buried correctly. Richard would have ordered a post mortem and determined his cause of death, a doctor would have certified the death; he would have been given all honours and anyone would have been buried by the church. Priests would have been called to prepare the body and pray for the childs soul. Even the executed in the Tower of London have a burial plot in the church there or close by. Why would the children of Edward V just vanish if they were dead unless foul play was involved? Even plague victims did not just vanish. They were taken away to special plots assigned for these burials. Edward V could not die of natural causes of disease and no-one notice. Even their murder must have been noted by someone. The killer would also have to be let into their rooms and into the palace. Even had they vanished into the inner parts of the Tower, surely someone had keys to let the killers or the people responsible for them in? Yes, dying mysteriously and naturally is very possible, but it also raises a lot of questions that historians need to investigate and research further. I hope we find some documentary evidence to answer this question. Apart from the debates on the Princes. the coverage was mostly good, save one or two guests more than a little controversial as others have stated. Who was that person going on about the accuracy of Shakespeare? What nonsense. Shakespeare is good as a piece of entertainment nothing more, just as TV is today. Accuracy is politically biased and made for the purpose of serving a replacement regeim to Richard's. William Shakespeare took as his historical sources, those written many years later and his own plays are dated from 100 years or more after Richard's death. Any source from that late should be taken with a pinch of salt. I loved the procession, I found the crowd respectful and I was deeply moved by the services in the Cathedral. I watched the early service at the University, the gifts of white roses by thousands of members of the public, the pal, the crown, the lit candles last night, the coffin, the beacon at Bosworth, everything has been done with dignity and respect. The inclusion of some of Richard's own prayers, the ancient prayer from Middleham, the mix of Catholic and Anglican and older rites, the mix of different cultures, it was very beautiful. The Cathedral in Leicester may be small, but it is also very lovely and peaceful. It is a worthy place for Richard to lie,,hopefully now for ever. The tomb is in place. The last of the Plantagenets has a final resting place. May Richard the Third, last Plantagenet King, our King of blessed Memory, the last warrior King to die in battle, may he finally rest in peace. Grant unto him,Oh Lord, Eternal Rest and let Thy Eternal Light Shine Upon Him, now and ever more. And may Richard, thy servant, and the souls of all the dearly departed rest in peace. Amen.

Mary he shocked all,the other guests didn't he...when he was with Robert Lindsey and Benedict Cumberbatch he was saying that of course Richard had murdered his nephews..then Helen Castor had to intervene with his remarks about Richard being a hunchback and as you said PG was visibly shocked.     I find it quite baffling that if you have been invited to be a guest and pass comments you do not look into the subject..there has been more than enough stuff available  about the difference between the two conditions....I thought he came across like the embarrassing relative that you get sounding off at a social event after having too much to drink and you just want to put a bag over their heads and lock them in a quiet room...it's really outrageous really.  No he is not as bad as Starkey but even so it's pretty shabby and thank God the only thing he achieved was to make himself look a right plonker.

Thanks for this beautifully written summary and, as Sandra says, amen to the last para. Couple of unrelated things. Last week, tucked away was a documentary about Shakespeare claiming that the plays were written by de Vere, 8th Earl of Oxford. It was far better researched and discussed than anything that has yet appeared on Richard. (I admire Helen Castor but Richard wasn't really 'her subject'). The play written by a de Vere would make perfect sense, wouldn't it? Secondly, once a sceptic, I've now come to believe that at least one prince did survive; though I'm not ready to disclose all yet. We have Buckingham as either a buffoon, or with a mind worthy of MI5. Based on the fact that most conspiracy theories turn out to have a very simple explanation what if we assume the first? What if the June attempt to rescue them on 'his watch' did succeed and he also didn't know where they'd gone? What would he tell Richard? Given Richard's pre-occupation with the Coronation and Progress he could maybe stave him off for a while - they're ill, I don't advise you visit them (Dr Argentein). they're playing in the garden (could be any kids). But on Richard's return he was going to have to own up. Think of what happened to Hastings! What if Richard thought he was part of the conspiracy? The only resort is the last hope saloon; Morton could convince him he'd have a use to HT. I'm sure someone here will come up with documents which say this couldn't have happened, but it has logic, particularly if he wasn't very bright. Of course I haven't speculated who 'rescued' them but I could reel out a few candidates, including the Church. H From: poohlandeva <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 28 March 2015, 3:56
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Ceremony
I have not been able to watch all of the coverage yet as have been nursing a sick husband all week, but have seen most of the service and the documentaries. I did enjoy the complan service on Sunday and I loved the main part of the internment on Thursday. I wish the Requiem Mass had have been televised live, but have read the order of service and the Cardinals full sermon. I have also seen the minutes silence and the tomb, which is growing on me. I have to admit that Channel Four did a really good job, as did the BBC. There were not too many gaffs, but Sky aparantly, their News I assume, made some great clangers and it was not very good. An associate on another site said they had Michael Isbn (sorry for spelling) and his niece as coming from "Richard's loins". Powerful loins! However, as to the studio discussions, that is a different matter. First David Starkey was insulting and should apologise to Philippa Langley and Philippa Gregory, the first without whom none of this week would have been possible and the second, although her novels do have some strange ideas in them; are still very good and enjoyable and entertaining. She is also sensitive to the victims of history and deserves more respect than that. Even novelists should not be insulted just because you think you are a superior being from academia. In any event, I think she has a degree or other academic qualifications and even if you don't agree with her, she deserves respect and has an entitlement to her views. I found most of the discussion fascinating, especially Helen Castor, who has done a couple of excellent documentary series on the early queens and the lot of women facing birth and life in the medieval and Tudor periods. Her work on the Pastons is first class. She seemed to be one of the more balanced invited guests and her response to the questions on the Princes to me seemed reasonable: we just do not know. That is of course true. Everything other than the details of their last appearance in publis, in the gardens, plus some vague details from their doctor, is pure speculation with nothing to back up either claims that they escaped or were killed, and even if they died of natural causes or disease, where is the evidence? Why where they not buried with honour if the latter is true? If indeed they were murdered, there are more than one possible killers. I don't believe that Richard iii killed them or hid the knowledge of this alleged crime. I accepted that he was most probably innocent a long time ago, even before I had even heard of the RIII society; I studied the sources and experts from the time; and can conclude he did not kill them. Any court today would have to find him not guilty, especially without the bodies. Why do some people think he is definately guilty without any strong evidence? David Starkey may have a point about motives and he may have a point about the confession of Tyril but Henry and Elizabeth may have been in the Tower to ensure that he confessed to the right thing and not because they were interested. Tyrill had nothing to lose. From my vague memory, was he not actually on trial for other capital crimes anyhow? Perhaps he thought that by confessing to the murder of the Princes he would get a swifter death. Who knows? Or perhaps the entire tail is the product of imagination. Buckingham had motive, method, opportunity and the character flaws to commit murder. He was ambitious and self serving and changed sides to the people he believed could reward him most. I don't even buy his willingness to put Henry Tudor on the throne, even though his rebellion had Henry crossing the channel to take up the cause and the crown if Buckinghmam succeeded. Henry was waiting for the signal but was cautious when it came, wisely as it turned out. But was Buckinghma really backing Henry Tudor or was this a rouse? Would he have handed him over to the authorities to gain a pardon or even killed him and then seized the throne himself? It all seems to be about who can pay the most money and give out the most land. Richard had been good to his so called loyal supporters but obviously not good enough. Buckingham was greedy, jealous and very turnable. He could easily have killed the Princes either for his own ends, someone elses, or out of some misguided belief that Richard or Henry would reward him if he did. There are also other names that pop up when this subject comes to mind, Norfolk has been mentioned and even as an outsider, Margaret Beaufort. I don't accept it was Henry Tudor as he was not able to access the Tower to carry out the murder. But they may not even have been murdered. Dr Ashdown Hill stated that he believed that Edward died in 1483, not by being killed but by dying of disease, Philippa Gregory and others have suggested that he may have died of the plague, This is a reasonable assertion as he was visited by a doctor regularly and expessed fears of death, although melencolia or depression is a more likely reason for him to have such fears. However, again if Edward died of natural causes then why not have a funeral. Richard as we know was a pius man with care for souls and a particular interest in caring for the dead. Surely had he received the news that his young nephew had died he would have prepared his body and had him honourably interred. Legitimacy does not mean that he was not the son of a King and as a person of high status he would have been entitled to a public and honourable funeral. Even an ordinary person has the right to a proper burial, his status does not mean he was not buried correctly. Richard would have ordered a post mortem and determined his cause of death, a doctor would have certified the death; he would have been given all honours and anyone would have been buried by the church. Priests would have been called to prepare the body and pray for the childs soul. Even the executed in the Tower of London have a burial plot in the church there or close by. Why would the children of Edward V just vanish if they were dead unless foul play was involved? Even plague victims did not just vanish. They were taken away to special plots assigned for these burials. Edward V could not die of natural causes of disease and no-one notice. Even their murder must have been noted by someone. The killer would also have to be let into their rooms and into the palace. Even had they vanished into the inner parts of the Tower, surely someone had keys to let the killers or the people responsible for them in? Yes, dying mysteriously and naturally is very possible, but it also raises a lot of questions that historians need to investigate and research further. I hope we find some documentary evidence to answer this question. Apart from the debates on the Princes. the coverage was mostly good, save one or two guests more than a little controversial as others have stated. Who was that person going on about the accuracy of Shakespeare? What nonsense. Shakespeare is good as a piece of entertainment nothing more, just as TV is today. Accuracy is politically biased and made for the purpose of serving a replacement regeim to Richard's. William Shakespeare took as his historical sources, those written many years later and his own plays are dated from 100 years or more after Richard's death. Any source from that late should be taken with a pinch of salt. I loved the procession, I found the crowd respectful and I was deeply moved by the services in the Cathedral. I watched the early service at the University, the gifts of white roses by thousands of members of the public, the pal, the crown, the lit candles last night, the coffin, the beacon at Bosworth, everything has been done with dignity and respect. The inclusion of some of Richard's own prayers, the ancient prayer from Middleham, the mix of Catholic and Anglican and older rites, the mix of different cultures, it was very beautiful. The Cathedral in Leicester may be small, but it is also very lovely and peaceful. It is a worthy place for Richard to lie,,hopefully now for ever. The tomb is in place. The last of the Plantagenets has a final resting place. May Richard the Third, last Plantagenet King, our King of blessed Memory, the last warrior King to die in battle, may he finally rest in peace. Grant unto him,Oh Lord, Eternal Rest and let Thy Eternal Light Shine Upon Him, now and ever more. And may Richard, thy servant, and the souls of all the dearly departed rest in peace. Amen.

Oh, Hilary, I hate that I always find myself nagging and disagreeing with you about something here :) When we agree about so many things and our research constantly takes us down eerily similar roads!

But even if we accept the traditional version of Buckingham as an opportunist and nothing more, we do have an individual who:

- is capable of manipulating Richard into trusting him, and then takes him by surprise by turning on him

- is capable of manipulating everybody with his apparently very eloquent speeches (contemporary accounts praise his speeches to the skies)

- seems to have no real loyalty towards anybody but himself

- whose actions really only make 'sense' if you think of him as trying to play the different sides of the conflict against each other, to his own advantage

- who seems to have been an actor to the very end: think of his attempted escape in disguise

Nowadays we have a word for fundamentally untrustworthy people who are highly capable of manipulating and using others and lying without remorse: sociopath. I try not to fall in the trap of demonising somebody else the way that Richard has been demonised, but in my mind, Buckingham was a clever, ambitious young man and apparently a consummate actor who was trying to use all sides to his own ends - he overreached, and failed. That's how I see it. Anybody who is that good an actor can't be a bumbling idiot. (Indeed, if you think about it, Shakespeare's manipulative, eloquent and hypocritical Richard really has more in common with what we know about Buckingham's actions in 1483 than with what we know about Richard's.)

Doug made a good point about Buckingham needing to act quickly in the autumn of 1483, but I'd go a step further than that. If he was aiming for the throne himself, he should have acted quickly in the spring/summer - and one might argue that he tried. One reason I believe there really might have been a *real* assassination attempt on the day of Hastings' death is that there would have been one clear winner that day: Buckingham. If he could have eliminated Richard and somehow discredited both Hastings, the Woodvilles and the pro-Tudor faction in one fell swoop, that would have been it. His biggest chance. He would have been in control from then on. Think of Buckingham as Lord Protector, and then the boys are revealed to be illegitimate... only Edward of Middleham standing in his way& gosh, this sounds familiar.

I personally tend to believe that Buckingham:

(a) knew about the pre-contract;

(b) went along with the pro-Tudor conspiracy from the start;

c) but was really aiming for the throne himself.

All of this is just speculation, of course :) But this is what I've come to believe. Call it a hunch.

One more thing. I've finally translated the Richard-related chapters from Jean Molinet's Chronicle - I'll post them on my blog soon, I just have to go through the text a few times because I'm not satisfied with all the wordings and I'm a pedant. But the most interesting part, to me, was when after the account of the boys' murder Molinet writes: 'On the same day arrived in the Tower of London the Duke of Buckingham, who was falsely believed to have extinguished and slain these children, because he claimed to have a right to the crown'. Now, Molinet's Richard is even more of a cartoon villain than Shakespeare's (plundering the churches! terrorising his subjects! planning to invade France!), but I found that part interesting: Molinet's acknowledgement that Buckingham was *believed* to have killed the boys, even if Molinet himself considered the belief to be false. Keep in mind that this is an early account, possibly written in the late 1480s or at the latest in the 1490s.

Pansy/Leena

Remember what was said about Buckingham's Guildhall speech? Fabyan praised it lavishly, and The Great Chronicle of London went even further: 'It lasted a good half hour, and was so well and eloquently uttered and with so angelic a countenance, and every pause and time was so well ordered that such as heard him marvelled and said that never before that day had they heard any man, learned or unlearned, make such a recital or oration as that was.'

Does that sound like a buffoon? Not to me. To me that sounds like a fantastic actor and a man of great verbal talent& one who knew exactly which buttons to push. Note the 'angelic countenance', too: whatever that means in this context!

