Mythology

I have started to read it Paul. I knew that Jane Bruyn, Thomas's mother had been lady in waiting to the Countess of Warwick, which is not surprising as the Burdetts had been MPs for Warwick and Sheriffs of Worcs (Arrow is on the border of both counties). I do think JAH neglected this and the Twynyho incident when he published his Clarence book. That's what I wanted to read about. Re the book itself, I am beginning to worry about JAH. He makes categorical statement about things which he cannot prove - according to him Stillington carried out the marriage to Eleanor Butler! It's wrong to criticise the mythology of others when you create it yourself to back up an argument in your book. Besides, apart from the statement in Richard's Parliament, we have no actual proof that Edward did marry Eleanor Butler; it could have been concocted by someone (no not Richard) who wanted to destabilise the throne. As I said to Marie the other week, I have lots of names that fit together, but I can't write history based on surmises, which is what JAH is starting to do. And then we have the George height thing again ..... And what finally stitches it for me are the countless snide comments about Leicester (the Cathedral, the City, the University). Actually without their commitment Richard wouldn't have been dug up. As my lady from Leicester said, everyone knew where he was but no-one would take the punt on looking for a potential child-murderer. I reckon folk neglect the fact that it could have backfired terribly had not Richard had so many supporters willing to argue his case. And I have always been for York! So please stop bitching about Leicester JAH, they did a good and honourable job in the end and Richard now has his own town rather than being subsumed into the melee of other monarchs. Rant over. I admire JAH's work and always buy his books, but lately he seems to be churning out stuff which re-iterates his own views which have gone from supposition to tablets of stone. Sorry. (And the rant wasn't addressed at you Paul :) ) H vie From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, 19 April 2015, 17:46
Subject: Mythology

Anyone else reading John Ashdown-Hill's latest 'The Mythology of Richard
III'?
Opening chapter explains his expressions at the service as shown on tv
when the bishop praised the university for the discovery of Richard's
remains!
Some interesting things coming up too.
I had no idea, for example, that Clarence's man Thomas Burdett, who
George rashly defended in the royal council just before his own arrest
by brother Edward, had been attached to the household of the Butler
family, so may well have been privy to the marriage of Eleanor to King
Edward, and the source of the story for Clarence.
How many knew of this prior to 1483, and had Richard simply taken his
brother Edward's word that it was nonsense at the time of Clarence's arrest?
One does wonder.
Paul

What I find sad is that people are attacking him! Ricardians too!
When did your last pro Richard book come out Pam? And tell me Hilary, what was your contribution to the Looking For Richard project?
I wanted to discuss John's book, not assassinate his character.
Perhaps we could do that now instead of these attacks.
And as I said in my previous post I find your comment about the pre contract extraordinary! What you are saying with "apart from the statement in Richard's Parliament, we have no actual proof that Edward did marry Eleanor Butler" is basically Richard had no right to the throne and the evidence was manufactured.
See my earlier post for my reasoning to be so angry about this!
Paul

What I find sad is that people are attacking him! Ricardians too!
When did your last pro Richard book come out Pam? And tell me Hilary, what was your contribution to the Looking For Richard project?
I wanted to discuss John's book, not assassinate his character.
Perhaps we could do that now instead of these attacks.
And as I said in my previous post I find your comment about the pre contract extraordinary! What you are saying with "apart from the statement in Richard's Parliament, we have no actual proof that Edward did marry Eleanor Butler"  is basically Richard had no right to the throne and the evidence was manufactured.
See my earlier post for my reasoning to be so angry about this!
Paul

John’s doctorate is in history and “Beloved Cousin” was based on his dissertation.

Furthermore, he has piled up the evidence for the fact of the pre-contract. In “Eleanor”, he showed how and when it is likely to have happened, how Edward behaved the same way with EW, how Clarence was executed and Stillington imprisoned twice, how the Three Estates believed the evidence and petitioned Richard, how Catesby was executed and how “Tudor” covered up “Titulus Regius” but the truth escaped. In “Royal Marriage Secrets”, he showed that this happened in several other significant cases and now he has connected Burdett to the case. Our Brian has shown how two of Lady Eleanor’s sister’s servants were executed shortly after her death. It all adds up to a powerful case that outweighs the Cairo-dwellers’ squeals decisively and for it to have been manufactured requires anyone to guess at a widowed lady who was already dead, with no ongoing support and who had been in the right place from February 1460/1 to before the Woodville “marriage”.

To assume the pre-contract answers all questions but to assume otherwise requires significant mental gymnastics.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 20 April 2015 19:02
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Mythology

I'm sorry; I had no intention or upsetting or attacking anyone (no not even John Ashdown-Hill: writing history is dangerous when you get it wrong and it's easy to get a bit wrong ) but I have a right to my point of view as does everyone who critiques a book on Amazon. JAH's doctorate is in Modern Languages, not History, and sometimes, because of his enthusiasm, he lacks the rigour of the latter discipline. When you publish you risk criticism just or unjust, that's something every author on here will know.

And when you get it wrong the opposition, and I mean the opposition to Richard, will wade in and exploit, just as we do with them. So it's not about us arguing (which I certainly am not) but about our members getting even tiny things wrong which then devalue all the good arguments they and we as a body put forward. As for the Eleanor Butler story being manufactured (and I did say not to help Richard) we can really never know, can we? And it has absolutely nothing to do with Richard being in the right or in the wrong. He clearly believed it was true, so as far as his morality is concerned there is nothing to fear. H

From: " Judy Thomson judygerard.thomson@... []" < >
To: " " < >
Sent: Monday, 20 April 2015, 17:18
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Mythology

Paul, you have my support.

People, please, please - cease this bickering! And I say this without pointing the finger at any particular person, so try to understand.

We weaken our Goal, which is Richard, when we engage in these ad hom. attacks. It's when we lose track of "Richard," we become the very persons

Judy

Loyaulte me lie

On Monday, April 20, 2015 11:05 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" < > wrote:

What I find sad is that people are attacking him! Ricardians too!
When did your last pro Richard book come out Pam? And tell me Hilary, what was your contribution to the Looking For Richard project?
I wanted to discuss John's book, not assassinate his character.
Perhaps we could do that now instead of these attacks.
And as I said in my previous post I find your comment about the pre contract extraordinary! What you are saying with "apart from the statement in