Pansy/Leena

Pansy wrote:

Remember what was said about Buckingham's Guildhall speech? Fabyan praised it lavishly, and The Great Chronicle of London went even further: 'It lasted a good half hour, and was so well and eloquently uttered and with so angelic a countenance, and every pause and time was so well ordered that such as heard him marvelled and said that never before that day had they heard any man, learned or unlearned, make such a recital or oration as that was.'

Does that sound like a buffoon? Not to me. To me that sounds like a fantastic actor and a man of great verbal talent& one who knew exactly which buttons to push. Note the 'angelic countenance', too: whatever that means in this context!

Doug here:

Oh, of course you're right about that, Doug. Buckingham was certainly out of his depth: he did fail, after all. Whatever the game he was trying to play, he failed quite badly.

Not sure about him being a ditherer, though. I should think that being good at manipulating people means being good at improvising, no? Without quick thinking, attempts at manipulation would surely come across as clumsy and unconvincing.

I think of him as someone who was trying to play a highly complicated game - and the game turned out to be much too big for him to play. Even highly intelligent people can overestimate their abilities and underestimate their opponents. Indeed, that's often what highly intelligent people do, if the intelligence comes with a dose of narcissism.

Either way, I don't suppose we'll ever really know ;) But I was just replying to those who questioned Buckingham's intelligence. I honestly don't think a lack of intelligence and shrewdness was Buckingham's real problem at all. Lack of military acumen and being surrounded by 'certain people' who ultimately played him as much as he tried to play them: that does seem a more likely scenario to me.

Pansy/Leena

Perhaps Buckingham thought, for whatever reason, that there was no other way to go? Set up, yes, but I think there must have been a lot more to it than somebody advising him 'hey, that might be a good way to go' and him naively taking them for their word&

Untrustworthy people don't generally trust others, least of all blindly. I'm not really buying that either. There *must* be something more to this whole thing.

(Dear me, with my insistence on Buckingham's intelligence I'm afraid I'm starting to sound like I'm half in love with him.)

Pansy/Leena, mortified

For what it's worth I don't think Tyrell killed them or worked closely with HT - who I honestly don't think knew where they were. But Tyrell is related to a lot of people who could know where they were. One minor point. People keep talking about Edward V as though he was a modern boy, but in fact children then were miniature adults as we know. At nearly 13 he was nearly a man in their terms (think of Edward III or Edward VI who was much younger). He would have been quite a handful for whoever 'rescued' him; I can't see him becoming a monk or something and keeping quiet. Richard at 10 could have been much more pliable and hadn't been brought up to behave like a king in the same way - he hadn't had the training prescribed for Edward by his father. Just a thought - which makes it more likely that a clandestinely hidden person would have been Richard. H
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 28 March 2015, 17:10
Subject: Re: Re: Ceremony

I think you are right. They may have been successful in rescuing the Princes. Also there is Audrey Williamson's book "Mystery of the Princes" which tells of the tradition in the Tyrrell family that boys were at Gipping with their mother by permission of the uncle. The Tyrrell family never spoke about it because they thought that it would somehow prove that James was guilty. There is also the story of how James returned from I think France after Bosworth and H7 pardoned him and sent him North to Sherriff Hutton and then a month later when he arrived back in London he was pardoned again. I wonder what all that was about? Did he kill the boys then for H7 because they were hiding at Sherriff Hutton.?
Mary

All things considered, it sounds like Buckingham may have been a sociopath.

Hi Hilary,

First, as it stands we have only Starkey's word for it that the King and Queen went to stay at the Tower specifically for the period of Tyrell's trial. Even if it is so, however, it would not be not surprising. For instance, Edward IV went to Salisbury in 1468 for the treason trials of Courtenay and Hungerford, and in 1477 he returned from Windsor to Westminster for the trials of Stacy, Blake and Burdet. Richard ditched his plans to host the Garter celebrations in Windsor at the last minute in 1484, apparently so that he could return to London for treason trials. It is, therefore, not necessary to suggest that Tyrell confessed at his trial to murdering the Princes in order to explain the royal decision to attend his treason trial. In fact, if the murder of the Princes had been the reason why Henry & Elizabeth removed to the Tower before the start of the trial, then this would suggest that Tyrell was actually to be tried for the murders. But we know that he wasn't. In other words, Starkey's theory doesn't actually work out, but then Starkey isn't the sort of person to think things through properly, is he? He's all about insinuation and bombast.

Starkey's new evidence is no evidence at all but it would still be nice to know exactly what these accounts tell us, word for word.

Marie

He could have course have been carrying money from an organisation for their upkeep - they would be high maintenance. The organisation would be a rich organisation of course :) And if HT thought he might have known where they were then it's logical to take EOY along - after all she was related to Tyrell. No point in taking her if he was sure they were dead. As Carol says, there was no confession. What do you want to know about Anne Arundel? She was of course from the 'naughty' part of the world. Her dad was Sheriff of Cornwall her mother was a Morley from Norfolk, one half sister married Giles Daubeny, another Henry Marney, another Sir William Capel. She was also half-aunt to Stillington's great-grandaughter :) :) And uncle was a Norfolk Hastings Does that help? H
From: "Janjovian janjovian@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 29 March 2015, 20:37
Subject: RE: Re: Ceremony

I suspect that whatever happened to the princes Tyrell was in it up to his neck.
Unfortunately, we don't know what that was.
There are the "Gipping" rumours that they stayed at his house by their uncles permission as per Audrey Williamson, as well as the fact that Tyrell was paid a great deal of money when he was at Guisnes.
What for?
Protecting the boys? Killing the boys?
So Starkey's comment that HT and his queen were present at his (ahem) interrogation is interesting, but proves nothing either way.
Tyrell's wife was from fairly local to me so I would love to know more, but whatever he was up to is still a mystery that needs further research.

Jess

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 29/03/2015 09:45
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Ceremony

For what it's worth I don't think Tyrell killed them or worked closely with HT - who I honestly don't think knew where they were. But Tyrell is related to a lot of people who could know where they were. One minor point. People keep talking about Edward V as though he was a modern boy, but in fact children then were miniature adults as we know. At nearly 13 he was nearly a man in their terms (think of Edward III or Edward VI who was much younger). He would have been quite a handful for whoever 'rescued' him; I can't see him becoming a monk or something and keeping quiet. Richard at 10 could have been much more pliable and hadn't been brought up to behave like a king in the same way - he hadn't had the training prescribed for Edward by his father. Just a thought - which makes it more likely that a clandestinely hidden person would have been Richard. H
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 28 March 2015, 17:10
Subject: Re: Re: Ceremony

I think you are right. They may have been successful in rescuing the Princes. Also there is Audrey Williamson's book "Mystery of the Princes" which tells of the tradition in the Tyrrell family that boys were at Gipping with their mother by permission of the uncle. The Tyrrell family never spoke about it because they thought that it would somehow prove that James was guilty. There is also the story of how James returned from I think France after Bosworth and H7 pardoned him and sent him North to Sherriff Hutton and then a month later when he arrived back in London he was pardoned again. I wonder what all that was about? Did he kill the boys then for H7 because they were hiding at Sherriff Hutton.?
Mary

[The entire original message is not included.]

Hi Hilary,

First, as it stands we have only Starkey's word for it that the King and Queen went to stay at the Tower specifically for the period of Tyrell's trial. Even if it is so, however, it would not be not surprising. For instance, Edward IV went to Salisbury in 1468 for the treason trials of Courtenay and Hungerford, and in 1477 he returned from Windsor to Westminster for the trials of Stacy, Blake and Burdet. Richard ditched his plans to host the Garter celebrations in Windsor at the last minute in 1484, apparently so that he could return to London for treason trials. It is, therefore, not necessary to suggest that Tyrell confessed at his trial to murdering the Princes in order to explain the royal decision to attend his treason trial. In fact, if the murder of the Princes had been the reason why Henry & Elizabeth removed to the Tower before the start of the trial, then this would suggest that Tyrell was actually to be tried for the murders. But we know that he wasn't. In other words, Starkey's theory doesn't actually work out, but then Starkey isn't the sort of person to think things through properly, is he? He's all about insinuation and bombast.

Starkey's new evidence is no evidence at all but it would still be nice to know exactly what these accounts tell us, word for word.

Marie

Oh, of course you're right about that, Doug. Buckingham was certainly out of his depth: he did fail, after all. Whatever the game he was trying to play, he failed quite badly.

Not sure about him being a ditherer, though. I should think that being good at manipulating people means being good at improvising, no? Without quick thinking, attempts at manipulation would surely come across as clumsy and unconvincing.

Doug here:

Do we have any examples of his manipulating people other than by his speeches? We also have to consider how much of the praise for Buckingham's speeches was because the speeches were by Henry, Duke of Buckingham and not some unknown back-bencher (or Medieval equivalent). Are there any examples of Buckingham being interrupted by cat-calls while orating, or for that matter, cries of Point of Order!, responding to the interruptor, and then proceeding with his speech?

Pansy continued:

I think of him as someone who was trying to play a highly complicated game - and the game turned out to be much too big for him to play. Even highly intelligent people can overestimate their abilities and underestimate their opponents. Indeed, that's often what highly intelligent people do, if the intelligence comes with a dose of narcissism.

Either way, I don't suppose we'll ever really know ;) But I was just replying to those who questioned Buckingham's intelligence. I honestly don't think a lack of intelligence and shrewdness was Buckingham's real problem at all. Lack of military acumen and being surrounded by 'certain people' who ultimately played him as much as he tried to play them: that does seem a more likely scenario to me.

Doug here:

This is so very interesting. Not having done any in depth research, I can only say, in our present times we see young people, of privilege, who do incredibly stupid things. He might also have been one of those passive-aggressive people, and found himself in a game of extreme chess, while he was playing checkers.

I do hope the search of wills and documents actually blooms, and more tidbits begin to come to light.

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 9:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham (was Re: Ceremony)

Pansy wrote:

Oh, of course you're right about that, Doug. Buckingham was certainly out of his depth: he did fail, after all. Whatever the game he was trying to play, he failed quite badly.

Not sure about him being a ditherer, though. I should think that being good at manipulating people means being good at improvising, no? Without quick thinking, attempts at manipulation would surely come across as clumsy and unconvincing.

Doug here:

Do we have any examples of his manipulating people other than by his speeches? We also have to consider how much of the praise for Buckingham's speeches was because the speeches were by Henry, Duke of Buckingham and not some unknown back-bencher (or Medieval equivalent). Are there any examples of Buckingham being interrupted by cat-calls while orating, or for that matter, cries of Point of Order!, responding to the interruptor, and then proceeding with his speech?

Pansy continued:

I think of him as someone who was trying to play a highly complicated game - and the game turned out to be much too big for him to play. Even highly intelligent people can overestimate their abilities and underestimate their opponents. Indeed, that's often what highly intelligent people do, if the intelligence comes with a dose of narcissism.

Either way, I don't suppose we'll ever really know ;) But I was just replying to those who questioned Buckingham's intelligence. I honestly don't think a lack of intelligence and shrewdness was Buckingham's real problem at all. Lack of military acumen and being surrounded by 'certain people' who ultimately played him as much as he tried to play them: that does seem a more likely scenario to me.

Doug here:

I tend to believe what he did lack was experience. I can't recall any examples of Buckingham being employed by Edward IV in either Council or as a military leader, were there any?

Because without a regular attendance at Council meetings, especially meetings where Buckingham wasn't presiding, where would he have the chance to learn that merely saying Do it didn't ensure that it would be done? Where would he learn the art of persuading undecided people, let alone those opposed, to his position? I can't see someone in Buckingham's household saying to him No, Your Grace, you can't do that. or Buckingham having to convince some member of his household, using reason and argument, to do as the Duke wished. And without that experience, and regardless of his native intelligence, he would have been severely handicapped in his dealings with anyone who had just such experience.

The same would apply in regards to a lack of military expertise. It's one thing to muster a troop of men by issuing a call to arms; quite another to arm them, ensure they're fed regularly and, most importantly, be able move them to where they were needed.

From his actions in September/October 1483, Buckingham seems to have lacked all but the most basic military knowledge  he could muster men, but after that he was in over his head.

Not unintelligent then, but definitely inexperienced, with that inexperience hiding behind privilege. IOW, he could give a good speech, either off-the-cuff or prepared, but he lacked the knowledge that after that speech was given, there'd still be a lot of work involved. And he lacked that knowledge because he himself never had been in a position where he couldn't use his title/position as a trump to any opposition.

Doug

Who hopes that last paragraph makes sense!

True, true, Doug - I agree with you about the inexperience, and the over-confidence that probably came with it.

As for the rest, we'll just have to agree to disagree :) Why would the chroniclers have heaped such lavish undeserved posthumous praise on Buckingham's speech, when they condemned its content? The praise goes well beyond 'that was a pretty well-written and nicely performed speech': e.g. Fabyan's 'so good sugared words of exhortation' and the Great Chronicle's 'angelic countenance' - the latter of which is a rather strange description in the context, if you think about it. Implies something rather more than someone who just spoke well.

And we're forgetting that Buckingham *did* manage to manipulate Richard into trusting him, after all. I don't think Richard was stupid. I don't think he was naive. But he fell for it, all the same.

Not to mention that despite his inexperience, Buckingham would have seen what's what from a young age. He did preside over Clarence's trial, and who knows what he came across in the aftermath of that& the commission to inquire into Clarence's estates included his later co-rebels - Cheyne and Hungerford - and many other crucial connections were made in those years (e.g. the marriage of Buckingham's aunt to Sir William Knyvett, later co-rebel as well). Edward seemed to be quite wary of him, too. Kept him well in the sidelines. Young though he was, he'd had plenty of time to harbour a grudge and nurse his thwarted ambitions - and plan accordingly. No, he hadn't commanded troops and he was probably accustomed to relying on his privilege, but he had his own network (like MB had hers) and I'll bet he'd grown adept at exerting more furtive forms of influence - just like MB. Birds of a feather, methinks.

Pansy

Agreed, Hilary - on Hastings AND getting emotional about certain people (for me, that includes having a very soft spot for Margaret of Anjou) AND on feeling lonely, too. The Aslan comparison was a good one. I haven't really felt like myself at all since I came back from Leicester.

Though I must clarify that I'm by no means emotional about Buckingham! On the contrary, I tend to believe he was a nasty piece of work. But possibly a charming one. ;) (Why hasn't anyone written a romance novel about him yet, I wonder?)

Oh, and my personal belief is that Buckingham dunnit, if I haven't made that clear yet&!

Pansy

I think he may have been, too. Well, if we consider that about 5% of the population are sociopaths/psychopaths, and the higher up you go in the food chain the more sociopaths you're likely to find (because they're more aggressive about getting up there), *somebody* had to be a sociopath in those circles& ;)

Then there's the Dark Triad, too:

http://www.eaplstudent.com/component/content/article/133-dark-triad

I don't know. Whatever he was, I confess I find Buckingham to be a fascinating case, and I think there's much more to him than is conventionally thought. I think he was very much a ruthless agent in his own right - not just a greedy opportunist who reacted to the opportunities that happened to present themselves in front of him.

Pansy

For what it's worth I do agree - and a few months' ago I wouldn't have done. But he was perhaps the most famous part of a greater whole? And above all he is part of the gateway to Calais - and the Continent. H
From: "Janjovian janjovian@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 30 March 2015, 11:31
Subject: RE: Re: Ceremony

I would just love to know.
There really does seem to be a mystery
wrapped in an enigma regarding Tyrell.

Jess

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 30/03/2015 09:51
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Ceremony

He could have course have been carrying money from an organisation for their upkeep - they would be high maintenance. The organisation would be a rich organisation of course :) And if HT thought he might have known where they were then it's logical to take EOY along - after all she was related to Tyrell. No point in taking her if he was sure they were dead. As Carol says, there was no confession. What do you want to know about Anne Arundel? She was of course from the 'naughty' part of the world. Her dad was Sheriff of Cornwall her mother was a Morley from Norfolk, one half sister married Giles Daubeny, another Henry Marney, another Sir William Capel. She was also half-aunt to Stillington's great-grandaughter :) :) And uncle was a Norfolk Hastings Does that help? H
From: "Janjovian janjovian@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 29 March 2015, 20:37
Subject: RE: Re: Ceremony

I suspect that whatever happened to the princes Tyrell was in it up to his neck.
Unfortunately, we don't know what that was.
There are the "Gipping" rumours that they stayed at his house by their uncles permission as per Audrey Williamson, as well as the fact that Tyrell was paid a great deal of money when he was at Guisnes.
What for?
Protecting the boys? Killing the boys?
So Starkey's comment that HT and his queen were present at his (ahem) interrogation is interesting, but proves nothing either way.
Tyrell's wife was from fairly local to me so I would love to know more, but whatever he was up to is still a mystery that needs further research.

Jess

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 29/03/2015 09:45
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Ceremony

For what it's worth I don't think Tyrell killed them or worked closely with HT - who I honestly don't think knew where they were. But Tyrell is related to a lot of people who could know where they were. One minor point. People keep talking about Edward V as though he was a modern boy, but in fact children then were miniature adults as we know. At nearly 13 he was nearly a man in their terms (think of Edward III or Edward VI who was much younger). He would have been quite a handful for whoever 'rescued' him; I can't see him becoming a monk or something and keeping quiet. Richard at 10 could have been much more pliable and hadn't been brought up to behave like a king in the same way - he hadn't had the training prescribed for Edward by his father. Just a thought - which makes it more likely that a clandestinely hidden person would have been Richard. H
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 28 March 2015, 17:10
Subject: Re: Re: Ceremony

I think you are right. They may have been successful in rescuing the Princes. Also there is Audrey Williamson's book "Mystery of the Princes" which tells of the tradition in the Tyrrell family that boys were at Gipping with their mother by permission of the uncle. The Tyrrell family never spoke about it because they thought that it would somehow prove that James was guilty. There is also the story of how James returned from I think France after Bosworth and H7 pardoned him and sent him North to Sherriff Hutton and then a month later when he arrived back in London he was pardoned again. I wonder what all that was about? Did he kill the boys then for H7 because they were hiding at Sherriff Hutton.?
Mary

Posted by: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> Reply via web post " Reply to sender " Reply to group " Start a New Topic " Messages in this topic (66) Visit Your Group New Members 12 " Privacy " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use

[The entire original message is not included.]

I agree entirely Marie - it was like Starkey's last stand and I actually don't think he's that good on Henry VII. Now if Thomas Penn had come up with something I might have listened. When you mention the Courtenay and Hungerford trials I do wonder how much of the vitriol which Edward should have incurred was inherited by Richard (who presided as a very young man I seem to recall) and Clarence (who inherited the Hungerford properties). It gave those two families motive aplenty to join HT. H From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 30 March 2015, 11:16
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Ceremony
Hi Hilary, First, as it stands we have only Starkey's word for it that the King and Queen went to stay at the Tower specifically for the period of Tyrell's trial. Even if it is so, however, it would not be not surprising. For instance, Edward IV went to Salisbury in 1468 for the treason trials of Courtenay and Hungerford, and in 1477 he returned from Windsor to Westminster for the trials of Stacy, Blake and Burdet. Richard ditched his plans to host the Garter celebrations in Windsor at the last minute in 1484, apparently so that he could return to London for treason trials. It is, therefore, not necessary to suggest that Tyrell confessed at his trial to murdering the Princes in order to explain the royal decision to attend his treason trial. In fact, if the murder of the Princes had been the reason why Henry & Elizabeth removed to the Tower before the start of the trial, then this would suggest that Tyrell was actually to be tried for the murders. But we know that he wasn't. In other words, Starkey's theory doesn't actually work out, but then Starkey isn't the sort of person to think things through properly, is he? He's all about insinuation and bombast. Starkey's new evidence is no evidence at all but it would still be nice to know exactly what these accounts tell us, word for word. Marie

Hi Sandra: Can you please tell me who is the author of this piece that you posted the link for? I'm sure I just missed it, but I'm unclear on that point? Any help is appreciated! Thanks, Margie

Sent from my iPad
On Mar 30, 2015, at 3:06 PM, 'Sandra J Machin' sandramachin@... [] <> wrote:

The following makes VERY interesting reading. http://www.holbeinartworks.org/efaqssevenhsirjamtyrfifteen.htm Definitely worth sticking with, because it sheds a whole new light (to me, anyway) on James Tyrrell, and indeed all the Tyrrells. And it clears Richard. It's fairly long, and should be read at leisure with several cups of tea/coffee. Sandra =^..^= .

Thanks, Hilary.

Actually, I've now had a look at my Tyrell file, and found two interesting things. One is that More did say that he and Dighton had confessed. The other fact is that, although he was held in the Tower, *he was tried at the Guildhall.*

So, if Henry and Elizabeth removed to the Tower at that point, it was *not* to attend the trial. Henry may well have been interested in the results of interrogations, but it need not have had anything to do with the Princes. Never mind Tyrell, but his servant Wellesbourne turned King's Evidence in order to save himself and would have been expected to reveal a lot about the current Yorkist plots. My own suspicion is that the story of the confession/ Tyrell's involvement in the murders may have been given out by Henry VIIII rather than Henry VII, in an attempt to settle the question in people's minds right at the start of his reign, both to prevent impostures and to discredit Richard's old supporters and renew the split in the Yorkist ranks. More says he heard it from 'them that knew much and little cause had to lie', but these people would have had very good cause to lie if they were under the King's instruction to do so. More's claim that Tyrell and Dighton were both arrested and confessed doesn't seem to stack up in the sense that there seems to be no evidence that anyone called Dighton was arrested with or at a similar time to Tyrell and no official confession was ever published. More's men in the know seem to have provided no explanation for the fact that these wonderful confessions were kept secret at the time. Were they a state secret in Henry VIII's reign? If there weren't, why wasn't an official announcement made, and the confession formally published? If they were, then why were More, Vergil and Fabyan so happy to publish what they were told? Nor, come to think of it, does More explain why Tyrell and Dighton would have chosen voluntarily to confess to their interrogators (rather than their confessors) such a dreadful crime of which no one had previously suspected them guilty. It may be that Wellesbourne divulged something which suggested that he and Tyrell had some knowledge relevant to the Princes' fate, but if this information had completely solved the mystery it would surely have been made public at the time.

As for the Hungerfords, I haven't really given it that much thought before, but they had been enemies of York right through the 1450s and Robert, Lord Hungerford, was regarded as a mean man. This is from one of the Yorkist chronicles for 1460:-

"The Earl of Wiltshire, Treasurer of England, the Lord Scales and the Lord Hungerford, having the King's commission, went to the town of Newbury, the which longed to the Duke of York, and there made inquisition of all them that in any wise had showed any favour or benevolence or friendship to the said duke or to any of his. . . whereof some were found guilty and were drawn, hanged and quartered; and all other inhabitants of the foresaid town were spoiled of all their goods.

Same longstanding enmity in the case of the Courtenays. IMO it's very probable that the 1468 charges were true. Both are the sort of old Lancastrian families who would have leaped at the split in the Yorkist ranks in 1483.

Marie

Dare I say, I reckon there was a bit of 'wire in the blood' with the Hungerfords. If you take them forward they couldn't survive under the Tudors. One was executed the same day as Thomas Cromwell for bad sexual practices with his wife (I forget the exact term). It was a new law and he was the first to literally get the chop. H - who must now get back to work before she gets shouted at by hubby!

No book I've found has been brave enough to specify Sandra. He seems to have had 3 wives, Susan Danvers (them again) who died young, Alice Sandys and Elizabeth Hussey who outlived him. Think it was her. The mind boggles ....... as does the need for them to bring in such a law. Was a lot of it going on? :) :) H From: "'Sandra J Machin' sandramachin@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 31 March 2015, 11:25
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Ceremony
Um....and what might those bad sexual practices' be, Hilary....? <g> From: mailto: Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:06 AM To: Subject: Re: Re: Ceremony Dare I say, I reckon there was a bit of 'wire in the blood' with the Hungerfords. If you take them forward they couldn't survive under the Tudors. One was executed the same day as Thomas Cromwell for bad sexual practices with his wife (I forget the exact term). It was a new law and he was the first to literally get the chop. H - who must now get back to work before she gets shouted at by hubby!

Why have three wives if he preferred "sex with "various males of his household?"

Respectability, money, estates?
It does make those who speak against same sex marriage on the grounds that traditional marriage was between one man and one woman and based on scriptural truth look a little gullible.
Perhaps they have never read any history?

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Which begins to make you ask questions about Henry and why he so much wanted these people dead. I think we're so used to the tale that we've shrunk from the enormity of executing an annointed queen. No-one had ever warranted that before and queens (and noblewomen) had committed far worse crimes in the past. H who will now shut up and get back to work From: "David Butterworth davetheslave44@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 31 March 2015, 11:05
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Ceremony
If you think that is justice, then you have a strange notion of fairness and justice. Is that so? Doesn't our present-day idea of 'fairness and justice' differ from the way it was viewed 500 or so years ago? We're referring to what went on at the top of the social scale, not elsewhere. Ever wondered why Richard III had one of the shortest reigns in English history. Precisely because of a lack of, not because of, what happened to William Lord Hastings and that example. If Richard III had shown the slightest sign of weakness, he'd have been walked right over. Did trials have a habit of working fairly and justly in a climate of arbitrariness in those days? You've only got to look at what happened during the reign of Henry VIII. Richard Rich perjured himself at the trial of Thomas More, so that he could be found guilty. Anne Boleyn was granted a trial and defended herself well in front of 20 or so peers, but the king still wanted her head.



On Tuesday, 31 March 2015, 9:28, poohlandeva <[email protected]> wrote:


Actually many historians regard the hasty summary execution of William Lord Hastings as murder because it was done without any process of law. Just what would you call being taken out and beheaded without trial on a log without being given a chance to defend himself, within hours, if not moments of being arrested? If you think that is justice, then you have a strange notion of fairness and justice. You have not heard it called murder before. I suggest you read Peter Hammond book and other recent studies. Even Annette Carson called it murder.

Hi I'm not Sandra, but the author is the late Jack Leslau, who was an interpreter of some of Holbein's paintings. To cut a very long story short, one is the portrait of Richard in the National Gallery, the other is a lesser known one of Sir Thomas More and his family. In the background is a man in fifteenth century attire whom Leslau says is Richard of York. Edward V became Sir Edward Guildford. It hinges round More being involved in the plot to rescue the princes and his work on Richard being a decoy. It's very worth reading, though I would also look at other of More's family and More of course didn't get on with Henry VII. But its fatal flaw is that it claims that Richard was disguised as an Italian scholar and the dates for this scholar are all wrong. That's the trouble with a lot of theories, no-one checks the dates. But is is worth reading and there's no doubt he did a lot of research. As one who also studied the allegory in fifteenth/sixteenth century paintings I would say his work is good - as you would expect it to be. For me, anything which provokes thought is good writing. Hope this helps and welcome! H
From: "Margie mdbuyingstuff@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 30 March 2015, 23:15
Subject: Re: Re:Holbeinartworks Article

Hi Sandra:
Can you please tell me who is the author of this piece that you posted the link for?
I'm sure I just missed it, but I'm unclear on that point?
Any help is appreciated!
Thanks,Margie

Sent from my iPad
On Mar 30, 2015, at 3:06 PM, 'Sandra J Machin' sandramachin@... [] <> wrote:

The following makes VERY interesting reading. http://www.holbeinartworks.org/efaqssevenhsirjamtyrfifteen.htm Definitely worth sticking with, because it sheds a whole new light (to me, anyway) on James Tyrrell, and indeed all the Tyrrells. And it clears Richard. It's fairly long, and should be read at leisure with several cups of tea/coffee. Sandra =^..^= .

Wednesday wrote:
Hastings was also with Richard and Edward IV in Burgundy.
And Hastings and Richard went together to retrieve Edward from Warwick IIRC.
And Hastings and Richard were both reprimanded by Edward for supporting Margaret of Burgundy.
So whatever Hastings did to earn his beheading must have been spectacular in some way or other. Oh, for a TARDIS. Doug here: Betrayal. Presuming that the aim of the plot Hastings was involved in was to keep Edward V on the throne, the only way to do so would be to remove the two people who'd benefit from Edward being replaced  Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Henry, Duke of Buckingham. Even had Hastings only planned their imprisonment, the logic of the situation would mean that sooner or later, and almost certainly sooner, the two Dukes would be executed. The pressure from the various Woodvilles alone would see to that! Doug who'd still like a TARDIS, though

Why have three wives if he preferred "sex with "various males of his household?"

Respectability, money, estates?
It does make those who speak against same sex marriage on the grounds that traditional marriage was between one man and one woman and based on scriptural truth look a little gullible.
Perhaps they have never read any history?

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Starkey gave his source pretty clearly, ie the accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber. These show (claims Starkey) that Henry and Elizabeth transferred to the Tower shortly before the trial and left again on the day before the execution.

He says this proves they attended the trial, but of course it doesn't. As I pointed out in my previous post, Tyrell was brought from the Tower to the Guildhall (1.5 miles away) for trial. He would have been returned to the Tower at the end of each court session; this was normal practice - traitors were housed in the Tower but tried at at either the Guildhall or Westminster. So far as I know there is no evidence that Henry and Elizabeth went with Tyrell - would have made a strange outing.

Surely it's not surprising that Henry wished to be at the Tower when Tyrell and his servant Wellesbourne were being interrogated about the Edmund de la Pole business. I honestly can't see what all the fuss is about.

Starkey is scraping the barrel but knows most viewers won't realise either that the "unrelated offence" for which Tyrell was on trial was a current (and therefore currently dangerous) treason, nor that he was not actually tried in the Tower. The Guildhall was a public space, so surely Tyrell could not have confessed to murdering the Princes at his trial without it becoming instant front-page news.

My own suspicion is that there was a later royal decision (by either Henry VII or Henry VIII) to have a couple of people who would have been present at Tyrell's interrogations start claiming that he had confessed to the murders of the Princes as well. This would provide an explanation for the public of what had become of the two boys (neither of whom was currently in evidence) that did not involve Henry VII having hanged one of them under the name of Perkin Warbeck. It might also be hoped to drive a wedge between Richard's old supporters and other Yorkists who were inclined to back the de la Pole cause. Tyrell, being dead, could scarcely contradict them.

Marie

Sandra, yes - I personally believe Buckingham had a hand in the events of that day, but what exactly he did and what exactly he was trying to do is something we can't know&

One possibility is that Hastings had found out something about Buckingham's plans - or the plans of Morton and the lot of them - that meant Buckingham/the others had to act quickly to eliminate and discredit him.

For what it's worth, I think Hastings plotting against Richard would only make sense if he was in cahoots with Morton et al. (who he was, after all, close to: see the references to Morton in his will). But if he was in cahoots with Morton against the Woodvilles AND against Richard, we'd have to question his loyalty to Edward as well, and I'm not really buying that. At all.

Even if Hastings had been plotting against Richard, I definitely don't think Richard would have ordered a summary execution of Hastings without a proper trial (meaning, before the parliament) just because he was enraged and felt betrayed. It's so out of character that it makes me convinced there's got to be a more convincing alternative scenario to all this.

Not to mention that if 'villainous Richard' really wanted to get rid of Hastings, he could have had him murdered and then pinned it on the Woodville faction, which would have been not only easier but also served a dual purpose. That's what I'd have done. (Well, not literally, but you know what I mean&)

Pansy

As the resident proponent of various crackpot theories, I'm going to have to suggest this:

What if Hastings wasn't 'executed' at all?

No, I'm not suggesting that Hastings survived and sailed off to Burgundy for safety... But that perhaps his death wasn't an 'execution' - lawful or otherwise. Perhaps he was simply killed in the chaotic scuffle before he even got the chance to defend himself.

I'm intrigued by the inconsistencies between the different accounts of this day, and by the persistent mention of Stanley being injured in the face with a bladed weapon. Mancini has Hastings 'cut down' by the armed men that rushed in with Buckingham at the cries of treason.

Some accounts have Stanley and Hastings singled out as traitors with trumped-up charges - alongside Rotherham, Morton, King, and Fo(r)ster - but obviously nothing happened to Stanley, besides that possible cut on his face. And Hastings wasn't exactly treated like a traitor post-mortem, either.

From the early sources, Stallworth's letter says that Hastings was 'hedded', but it doesn't say anything more about how or why; of course, Stallworth wasn't there and wasn't well-connected enough to know exactly what happened. George Cely's notes only say that Hastings was 'deceased in trouble', which might mean anything, though it does carry an implication that he was accused of something shady (his source was the Prior of the Hospitallers in England, who would have been in a position to know a thing or two).

The stories about Hastings being dragged outside to be beheaded without a trial start appearing later. I haven't got them all in front of me right now, so I can't tell you exactly when the story was established into its 'official' form: from a shocking death to an unlawful execution. 'Beheading' is an early theme in this story, but you don't need a makeshift block to behead someone; you can simply attack the person with a bladed weapon and strike him on the neck. And his head doesn't need to come off, either, for it to be a 'beheading' in the popular imagination.

There's a big problem with all of this: people look towards random gossip for confirmation of the 'official' story, and that's kind of like asking a random person in London for their opinion about Cameron's policies, and then recording it for posterity as a fact of history. Rumours are often untrue, and we know that Richard's opponents later used the rumour machine as an effective weapon against him. Why not in this case as well?

Is it not possible that an alternative scenario might be:

(a) some people - Stanley and Hastings among them - were attacked on the head/neck with weapons in an armed conflict;

(b) Hastings was killed in the attack;

(c) rumours began to circulate that Richard and Buckingham had orchestrated the attack;

(d) which then turned into rumours about Hastings being killed on purpose;

(e) which then turned into rumours about Hastings being, in effect, executed without a trial;

(f) which then turned into rumours about Hastings being beheaded on the spot on a makeshift block;

(g) which then turned into the familiar embroidered story, with later nifty additions of strawberries and withered arms and what-not&

And consider the people who were present on that day: Morton and King became Tudor's right-hand men, and Stanley& was Stanley. They could have told anything about the events of that day and it would have become the official story. They were there. They 'knew'. They could have said that an enraged Richard bludgeoned Hastings do death with a platter of strawberries because they were too ripe to his taste, and nobody could have contradicted their authority. By 1520 it would have been an established fact that Richard was hungry and very disappointed with the strawberries, and that's why he killed Hastings.

Rotherham would have known, but he pretty much disappeared from view after 1485. Buckingham was dead; so was Richard, obviously. What's also interesting is that Edward V would likely have been present as well (after all, the meeting concerned his coronation and was arranged at the Tower, 'where the king was') but he's invisible in the accounts we have of that day. Why is that? Surely the young king's presence during either a dangerous scuffle or the 'unlawful execution' of his father's dear friend would have been a thing worth mentioning in the later accounts?

One thing is for sure: the 'facts' we know about Hastings' death are really quite few, and the things we do know don't add up. Add to this the fact that the others who were present may have had something to conceal about their own part in the events of that day.

Pansy

Sandra, yes - I personally believe Buckingham had a hand in the events of that day, but what exactly he did and what exactly he was trying to do is something we can't know&

One possibility is that Hastings had found out something about Buckingham's plans - or the plans of Morton and the lot of them - that meant Buckingham/the others had to act quickly to eliminate and discredit him.

For what it's worth, I think Hastings plotting against Richard would only make sense if he was in cahoots with Morton et al. (who he was, after all, close to: see the references to Morton in his will). But if he was in cahoots with Morton against the Woodvilles AND against Richard, we'd have to question his loyalty to Edward as well, and I'm not really buying that. At all.

Even if Hastings had been plotting against Richard, I definitely don't think Richard would have ordered a summary execution of Hastings without a proper trial (meaning, before the parliament) just because he was enraged and felt betrayed. It's so out of character that it makes me convinced there's got to be a more convincing alternative scenario to all this.

Not to mention that if 'villainous Richard' really wanted to get rid of Hastings, he could have had him murdered and then pinned it on the Woodville faction, which would have been not only easier but also served a dual purpose. That's what I'd have done. (Well, not literally, but you know what I mean&)

Pansy

Hmmm,

I wonder if we need a full, scholarly biography of Hastings (ie not the standard of bio that's been coming out recently on WotR personnel). Can we really assume that Hastings hated the Woodvilles en bloc and all the time? After all, he gave his stepdaughter Cecily Bonville in marriage to the Queen's eldest son. Mancini suggests that he happened to be quarrelling with Dorset over mistresses at the time of Edward's death. Allegedly, the two were made to swear a solemn oath of friendship, and that would have been a very much more important matter than it would seem to us today.

I can see that Hastings would have had a motive to get Sir Thomas Vaughan out of the way as he had been Edward V's chamberlain as Prince of Wales, but I do think it's possible that a combination of Buckingham's massive intrusion into the picture and that oath of friendship to his stepson Dorset could have formed the basis of a gradual realignment of Hastings' loyalties as the protectorate wore on. If he got on well with Edward V (and we don't know that he didn't) then he might have allowed himself to be persuaded that the Woodvilles would reward his support better than Richard.

I suspect that, just as in later plots and rebellions, we had here a motley collection of people all with different long-term goals and all deceiving each other to some degree. Some may only have wanted Buckingham taken out, as has been suggested. Others probably looked to get rid of Richard and assert their own control over the boy king. Margaret Beaufort may have been interested, and looked no further at this stage than a place at court and a Yorkist princess for her darling boy. Or she - along with others - may have been hoping that with a bit of encouragement the entire House of York would implode. Or she may not have been involved at all.

Where does Mistress Shore come into all this? Her alleged links to both Dorset and Hastings are interesting at the very least.

Marie

Yes, we weren't familiar with that piece of Vaughan Williams, a composer we love. My husband quickly nailed that it was by him and then I looked it up.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Glad you watched it. All the music was lovely but I particularly liked the Vaughan Williams hymn for the procession and the lovely mystical music as they were lowering him into his grave. Sun hasn't shined here since; Aslan must have gone :)The other argument no-one raised on the princes is why Richard didn't make it a clean sweep and kill Warwick - what's the point of killing two and leaving the other alive? After all an attainder can soon be reversed, particularly if you were a baby when it was made against your dad? H   
From: "davetheslave44@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 4 April 2015, 8:58
Subject: Re: Ceremony

  Just watched the ceremony (youtube version). I wasn't, in actual fact, intending to view it but felt driven to. I feel I could be getting on with other things, but this whole Richard 'thing' has distracted me, somewhat, and has been for several days, and which actually led me to join this forum.
The service was quite moving. I especially liked the hymn after Cumberbatch's recital.
Julian Fellowes doesn't know what he's talking about. He hasn't the slightest notion about Richard at all, so will continue with his bias, etc.
If the actions of a child killer are to love, nurture and take care of one of your nephews, I don't know what a child killer is. My God!!
If people really care about this and want to read a completely unbiased account of Richard's short life, then I would suggest the biography (one of the very few objective accounts) by Clements Markham would be a safe bet. I can't speak about Paul Murray Kendall's biography. I had it once but never read it. My mum, instead, devoured it from cover to cover.

Dave

I find our present political situation, and the plotting thereof quite worrying and I don't think I am alone.
I suppose at least in Richard's day the common man and woman didn't know what was going on so couldn't worry about it.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Spot on! And in 1483 they'd had no time at all to prepare. H 
From: "'Sandra J Machin' sandramachin@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 4 April 2015, 10:50
Subject: Re: Re: Ceremony

  It struck me this morning that there are a LOT of parallels between the events of 1483 and the electoral campaign here in 2015. Just who is allying with whom? Who is being sneaky behind who's back? Who is plotting and scheming? Who is spreading disinformation? Who has the long knife out, polished and sharpened? That leads me to wonder...who are the present day Richard, Hastings and Edward V?   Sandra =^..^=  

I think I asked that too somewhere Marie but it got lost. I reckon she could be very significant. For a start, as we know, she was connected with the City of London (ie the Aldermen and the Guilds) through her father and ex-husband. Rumour could have been fed in via them. At the moment I reckon the City did have a view but I can't get my head round whether they were pro or anti-Richard - there are reasons they could be either. We know a bit about the City because they refused to support Warwick in 1471 because of his threat to move their Hansa trade to France. So trade is one thing they feel very strongly about. They effectively brought down the Readeption before MOA had even got here. They also have an ear to the Continent via Calais and the Staple and of course to Bruges and the Hansa through trade as well. So someone could have stirred the City against Richard, against Hastings? Who? Why? These immensely rich people in charge of a quarter of the population could, as they'd shown in the past, be just as effective as men in suits of armour. I'd be interested in your thoughts on Mistress Shore Marie H
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 3 April 2015, 17:27
Subject: Re: Re: Ceremony

Hmmm,
I wonder if we need a full, scholarly biography of Hastings (ie not the standard of bio that's been coming out recently on WotR personnel). Can we really assume that Hastings hated the Woodvilles en bloc and all the time? After all, he gave his stepdaughter Cecily Bonville in marriage to the Queen's eldest son. Mancini suggests that he happened to be quarrelling with Dorset over mistresses at the time of Edward's death. Allegedly, the two were made to swear a solemn oath of friendship, and that would have been a very much more important matter than it would seem to us today. I can see that Hastings would have had a motive to get Sir Thomas Vaughan out of the way as he had been Edward V's chamberlain as Prince of Wales, but I do think it's possible that a combination of Buckingham's massive intrusion into the picture and that oath of friendship to his stepson Dorset could have formed the basis of a gradual realignment of Hastings' loyalties as the protectorate wore on. If he got on well with Edward V (and we don't know that he didn't) then he might have allowed himself to be persuaded that the Woodvilles would reward his support better than Richard. I suspect that, just as in later plots and rebellions, we had here a motley collection of people all with different long-term goals and all deceiving each other to some degree. Some may only have wanted Buckingham taken out, as has been suggested. Others probably looked to get rid of Richard and assert their own control over the boy king. Margaret Beaufort may have been interested, and looked no further at this stage than a place at court and a Yorkist princess for her darling boy. Or she - along with others - may have been hoping that with a bit of encouragement the entire House of York would implode. Or she may not have been involved at all. Where does Mistress Shore come into all this? Her alleged links to both Dorset and Hastings are interesting at the very least. Marie

Good points, Maria - very plausible. I've never even seriously considered the fact that Hastings would have been anything other than loyal to Edward V, which goes to show how the traditional ideas can stick like mud even in the most critical revisionists...

Hi Hilary,

Agree about the Threlkelds. And, whilst we're on the subject of northerners' preference for naming their sons after legendary heroes, there's that item in Storey's End of the House of Lancaster about the armed dispute in 1421 involving Robert Crackenthorpe of Howgill and his sons Roland and Oliver.

My take on Mistress Shore is that it was a purely personal connection. Having been Edward IV's mistress, she was part and parcel of his court in those later years, and so had no connection with Gloucester - who probably disdained her. Now, this is pure speculation, but here it is:

Edward had already cast of Elizabeth Lambert-Shore before his death in favour of the Wayte lady, and had attempted to pass her down the line ,resulting in Dorset and Hastings quarrelling over which of them should get her. I infer this from Mancini, who says:

of Edward IV: " as soon as he grew weary of dalliance, he gave up the ladies against their will to the other courtiers."

Of Hastings: "he maintained a deadly feud with the Queen's son, who we said was called the marquess, and that because of the mistresses whom they had abducted, or attempted to entice from one another."

"... at the command and entreaty of the king, who loved each of them, they had been reconciled two days before he died..."

Now, there may have been other such quarrels in the past, but later in the year Richard denounced Mistress Shore as Dorset's mistress, although More has her as Hastings' mistress at the time of the Tower plot. I hate to use More, and I'm rather concerned that he has simply substituted Hastings for Dorset, but a lot of historians imply from this that she was acting as a go-between. If she felt she needed a protector, then it would make utter sense for her to have gone to Hastings after Dorset fell, and try to bring him over to her way of thinking.

As regards the city, I see the merchants as being on Richard's side in the main (you'll never have everyone thinking the same way). The city refused the demands of the Queen and Dorset that they should arm to deny entry to Gloucester and Buckingham, and so they scuttled into sanctuary realising they had few friends in the capital. Richard's parliament bent over backwards to enact legislation dreamed up by the city merchants to protect their own interests, and there was never any rebellion against Richard from within the city. After Bosworth Henry delayed before attempting to enter London, and a London contingent set out to join the great risings that were planned in April 1486.

Okay, there were a few people who were involved in treason against Richard and resident in London at the time in question (such as Colyngbourne), but the interesting thing is that they were only a few, and their plans were brought to Richard's attention.

That's my current line of thinking, anyway.

Marie

Hum. I don't think any of them are anywhere near as brave or loyal as Richard. Maybe we'd be in a better state if some of our leaders had his qualities.

Gillian

Thanks a million for all this David. Are the Chastel the Chastillons? It's most complex and you really have to go back almost to 1066 don't you? I am still struggling with the war of the Breton succession, remembering which side England and France supported. But I begin to understand a lot more why English interference in French and Breton matters would not be welcomed in 1483. H
From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 4 April 2015, 15:44
Subject: Re: Re: Ceremony

Pansy, Regarding pro-Tudor connections to Brittany - a more direct link may be seen if you ignore the Margaret of Anjou connection and look at the family du Chastel. They were the most influential family in western Brittany in the 15th century but provided military leaders to the Duke and to the Kings of France.
If the name rings a bell, it was Guillaume du Chastel killed by Richard of York in 1441 at Pontoise. He was given the honour of burial at the royal necropolis at Saint Denis.
The Chastels' cousins called de Coëtivy produced a cardinal and an admiral. Olivier de Coëtivy - introduced to court by Tanguy du Chastel - was made tutor of one of Charles VII's children by Agnes Sorel. Olivier and Marie de Valois married and through this marriage, Henry Tudor had many cousins among the nobility of Brittany.
Incidentally, I don't think there was a pro-Tudor faction until after there was a general belief that the Princes were dead.
Kind regards David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
At 1 Apr 2015 21:22:46, [email protected]'> wrote:

Good points, Maria - very plausible. I've never even seriously considered the fact that Hastings would have been anything other than loyal to Edward V, which goes to show how the traditional ideas can stick like mud even in the most critical revisionists...
And I agree with you that Morton remained a Lancastrian and was with the pro-Tudor faction all along. I've often said that I think the pro-Tudor conspiracy was of long standing; I personally believe it had been the Lancastrian plan at least since the death of Clarence.
I've been digging up Margaret of Anjou's connections to Breton nobility and to Tudor supporters in Brittany, and there's a lot of stuff waiting to be discovered there. She wasn't a broken woman, of that I'm sure: what else had she left to live for, except revenge and the destruction of the Yorkists? Ten years is a long time to twiddle one's thumbs and wait for death.
Pansy

Hilary wrote:

"The reason I asked about the City is that there is a very high correlation between virtually all of those mentioned by various folk as being connected with the disappearance of the princes - the Tyrells, the Hautes, the Darcys, even Sir Thomas Moyle and several others - and the Mayors and Aldermen of London and this goes on right into the reign of Henry VIII and connects to some of the people he 'disposed of'. Even Sir Thomas More who was connected to the Ropers and betrayed by Rich (all Londoners)."

Marie:

One Tyrell was mentioned in connection with the disappearance of the Princes, but no other members of that family, and none of their Haute, Darcy or Moyle relatives. Sir Thomas Moyle is only connected if one accepts modern theories that Richard Plantagenet of Eastwell was really Richard of Shrewsbury.

The problem is, for me, that stringing people together on family trees is fascinating but there is almost no one who was anyone who can't be fitted into the same big family tree at this period, and in order to assess the importance of any particular link in the case of any particular individual we have to look at other historical evidence. Genealogy and history, in other words, are overlapping but distinct disciplines. As an example: based merely on a family tree one would assume that in the 1450s Salisbury's sons and the sons of the Earl of Northumberland would have been close bosom buddies; and one would equally assume that the 4th earl of Northumberland would have been Richard's natural ally at Bosworth since the family tree does not show his wife's near brush with marriage to Henry Tudor.

Also, as regards Londoners, there is such a huge overlap between the London merchant class and the gentry and merchants classes of Essex, Suffolk and other counties surrounding the capital that it can be a bit of a red herring. They include families with Woodville links, others with old Lancastrian links, and those with purely Yorkist connections. There would have been a dominant faction at any one time, and again in order to work out what that was at any one time one would need to study other types of evidence. More than that, of course, at all times the London merchants were assessing what political outcome would best serve their own needs. I think it's probably over-romanticising the situation to imagine that the majority of merchants - men who, however prosperous, had families to provide for and owed their wealth to hard work and favourable trading conditions - would be over-inclined to risk all for the sake of political attachments.

As regards allegiances, as Toby Capwell said in his interview on Channel 4 on Sunday 22nd, people didn't follow am ideal or a party back then, they followed an individual. So for me it is Sir James Tyrell's personal relationship with Richard rather than the political connections of his cousins and cousins-in-law, of even those of his late father, that determined his allegiance.

Whatever may be said of other members of the extended Tyrell clan, Sir James was a staunch Ricardian Yorkist. As you know, after his father's execution his wardship was granted to Cecily Neville, who was kind enough to let him stay with his mother until he was old enough to begin training in a noble household, at which time she placed him with the Suffolks. He seems to have got on well with them (in later years he still acted as one of the Suffolks' feoffees), and from that time onwards he never looked back. He so distinguished himself on the Yorkist side at Tewkesbury that he was knighted. He may have fought under Richard there, but at any rate he was Richard's man from then on in. In 1472-3 he was at Richard's side during the business with the Countess of Oxford. In May/June 1473 he was the man Richard sent to Beaulieu Abbey to fetch the Countess of Warwick and bring her back to Middleham. Richard then makes use of Sir James' own geographical connections: he becomes Richard's chief agent in the lordship of Glamorgan, his messenger to the Stonors and probably other families in the Thames Valley. But he must have been in Richard's household in the North a great part of the time because he acted as a feoffee for Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, and in 1480 he acted with Richard as an arbitrator in a dispute between the Harringtons and Musgraves. He was promoted by Richard to Master of the Horse at the first opportunity.

In other words, Sir James was Richard's man. And when Richard needed as new governor of Guisnes, it was Sir James to whom he turned, and it was only because he was holding that particular fort for Richard in 1485 that he was not by his side at Bosworth. He may have been saved by his absence from the battle and by some the existence of cousins who were in Henry and Elizabeth's good books. But that doesn't mean he was necessarily happy with the situation, and after the rebellions of the spring of 1486 he felt the need to take out a pardon for himself as an individual and also for the whole garrison of Guisnes (by default including himself): these are the famous two pardons.

So whilst I by no means rule out the possibility that Tyrell knew something about the fate of the Princes, I remain convinced that such involvement would have been at Richard's behest.

And, as far as More's story is concerned: It is surely impossible that Tyrell and Dighton both confessed to involvement in the murder of the Queen's brothers and not only was neither of them charged for the crime, but John Dighton was actually released and was still a free man at the time More wrote. Oh, he's like to be hanged any time, though, says More. Wasn't, though, was he? No wonder a lot of people suspect More's whole ''history' was a spoof.

So if Tyrell knew something about the fate of the Princes, that story wasn't it.

Marie

As for Toby Capwell - I like him but his speciality is armour. I doubt there were any true loyalties. It was (and still is) all about money and land. Cheers H

Marie:

Isn't that a bit of a sweeping statement? It's amazing how much some of the Lancastrian nobility were prepared to suffer in the 1460s for the sake of their oaths to Henry VI. Yes, a lot of it was about money and land. Even today it's about money and power, but that's just an unscrupulous class of people who have power and make big waves simply because they are unscrupulous. Should we say that for Margaret Beaufort it was all about money and land? But actually it seems to me that in your assessment you are actually assuming it was mainly about family ties and party loyalty. Perhaps it would help if you were to set out your theory in full because I'm afraid your hints aren't really taking me along, but perhaps you are keeping your powder dry for a publication.

I think, as I have said, that for the merchant classes it was chiefly about a stable trading environment, and so I would suggest that for the city, faced with the choice between the rule of a mature and capable leader on the one hand and a minority followed by the rule of an immature teenager on the other, it was what might be termed a no-brainer. We evidently don't see this the same way at all. I imagine that by 1485, with the loss of Richard's heir, the defection of Hammes, the campaign of rumour, the threatened Tudor invasion and the raising of large loans, the city is likely to have been much less certain about the benefits of Richard's rkingship. Still, look at the two small London chronicles that have been found in recent years and which (unlike the better-known ones) were written up as the events happened - the 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen' and the Frowyk Chronicle: they both take a positive view of Richard.

I've not studied all of Arthurson's book but the little digression we had on this forum regarding his quoting of Perkin's proclamation has not filled me with confidence (he used Bacon's inaccurate version, in which Perkin directly accused Richard of murdering his brother), and the whole book starts by quoting verbatim Perkin's confession as given in the Great Chronicle. Arthurson writes as though he is giving hard facts throughout and that is one of the things that make his book look so impressive, but often he is merely quoting accusations emanating from the Tudor camp which do not necessarily stand up well to scrutiny. He has an impressive grasp of European political history, but I'm not convinced that he studied the PW matter in the same sort of depth, being quite convinced from the outset that the official account would be correct.

He often relies on other writers whose sources he has not checked: for instance, the mistake over the proclamation was the result of his simply copying the version used in Diana Kleyn's book; and he copies his mentor Christine Carpenter in claiming that "In May of that year [1488] in what might have been the forerunner of an emergent policy, Henry VII allowed Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick, to witness a document in Warwickshire." I happened to have checked this one out. On this date a lease was made in the name of Warwick, Lisle and a number of others, whom I presume were feoffees, of a Warwickshire manor that had been the joint property of Warwick and Lisle; Christine Carpenter, who seems only to have looked at a book summarising the contents the Walsall Archives where the document is housed, and took that description as meaning that Warwick had personally witnessed the charter in Warwickshire; she was partly misled by Vergil's claim that Warwick was 15 at the time of Bosworth and so thought Henry may have been planning to grant him livery of his estates. I have actually looked at this document. There are no named witnesses - it merely says the witnesses have appended their seals, but the seals have melted at some time and only one of them still retains any trace of its original design and it is not Warwick's. Also, the dating clause does not say *where* the document was witnessed. It is therefore completely unjustified to use this charter as evidence that Warwick was free and in Warwickshire at this period, and it may be that the puzzling use of his name simply reflects the anomalous ownership history of the manor, which as I say had been joint property.

Like Ann Wroe (though in a different way) he also confuses the careers of two separate John Taillours. I don't know what else I would have found if I'd persisted further.

Marie

Thanks a million for all this David. Are the Chastel the Chastillons? It's most complex and you really have to go back almost to 1066 don't you? I am still struggling with the war of the Breton succession, remembering which side England and France supported. But I begin to understand a lot more why English interference in French and Breton matters would not be welcomed in 1483. H
From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Saturday, 4 April 2015, 15:44
Subject: Re: Re: Ceremony

Pansy,Regarding pro-Tudor connections to Brittany - a more direct link may be seen if you ignore the Margaret of Anjou connection and look at the family du Chastel. They were the most influential family in western Brittany in the 15th century but provided military leaders to the Duke and to the Kings of France.
If the name rings a bell, it was Guillaume du Chastel killed by Richard of York in 1441 at Pontoise. He was given the honour of burial at the royal necropolis at Saint Denis.
The Chastels' cousins called de Coëtivy produced a cardinal and an admiral. Olivier de Coëtivy - introduced to court by Tanguy du Chastel - was made tutor of one of Charles VII's children by Agnes Sorel. Olivier and Marie de Valois married and through this marriage, Henry Tudor had many cousins among the nobility of Brittany.
Incidentally, I don't think there was a pro-Tudor faction until after there was a general belief that the Princes were dead.
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
At 1 Apr 2015 21:22:46, [email protected]'> wrote:

Good points, Maria - very plausible. I've never even seriously considered the fact that Hastings would have been anything other than loyal to Edward V, which goes to show how the traditional ideas can stick like mud even in the most critical revisionists...
And I agree with you that Morton remained a Lancastrian and was with the pro-Tudor faction all along. I've often said that I think the pro-Tudor conspiracy was of long standing; I personally believe it had been the Lancastrian plan at least since the death of Clarence.
I've been digging up Margaret of Anjou's connections to Breton nobility and to Tudor supporters in Brittany, and there's a lot of stuff waiting to be discovered there. She wasn't a broken woman, of that I'm sure: what else had she left to live for, except revenge and the destruction of the Yorkists? Ten years is a long time to twiddle one's thumbs and wait for death.
Pansy


At 4 Apr 2015 17:20:47, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:

Thanks a million for all this David. Are the Chastel the Chastillons? It's most complex and you really have to go back almost to 1066 don't you? I am still struggling with the war of the Breton succession, remembering which side England and France supported. But I begin to understand a lot more why English interference in French and Breton matters would not be welcomed in 1483. H
From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Saturday, 4 April 2015, 15:44
Subject: Re: Re: Ceremony

Pansy,Regarding pro-Tudor connections to Brittany - a more direct link may be seen if you ignore the Margaret of Anjou connection and look at the family du Chastel. They were the most influential family in western Brittany in the 15th century but provided military leaders to the Duke and to the Kings of France.
If the name rings a bell, it was Guillaume du Chastel killed by Richard of York in 1441 at Pontoise. He was given the honour of burial at the royal necropolis at Saint Denis.
The Chastels' cousins called de Coëtivy produced a cardinal and an admiral. Olivier de Coëtivy - introduced to court by Tanguy du Chastel - was made tutor of one of Charles VII's children by Agnes Sorel. Olivier and Marie de Valois married and through this marriage, Henry Tudor had many cousins among the nobility of Brittany.
Incidentally, I don't think there was a pro-Tudor faction until after there was a general belief that the Princes were dead.
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
At 1 Apr 2015 21:22:46, [email protected]'> wrote:

Good points, Maria - very plausible. I've never even seriously considered the fact that Hastings would have been anything other than loyal to Edward V, which goes to show how the traditional ideas can stick like mud even in the most critical revisionists...
And I agree with you that Morton remained a Lancastrian and was with the pro-Tudor faction all along. I've often said that I think the pro-Tudor conspiracy was of long standing; I personally believe it had been the Lancastrian plan at least since the death of Clarence.
I've been digging up Margaret of Anjou's connections to Breton nobility and to Tudor supporters in Brittany, and there's a lot of stuff waiting to be discovered there. She wasn't a broken woman, of that I'm sure: what else had she left to live for, except revenge and the destruction of the Yorkists? Ten years is a long time to twiddle one's thumbs and wait for death.
Pansy


At 4 Apr 2015 17:20:47, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:

Thanks a million for all this David. Are the Chastel the Chastillons? It's most complex and you really have to go back almost to 1066 don't you? I am still struggling with the war of the Breton succession, remembering which side England and France supported. But I begin to understand a lot more why English interference in French and Breton matters would not be welcomed in 1483. H
From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Saturday, 4 April 2015, 15:44
Subject: Re: Re: Ceremony

Pansy,Regarding pro-Tudor connections to Brittany - a more direct link may be seen if you ignore the Margaret of Anjou connection and look at the family du Chastel. They were the most influential family in western Brittany in the 15th century but provided military leaders to the Duke and to the Kings of France.
If the name rings a bell, it was Guillaume du Chastel killed by Richard of York in 1441 at Pontoise. He was given the honour of burial at the royal necropolis at Saint Denis.
The Chastels' cousins called de Coëtivy produced a cardinal and an admiral. Olivier de Coëtivy - introduced to court by Tanguy du Chastel - was made tutor of one of Charles VII's children by Agnes Sorel. Olivier and Marie de Valois married and through this marriage, Henry Tudor had many cousins among the nobility of Brittany.
Incidentally, I don't think there was a pro-Tudor faction until after there was a general belief that the Princes were dead.
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
At 1 Apr 2015 21:22:46, [email protected]'> wrote:

Good points, Maria - very plausible. I've never even seriously considered the fact that Hastings would have been anything other than loyal to Edward V, which goes to show how the traditional ideas can stick like mud even in the most critical revisionists...
And I agree with you that Morton remained a Lancastrian and was with the pro-Tudor faction all along. I've often said that I think the pro-Tudor conspiracy was of long standing; I personally believe it had been the Lancastrian plan at least since the death of Clarence.
I've been digging up Margaret of Anjou's connections to Breton nobility and to Tudor supporters in Brittany, and there's a lot of stuff waiting to be discovered there. She wasn't a broken woman, of that I'm sure: what else had she left to live for, except revenge and the destruction of the Yorkists? Ten years is a long time to twiddle one's thumbs and wait for death.
Pansy

Hilary wrote:

"The reason I asked about the City is that there is a very high correlation between virtually all of those mentioned by various folk as being connected with the disappearance of the princes - the Tyrells, the Hautes, the Darcys, even Sir Thomas Moyle and several others - and the Mayors and Aldermen of London and this goes on right into the reign of Henry VIII and connects to some of the people he 'disposed of'. Even Sir Thomas More who was connected to the Ropers and betrayed by Rich (all Londoners)."

Marie:

One Tyrell was mentioned in connection with the disappearance of the Princes, but no other members of that family, and none of their Haute, Darcy or Moyle relatives. Sir Thomas Moyle is only connected if one accepts modern theories that Richard Plantagenet of Eastwell was really Richard of Shrewsbury.

The problem is, for me, that stringing people together on family trees is fascinating but there is almost no one who was anyone who can't be fitted into the same big family tree at this period, and in order to assess the importance of any particular link in the case of any particular individual we have to look at other historical evidence. Genealogy and history, in other words, are overlapping but distinct disciplines. As an example: based merely on a family tree one would assume that in the 1450s Salisbury's sons and the sons of the Earl of Northumberland would have been close bosom buddies; and one would equally assume that the 4th earl of Northumberland would have been Richard's natural ally at Bosworth since the family tree does not show his wife's near brush with marriage to Henry Tudor.

Also, as regards Londoners, there is such a huge overlap between the London merchant class and the gentry and merchants classes of Essex, Suffolk and other counties surrounding the capital that it can be a bit of a red herring. They include families with Woodville links, others with old Lancastrian links, and those with purely Yorkist connections. There would have been a dominant faction at any one time, and again in order to work out what that was at any one time one would need to study other types of evidence. More than that, of course, at all times the London merchants were assessing what political outcome would best serve their own needs. I think it's probably over-romanticising the situation to imagine that the majority of merchants - men who, however prosperous, had families to provide for and owed their wealth to hard work and favourable trading conditions - would be over-inclined to risk all for the sake of political attachments.

As regards allegiances, as Toby Capwell said in his interview on Channel 4 on Sunday 22nd, people didn't follow am ideal or a party back then, they followed an individual. So for me it is Sir James Tyrell's personal relationship with Richard rather than the political connections of his cousins and cousins-in-law, of even those of his late father, that determined his allegiance.

Whatever may be said of other members of the extended Tyrell clan, Sir James was a staunch Ricardian Yorkist. As you know, after his father's execution his wardship was granted to Cecily Neville, who was kind enough to let him stay with his mother until he was old enough to begin training in a noble household, at which time she placed him with the Suffolks. He seems to have got on well with them (in later years he still acted as one of the Suffolks' feoffees), and from that time onwards he never looked back. He so distinguished himself on the Yorkist side at Tewkesbury that he was knighted. He may have fought under Richard there, but at any rate he was Richard's man from then on in. In 1472-3 he was at Richard's side during the business with the Countess of Oxford. In May/June 1473 he was the man Richard sent to Beaulieu Abbey to fetch the Countess of Warwick and bring her back to Middleham. Richard then makes use of Sir James' own geographical connections: he becomes Richard's chief agent in the lordship of Glamorgan, his messenger to the Stonors and probably other families in the Thames Valley. But he must have been in Richard's household in the North a great part of the time because he acted as a feoffee for Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, and in 1480 he acted with Richard as an arbitrator in a dispute between the Harringtons and Musgraves. He was promoted by Richard to Master of the Horse at the first opportunity.

In other words, Sir James was Richard's man. And when Richard needed as new governor of Guisnes, it was Sir James to whom he turned, and it was only because he was holding that particular fort for Richard in 1485 that he was not by his side at Bosworth. He may have been saved by his absence from the battle and by some the existence of cousins who were in Henry and Elizabeth's good books. But that doesn't mean he was necessarily happy with the situation, and after the rebellions of the spring of 1486 he felt the need to take out a pardon for himself as an individual and also for the whole garrison of Guisnes (by default including himself): these are the famous two pardons.

So whilst I by no means rule out the possibility that Tyrell knew something about the fate of the Princes, I remain convinced that such involvement would have been at Richard's behest.

And, as far as More's story is concerned: It is surely impossible that Tyrell and Dighton both confessed to involvement in the murder of the Queen's brothers and not only was neither of them charged for the crime, but John Dighton was actually released and was still a free man at the time More wrote. Oh, he's like to be hanged any time, though, says More. Wasn't, though, was he? No wonder a lot of people suspect More's whole ''history' was a spoof.

So if Tyrell knew something about the fate of the Princes, that story wasn't it.

Marie

Jess asked:

Marie, is it possible do you think that James Tyrell was made master of Guisnes because the princes had been spirited away to the continent by him, (referring in this instance to the family story at Gipping), and Richard wanting someone on that side of the channel to have at least an overview of their care and support?
Am I just being fanciful?

Marie replies:

Of course it's possible. The problem is that we don't know. My own feeling is that Edward V was probably dead, and that this was why no one later claimed to be him. Whatever happened to the Princes was, I suspect, complicated and not what anyone had intended. Despite the sweeping generalisations of academics, I don't see the fact that there had been an attempt in their favour as indicating Richard must have killed them as other kings had killed those they supplanted, because in those other cases the deposed kings had been responsible adults who could be deemed to have infringed some agreement or ruled unjustly, and the death was announced ad a body shown. Also, not every 'usurper' was as ruthless or quick off the mark as Henry IV in having his rival put to silence: Henry VI survived Lancastrian plots in 1468, and Warwick's negotiations with QM in 1470. When looking at which deposed kings were killed when, in fact, certain firm rules emerge:

1) A body must be produced, and if this does not happen or if (as in the case of Richard II) it is not easily recognisable, then the belief that the individual survives is likely to continue to fuel unrest.

2) The death, even in the case of an adult, must be passed off as having been due to natural causes.

3) The new king must have the old king's next natural heir in his possession before he strikes, otherwise he increases, rather than decreases, the threat to his security.

Therefore Edward III's administration could safely claim that Edward II was dead. Henry IV could safely do away with Richard II as he had the Mortimer brothers in his keeping. Edward IV could not, however, do away with Henry VI until after the death of Edward of Lancaster and the capture of his next heir, the duke of Exeter. After Exeter's death at sea Edward immediately made attempts to get Henry Tudor repatriated as he now became a threat (and this is one of two reasons why I do not for one minute believe that Exeter's drowning took place at Edward's command - I suspect it was the result of a failed escape attempt).

The murdered rival had to be an adult. Even the ruthless Henry IV did not kill the Mortimer brothers (although the younger one died during the course of his custody), not even after they had escaped and been recaptured; he merely had them kept in more secure places and frequently moved; Henry VII similarly kept Warwick locked up until he was an adult and could be charged with something. Richard's murder of the Princes would therefore have broken every single rule, because:

1) They were innocent children (the suspicion that he had murdered them is what has really trashed his reputation)

2) He did not have possession of their next heirs (their sisters), who - crucially - had also been the subject of an escape attempt, and

3) he neither produced bodies nor even.announced the deaths. The traditional view, that he allowed the rumour of their murders to spread, really has no legs because such a policy would have taken a long time, left Richard with the blame, and not provided the public with certainty in any case.

The historical precedent, in fact, suggests that, after the failed attempt to spring them from the Tower at the end of July, Richard would have moved the boys from the Tower to some strong and remote location, and may have planned to move them on again every year or so. My suspicion is that this plan went wrong, but I can't be a lot more precise. I don't set a great deal of store by the Tyrell family tradition because apart from anything else I see no evidence that Elizabeth Woodville herself left sanctuary. There may well be a nugget of truth within the tradition as it was recorded c.1800, but I think it's unlikely to be entirely accurate. What I do think is that any idea that doesn't break the rules of common sense should form the framework for further research, but it needs to be dispassionate research and not an attempt to prove a theory. I'm not at all suggesting that is what you would do, Jess, but unfortunately there are a lot of historians who write their conclusions first.

Marie

Jess asked:

Marie, is it possible do you think that James Tyrell was made master of Guisnes because the princes had been spirited away to the continent by him, (referring in this instance to the family story at Gipping), and Richard wanting someone on that side of the channel to have at least an overview of their care and support?
Am I just being fanciful?

Marie replies:

Of course it's possible. The problem is that we don't know. My own feeling is that Edward V was probably dead, and that this was why no one later claimed to be him. Whatever happened to the Princes was, I suspect, complicated and not what anyone had intended. Despite the sweeping generalisations of academics, I don't see the fact that there had been an attempt in their favour as indicating Richard must have killed them as other kings had killed those they supplanted, because in those other cases the deposed kings had been responsible adults who could be deemed to have infringed some agreement or ruled unjustly, and the death was announced ad a body shown. Also, not every 'usurper' was as ruthless or quick off the mark as Henry IV in having his rival put to silence: Henry VI survived Lancastrian plots in 1468, and Warwick's negotiations with QM in 1470. When looking at which deposed kings were killed when, in fact, certain firm rules emerge:

1) A body must be produced, and if this does not happen or if (as in the case of Richard II) it is not easily recognisable, then the belief that the individual survives is likely to continue to fuel unrest.

2) The death, even in the case of an adult, must be passed off as having been due to natural causes.

3) The new king must have the old king's next natural heir in his possession before he strikes, otherwise he increases, rather than decreases, the threat to his security.

Therefore Edward III's administration could safely claim that Edward II was dead. Henry IV could safely do away with Richard II as he had the Mortimer brothers in his keeping. Edward IV could not, however, do away with Henry VI until after the death of Edward of Lancaster and the capture of his next heir, the duke of Exeter. After Exeter's death at sea Edward immediately made attempts to get Henry Tudor repatriated as he now became a threat (and this is one of two reasons why I do not for one minute believe that Exeter's drowning took place at Edward's command - I suspect it was the result of a failed escape attempt).

The murdered rival had to be an adult. Even the ruthless Henry IV did not kill the Mortimer brothers (although the younger one died during the course of his custody), not even after they had escaped and been recaptured; he merely had them kept in more secure places and frequently moved; Henry VII similarly kept Warwick locked up until he was an adult and could be charged with something. Richard's murder of the Princes would therefore have broken every single rule, because:

1) They were innocent children (the suspicion that he had murdered them is what has really trashed his reputation)

2) He did not have possession of their next heirs (their sisters), who - crucially - had also been the subject of an escape attempt, and

3) he neither produced bodies nor even.announced the deaths. The traditional view, that he allowed the rumour of their murders to spread, really has no legs because such a policy would have taken a long time, left Richard with the blame, and not provided the public with certainty in any case.

The historical precedent, in fact, suggests that, after the failed attempt to spring them from the Tower at the end of July, Richard would have moved the boys from the Tower to some strong and remote location, and may have planned to move them on again every year or so. My suspicion is that this plan went wrong, but I can't be a lot more precise. I don't set a great deal of store by the Tyrell family tradition because apart from anything else I see no evidence that Elizabeth Woodville herself left sanctuary. There may well be a nugget of truth within the tradition as it was recorded c.1800, but I think it's unlikely to be entirely accurate. What I do think is that any idea that doesn't break the rules of common sense should form the framework for further research, but it needs to be dispassionate research and not an attempt to prove a theory. I'm not at all suggesting that is what you would do, Jess, but unfortunately there are a lot of historians who write their conclusions first.

Marie

"All the Lord Chamberlain's men are become the Duke of Buckingham's men" - this doesn't happen without pre-planning. The link you are missing out is William Catesby, who worked for Hastings, had done some work for Buckingham and was married to a relative of Margaret Beaufort. She never neglected any relative she could use, and much later, when she was The King's Mother, she took two little Catesby girls into her own household and brought them up, and, I think, married them off. Big gratitude to Catesby. Who is also the most likely candidate to pin little messages to tents, just as Margaret is the most likely candidate to have written them.

JP-L

Hi Jess,

Glad you follow my train of thought.

As regards the people at the Tower, I think we have to assume they were unable to give Henry VII information that he could use to satisfy the public. That, I think, fits with my theory that Richard would have had them moved from the Tower after the July plot - it wouldn't help Henry to tell the people that the boys had left the Tower alive but he doesn't know what happened to them after that. I suspect that something untoward happened en route, so that Richard wasn't able to produce them either to put paid to Tudor's ambitions.

No one ever claimed to be Edward V, but actually only one person ever came forward claiming to be Richard Duke of York. So did it happen like that because Edward was known to be dead for sure, or was it simply that the pretender was in fact who he said he was?

About the Gipping story, there are several reasons why I find it hard to buy into. For one thing, it doesn't fit the bill of secure fortress, staffed by his own men, of the sort where Richard would have needed to put them, and to my mind giving them into the care of Elizabeth Woodville at a manor house 35 miles from the coast would have been reckless in the extreme. I also find it hard to believe he would have decided to send the boys to the Low Countries. It's one thing for subjects who feel under threat to send their children abroad for safety, but for a king to put his rivals on board ship to send them out of his own sovereign territory, again, seems rather crazy. Yes, he could probably trust his sister Margaret, but it was a long journey and there's many a slip - suppose they had fallen into French hands? What would have happened to them if Margaret had died? That's not to say that they couldn't have ended up in 'Burgundy', it's just I find it hard to believe it would have been by Richard's design.

The bad news, if I'm right, is of course that if neither Richard nor Henry knew what had happened to them then we surely don't stand much chance of finding out. But stranger things have happened.

Marie

I think the raised eyebrows were when a cleric said Richard was born in May!

Marie, I certainly do follow your train of thought, and I find it most interesting. What does strike me however, as regards the Tower, is how much easier it would be, especially in those days of bad roads, when water was the obvious means of transport, is how much easier it would be to move the Prince's by taking them straight out on to the Thames and away.
That is not to say who moved them, just the means by which it was done.

As regards Perkin Warbeck, I would love to believe in him, but something stops me. I haven't read too much about him, but what I have read, mostly Anne Wroe, just doesn't convince me.

Gipping, I would love to believe it!
All I can say in my defence on that one, is that as I live on the East Coast, it does seem feasible to me that if one was looking to hide people, Suffolk is pretty rural now, then it would really have been the back of beyond, a cover of more than castle walls.
Also Richard was sent to the continent for his own safety, but then why would Richard want his rivals to the throne to be "kings over the water?"

It is all quite intriguing, and will probably keep us busy for a lifetime.

Jess

Hi Jess,

Glad you follow my train of thought.

As regards the people at the Tower, I think we have to assume they were unable to give Henry VII information that he could use to satisfy the public. That, I think, fits with my theory that Richard would have had them moved from the Tower after the July plot - it wouldn't help Henry to tell the people that the boys had left the Tower alive but he doesn't know what happened to them after that. I suspect that something untoward happened en route, so that Richard wasn't able to produce them either to put paid to Tudor's ambitions.

No one ever claimed to be Edward V, but actually only one person ever came forward claiming to be Richard Duke of York. So did it happen like that because Edward was known to be dead for sure, or was it simply that the pretender was in fact who he said he was?

About the Gipping story, there are several reasons why I find it hard to buy into. For one thing, it doesn't fit the bill of secure fortress, staffed by his own men, of the sort where Richard would have needed to put them, and to my mind giving them into the care of  Elizabeth Woodville at a manor house 35 miles from the coast would have been reckless in the extreme. I also find it hard to believe he would have decided to send the boys to the Low Countries. It's one thing for subjects who feel under threat to send their children abroad for safety, but for a king to put his rivals on board ship to send them out of his own sovereign territory, again, seems rather crazy. Yes, he could probably trust his sister Margaret, but it was a long journey and there's many a slip - suppose they had fallen into French hands? What would have happened to them if Margaret had died? That's not to say that they couldn't have ended up in 'Burgundy', it's just I find it hard to believe it would have been by Richard's design.

The bad news, if I'm right, is of course that if neither Richard nor Henry knew  what had happened to them then we surely don't stand much chance of finding out. But stranger things have happened.

Marie

Marie, I certainly do follow your train of thought, and I find it most interesting. What does strike me however, as regards the Tower, is how much easier it would be, especially in those days of bad roads, when water was the obvious means of transport, is how much easier it would be to move the Prince's by taking them straight out on to the Thames and away.
That is not to say who moved them, just the means by which it was done.

As regards Perkin Warbeck, I would love to believe in him, but something stops me. I haven't read too much about him, but what I have read, mostly Anne Wroe, just doesn't convince me.

Gipping, I would love to believe it!
All I can say in my defence on that one, is that as I live on the East Coast, it does seem feasible to me that if one was looking to hide people, Suffolk is pretty rural now, then it would really have been the back of beyond, a cover of more than castle walls.
Also Richard was sent to the continent for his own safety, but then why would Richard want his rivals to the throne to be "kings over the water?"

It is all quite intriguing, and will probably keep us busy for a lifetime.

Jess

Hi Jess,

Glad you follow my train of thought.

As regards the people at the Tower, I think we have to assume they were unable to give Henry VII information that he could use to satisfy the public. That, I think, fits with my theory that Richard would have had them moved from the Tower after the July plot - it wouldn't help Henry to tell the people that the boys had left the Tower alive but he doesn't know what happened to them after that. I suspect that something untoward happened en route, so that Richard wasn't able to produce them either to put paid to Tudor's ambitions.

No one ever claimed to be Edward V, but actually only one person ever came forward claiming to be Richard Duke of York. So did it happen like that because Edward was known to be dead for sure, or was it simply that the pretender was in fact who he said he was?

About the Gipping story, there are several reasons why I find it hard to buy into. For one thing, it doesn't fit the bill of secure fortress, staffed by his own men, of the sort where Richard would have needed to put them, and to my mind giving them into the care of Elizabeth Woodville at a manor house 35 miles from the coast would have been reckless in the extreme. I also find it hard to believe he would have decided to send the boys to the Low Countries. It's one thing for subjects who feel under threat to send their children abroad for safety, but for a king to put his rivals on board ship to send them out of his own sovereign territory, again, seems rather crazy. Yes, he could probably trust his sister Margaret, but it was a long journey and there's many a slip - suppose they had fallen into French hands? What would have happened to them if Margaret had died? That's not to say that they couldn't have ended up in 'Burgundy', it's just I find it hard to believe it would have been by Richard's design.

The bad news, if I'm right, is of course that if neither Richard nor Henry knew what had happened to them then we surely don't stand much chance of finding out. But stranger things have happened.

Marie

What does everyone make of this?

It is all very intriguing:
Quote from website "The Murrey and the Blue"

According to Annette Carson (Richard III the Maligned King pp. 162-63) Tyrell was sent to Flanders on a covert mission, for which payment was issued in January 1485. Whatever this mission was, it must certainly have been of importance for such an influential agent to be employed. Also in January 1485, Tyrell was appointed to command the important castle of Guisnes in the marches of Calais. Here he received a very large and unexplained payment of £3000. (Carson, op.cit, plus Harleian MS 433, vol 2, p191.)

Jess

Marie, I certainly do follow your train of thought, and I find it most interesting. What does strike me however, as regards the Tower, is how much easier it would be, especially in those days of bad roads, when water was the obvious means of transport, is how much easier it would be to move the Prince's by taking them straight out on to the Thames and away.
That is not to say who moved them, just the means by which it was done.

As regards Perkin Warbeck, I would love to believe in him, but something stops me. I haven't read too much about him, but what I have read, mostly Anne Wroe, just doesn't convince me.

Gipping, I would love to believe it!
All I can say in my defence on that one, is that as I live on the East Coast, it does seem feasible to me that if one was looking to hide people, Suffolk is pretty rural now, then it would really have been the back of beyond, a cover of more than castle walls.
Also Richard was sent to the continent for his own safety, but then why would Richard want his rivals to the throne to be "kings over the water?"

It is all quite intriguing, and will probably keep us busy for a lifetime.

Jess

Hi Jess,

Glad you follow my train of thought.

As regards the people at the Tower, I think we have to assume they were unable to give Henry VII information that he could use to satisfy the public. That, I think, fits with my theory that Richard would have had them moved from the Tower after the July plot - it wouldn't help Henry to tell the people that the boys had left the Tower alive but he doesn't know what happened to them after that. I suspect that something untoward happened en route, so that Richard wasn't able to produce them either to put paid to Tudor's ambitions.

No one ever claimed to be Edward V, but actually only one person ever came forward claiming to be Richard Duke of York. So did it happen like that because Edward was known to be dead for sure, or was it simply that the pretender was in fact who he said he was?

About the Gipping story, there are several reasons why I find it hard to buy into. For one thing, it doesn't fit the bill of secure fortress, staffed by his own men, of the sort where Richard would have needed to put them, and to my mind giving them into the care of  Elizabeth Woodville at a manor house 35 miles from the coast would have been reckless in the extreme. I also find it hard to believe he would have decided to send the boys to the Low Countries. It's one thing for subjects who feel under threat to send their children abroad for safety, but for a king to put his rivals on board ship to send them out of his own sovereign territory, again, seems rather crazy. Yes, he could probably trust his sister Margaret, but it was a long journey and there's many a slip - suppose they had fallen into French hands? What would have happened to them if Margaret had died? That's not to say that they couldn't have ended up in 'Burgundy', it's just I find it hard to believe it would have been by Richard's design.

The bad news, if I'm right, is of course that if neither Richard nor Henry knew  what had happened to them then we surely don't stand much chance of finding out. But stranger things have happened.

Marie

Hi Jess,

I actually agree about moving them by water, though not necessarily directly from the Tower - look what happened to William of Suffolk!

I seem to recall that Henry IV moved Richard II up to Yorkshire by water, but first moved him into Kent as a diversion.

Hi Hilary,

Yes, I agree about trust - we don't trust everybody we work with. But the Buckingham episode suggests Richard gave his trust too easily, if anything, and thought 'truth' was a norm of civilised behaviour. There is always an overriding culture, but individual personalities differ, and some people are naturally selfish and manipulative, whilst others are naturally honest and loyal, with various shades of grey in between. Every person tends to assume they represent the norm, therefore the dishonest manipulators think everyone else is as bad as they are, and the very honest folk give their trust too easily - at least until bitter experience teaches them caution.

Tyrell had been in Richard's employ for at least 11 years at the time the Princes disappeared. I think Richard would have known whether to trust him or not - or felt he knew him well enough to tell whether he could.

Yeah, I look at the Anastasia woman Anna Anderson, but the thing about her is that the only relatives of Anastasia who recognised her were those who stood to benefit financially from her claim. I once saw an interview with her and she wasn't very impressive at all - quite coarse in her speech and mannerisms and totally refusing to discuss how she had escaped death. And she probably wasn't quite as delusional as all that - when it was suggested that her dental work could verify her claim, didn't she have all her teeth pulled out?

I don't know what to make of PW because I haven't yet conducted my own research. Ann Wroe has one view of his family, and Ian Arthurson another. The difference between PW and AA is that PW was, as I understand it, not easy to denounce even by people who had known the real RdoY. Also, I don't quite see Anne Wroe's point about height - just because Edward IV was tall and broad it doesn't necessarily follow that his sons would have had the same build; after all, at least one of Edward's brothers was of medium height and slightly built (ie Richard) - and I haven't looked to see what Wroe's sources are for PW's height either. She does have some quite naïve moments, such as her worry that PW couldn't have been of noble birth because he was not brave in battle. One could in fact argue that that puts him in the same league as some of his maternal uncles (not Sir Edward, of course).

It is possible that the Yorkists planned to use PW as a battle flag, then dispose of him after the victory and hail Warwick as king, but I don't have a view on that until I've done my own research. I too often find a gulf between the picture historians present on the page and what their sources really say so I've sadly learned as life has gone on not to make up my mind from reading history books.

Sandra wrote:

"But would Richard regard Edward's boys as his rivals? If he was the honest, sincere man we believe --- and I think he was, perhaps even to the edge of being naïvely trusting, between 1483 and 1485 he had an unspeakably steep and painful learning curve. He was still learning to the very last breath he drew, when he finally saw how treacherous and worthless those around him were. By then it was too late. So, in my opinion, he would regard the boys in the light of being his illegitimate nephews, whom he had sworn to protect. It was his duty to protect them. Once he realised they were from the wrong side of the blanket, he wouldn't have thought of them as a threat. They were baseborn, and therefore excluded forever from the throne. Knowing that others were intent upon using the boys for their own ends, sending them to Burgundy (if that is what happened) would be the obvious thing, surely? He himself had been sheltered there as a boy, and Margaret was certainly someone he would have trusted with his own life."

Marie:

I think you've answered your own question, Sandra. They were his rivals because others were intent upon, as you put it, "using them for their own ends," ie restoring Edward V. They were his rivals in the same sense that Henry VI was Edward IV's rival. In all cases the "usurper" (for want of a better word, I apologise for it) feels he has the true claim to the throne and the person he deposes does not, but is aware that this doesn't mean everyone else in the kingdom is going to think the same way. And bear in mind that those who sought to restore Edward V included the boy's own mother - there really were those who were sincere about it and not just "using them". It wasn't simply a matter of sheltering them - they would , unfortunately, have to be both sheltered and guarded and the less public the location the more freedom they could be allowed.

I'm sorry but I regard both the claim that Richard would have naturally killed the boys at the first sign of trouble, and the opposite view, that Edward V was no threat to Richard, as superficial.

To my mind sending them to "Burgundy" (ie to Margaret's dower lands in the Low Countries) would not have been the obvious thing because: a) the Low Countries were not very secure at this period, b) Margaret was the boys' aunt as well as Richard's sister, and c) she was a childless widow whose lands would revert to other interests on her death, if not before (Edward IV had never paid her dowry). How could Richard really know - at that distance - what she felt about his actions? Also, weren't all those dower lands inland, leaving a possibly hazardous journey?

Also, if the boys were with Margaret why did she say nothing about it after Bosworth? By saying nothing she allowed Elizabeth to marry Henry Tudor, with all the attendant consequences.

What I've tried to do - and I accept that I may well have got it wrong - is to look at precedent. My feeling is that, just like Henry IV, Richard's instinct would have been to house the ex-king in one of the castles that he had owned long before taking the throne, somewhere where he was known and accepted as the natural lord, and somewhere where all the staff were handpicked. But until we find some hard evidence there's unlikely to be a consensus on what happened to them. The town accounts of Mechelen have yielded evidence of the presence of 'Clarence's son' there in 1486 - surely if Edward V and his brother were at Margaret's court for any length of time the same source would record gifts to them too. This is one avenue that could be checked.

Hi Jess,

I theorized on Tyrell's role in the disappearance of the sons of Edward IV in 1999 in my paper Sir James Tyrell: Hero or Villain?  http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/tyrell.html

I've always been of the opinion that Tyrell was instrumental in spiriting away the boys to the Continent.

Cheers,

Tracy

From: [mailto:]
Sent: April-07-15 11:44 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Ceremony

What does everyone make of this?

It is all very intriguing:
Quote from website "The Murrey and the Blue"

According to Annette Carson (Richard III the Maligned King pp. 162-63) Tyrell was sent to Flanders on a covert mission, for which payment was issued in January 1485. Whatever this mission was, it must certainly have been of importance for such an influential agent to be employed. Also in January 1485, Tyrell was appointed to command the important castle of Guisnes in the marches of Calais. Here he received a very large and unexplained payment of £3000. (Carson, op.cit, plus Harleian MS 433, vol 2, p191.)

Jess

From: Jessie Skinner janjovian@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Ceremony
Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 9:17:52 AM

Marie, I certainly do follow your train of thought, and I find it most interesting. What does strike me however, as regards the Tower, is how much easier it would be, especially in those days of bad roads, when water was the obvious means of transport, is how much easier it would be to move the Prince's by taking them straight out on to the Thames and away.
That is not to say who moved them, just the means by which it was done.

As regards Perkin Warbeck, I would love to believe in him, but something stops me. I haven't read too much about him, but what I have read, mostly Anne Wroe, just doesn't convince me.

Gipping, I would love to believe it!
All I can say in my defence on that one, is that as I live on the East Coast, it does seem feasible to me that if one was looking to hide people, Suffolk is pretty rural now, then it would really have been the back of beyond, a cover of more than castle walls.
Also Richard was sent to the continent for his own safety, but then why would Richard want his rivals to the throne to be "kings over the water?"

It is all quite intriguing, and will probably keep us busy for a lifetime.

Jess

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Ceremony
Sent: Mon, Apr 6, 2015 11:21:49 PM

Hi Jess,

Glad you follow my train of thought.

As regards the people at the Tower, I think we have to assume they were unable to give Henry VII information that he could use to satisfy the public. That, I think, fits with my theory that Richard would have had them moved from the Tower after the July plot - it wouldn't help Henry to tell the people that the boys had left the Tower alive but he doesn't know what happened to them after that. I suspect that something untoward happened en route, so that Richard wasn't able to produce them either to put paid to Tudor's ambitions.

No one ever claimed to be Edward V, but actually only one person ever came forward claiming to be Richard Duke of York. So did it happen like that because Edward was known to be dead for sure, or was it simply that the pretender was in fact who he said he was?

About the Gipping story, there are several reasons why I find it hard to buy into. For one thing, it doesn't fit the bill of secure fortress, staffed by his own men, of the sort where Richard would have needed to put them, and to my mind giving them into the care of Elizabeth Woodville at a manor house 35 miles from the coast would have been reckless in the extreme. I also find it hard to believe he would have decided to send the boys to the Low Countries. It's one thing for subjects who feel under threat to send their children abroad for safety, but for a king to put his rivals on board ship to send them out of his own sovereign territory, again, seems rather crazy. Yes, he could probably trust his sister Margaret, but it was a long journey and there's many a slip - suppose they had fallen into French hands? What would have happened to them if Margaret had died? That's not to say that they couldn't have ended up in 'Burgundy', it's just I find it hard to believe it would have been by Richard's design.

The bad news, if I'm right, is of course that if neither Richard nor Henry knew what had happened to them then we surely don't stand much chance of finding out. But stranger things have happened.

Marie

Thank you so much for that fascinating article, Tracy.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Hi Jess,

I theorized on Tyrell's role in the disappearance of the sons of Edward IV in 1999 in my paper Sir James Tyrell: Hero or Villain?  http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/tyrell.html

I've always been of the opinion that Tyrell was instrumental in spiriting away the boys to the Continent.

Cheers,

Tracy

From: [mailto:]
Sent: April-07-15 11:44 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Ceremony

What does everyone make of this?

It is all very intriguing:
Quote from website "The Murrey and the Blue"

According to Annette Carson (Richard III the Maligned King pp. 162-63) Tyrell was sent to Flanders on a covert mission, for which payment was issued in January 1485. Whatever this mission was, it must certainly have been of importance for such an influential agent to be employed. Also in January 1485, Tyrell was appointed to command the important castle of Guisnes in the marches of Calais. Here he received a very large and unexplained payment of £3000. (Carson, op.cit, plus Harleian MS 433, vol 2, p191.)

Jess

From: Jessie Skinner janjovian@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Ceremony
Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 9:17:52 AM

Marie, I certainly do follow your train of thought, and I find it most interesting. What does strike me however, as regards the Tower, is how much easier it would be, especially in those days of bad roads, when water was the obvious means of transport, is how much easier it would be to move the Prince's by taking them straight out on to the Thames and away.
That is not to say who moved them, just the means by which it was done.

As regards Perkin Warbeck, I would love to believe in him, but something stops me. I haven't read too much about him, but what I have read, mostly Anne Wroe, just doesn't convince me.

Gipping, I would love to believe it!
All I can say in my defence on that one, is that as I live on the East Coast, it does seem feasible to me that if one was looking to hide people, Suffolk is pretty rural now, then it would really have been the back of beyond, a cover of more than castle walls.
Also Richard was sent to the continent for his own safety, but then why would Richard want his rivals to the throne to be "kings over the water?"

It is all quite intriguing, and will probably keep us busy for a lifetime.

Jess

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Ceremony
Sent: Mon, Apr 6, 2015 11:21:49 PM

Hi Jess,

Glad you follow my train of thought.

As regards the people at the Tower, I think we have to assume they were unable to give Henry VII information that he could use to satisfy the public. That, I think, fits with my theory that Richard would have had them moved from the Tower after the July plot - it wouldn't help Henry to tell the people that the boys had left the Tower alive but he doesn't know what happened to them after that. I suspect that something untoward happened en route, so that Richard wasn't able to produce them either to put paid to Tudor's ambitions.

No one ever claimed to be Edward V, but actually only one person ever came forward claiming to be Richard Duke of York. So did it happen like that because Edward was known to be dead for sure, or was it simply that the pretender was in fact who he said he was?

About the Gipping story, there are several reasons why I find it hard to buy into. For one thing, it doesn't fit the bill of secure fortress, staffed by his own men, of the sort where Richard would have needed to put them, and to my mind giving them into the care of  Elizabeth Woodville at a manor house 35 miles from the coast would have been reckless in the extreme. I also find it hard to believe he would have decided to send the boys to the Low Countries. It's one thing for subjects who feel under threat to send their children abroad for safety, but for a king to put his rivals on board ship to send them out of his own sovereign territory, again, seems rather crazy. Yes, he could probably trust his sister Margaret, but it was a long journey and there's many a slip - suppose they had fallen into French hands? What would have happened to them if Margaret had died? That's not to say that they couldn't have ended up in 'Burgundy', it's just I find it hard to believe it would have been by Richard's design.

The bad news, if I'm right, is of course that if neither Richard nor Henry knew  what had happened to them then we surely don't stand much chance of finding out. But stranger things have happened.

Marie

Marie responding to Carol re Hastings:

Interesting thought. I recall that Anne Sutton once said, at the Society Triennial on the Princes question, that Mancini misunderstood a lot of things because he did not know the protocol, and that it was nonsense to suppose that Richard wouldn't have been told about Edward IV's death as there was a regular admin procedure in place to send the information around the country.

Which would mean, of course, that Hastings then didn't perform this big favour for Richard, and that would explain why he received no discernible rewards from him.

I think we've been misled re Mancini by Armstrong's analysis of his mission. I've argued before that his own words to his patron indicate that he had to find out much of the quite basic information after his return to France, which suggests to me that he had not been not sent on a spying mission by the French government at all (after all, Cato was not the French government) but had merely moved on to England seeking patronage, like other Italian humanists, presumably having got none from Cato. .

It looks to me as though Cato decided after the fact that he would like information on what had been going on and could use Mancini after all. And that, of course, would mean that - just as he tells us - much of Mancini's information was gathered retrospectively, probably mainly from English exiles many of whom would have been Richard's enemies. This would explain his transposition of Hastings' death and the delivery from Sanctuary of RdoY. It would also explain what may be a rather fanciful view of Hastings' political loyalties, designed by his sources to highlight Richard's bad faith and ruthless ambition.

One more thought, and that is regarding Buckingham's appearance at Northampton.

I actually think Buckingham would have seemed to Rivers a natural person to approach with regard to making up the numbers for the force he was to bring to London with the King because Buck was a) in Wales, b) married to Rivers' sister, and c) a nominal member of the Prince's council. For me, the fact that Buckingham reached Northampton on the same day as Rivers and Richard, coming from the same direction as Rivers, confirms that he was part of Rivers' escort.

More's story about Rivers going back to Northampton to greet Richard doesn't occur in the early sources. According to these, Rivers was taken at Stony Stratford together with Vaughan and Grey. But if one accepts that Rivers considered Buckingham as a member of the royal party, then it immediately appears that Buckingham's greeting of Richard at Northampton fulfilled the same role as More had Rivers perform.

So I am suggesting that Buckingham had been cynically cut loose by Rivers and told to wait at Northampton in order to put Richard at his ease and delay his departure, but Buckingham felt hung out to dry, having been thrown into the lion's den whilst the others made good their escape towards London, and so he changed sides, telling Richard all he knew about Rivers' plans (and possibly even a bit more).

It's speculative, I admit. And I am still puzzled as to why Rivers didn't set off earlier, so as to be sure to miss Richard by a wide margin. Perhaps he was taken by surprise by Richard's approach But that just brings us back to whether the Woodvilles had tried to avoid informing Richard of King Edward's death. But to succeed in that, they would have had to prevent the news going north at all.....

Marie

Carol responds:

Interesting theory, but there is no evidence for any messages pinned to tents. IIRC, the "Jockey of Norfolk, be not too bold" story originates with Hall, who was also the first to depict Edmund Earl of Rutland as a maidenly boy of twelve viciously murdered on Wakefield Bridge by Lord Clifford. Both fictions were, of course, popularized by Shakespeare.

Carol

"Interesting thought. I recall that Anne Sutton once said, at the Society Triennial on the Princes question, that Mancini misunderstood a lot of things because he did not know the protocol, and that it was nonsense to suppose that Richard wouldn't have been told about Edward IV's death as there was a regular admin procedure in place to send the information around the country.

"Which would mean, of course, that Hastings then didn't perform this big favour for Richard, and that would explain why he received no discernible rewards from him.

"I think we've been misled re Mancini by Armstrong's analysis of his mission. I've argued before that his own words to his patron indicate that he had to find out much of the quite basic information after his return to France, which suggests to me that he had not been not sent on a spying mission by the French government at all (after all, Cato was not the French government) but had merely moved on to England seeking patronage, like other Italian humanists, presumably having got none from Cato. .

It looks to me as though Cato decided after the fact that he would like information on what had been going on and could use Mancini after all. And that, of course, would mean that - just as he tells us - much of Mancini's information was gathered retrospectively, probably mainly from English exiles many of whom would have been Richard's enemies. This would explain his transposition of Hastings' death and the delivery from Sanctuary of RdoY. It would also explain what may be a rather fanciful view of Hastings' political loyalties, designed by his sources to highlight Richard's bad faith and ruthless ambition."

Carol responds:

Interesting theory and worth exploring further, I think. Meanwhile, as I've said before, we need a new translation of Mancini, free of Armstrong's assumptions and biases. And that's especially if his preface (which I haven't read for many years) is as flawed as the translation itself. It would need a new title, of course. It's irksome having to cite "The Usurpation of Richard III" as a source! Are students of medieval history still required to learn Latin? If not, let's hope that Rosemary Horrox or Peter Hammond or someone of that generation produces an accurate and objective translation before the opportunity ceases to exist.

Carol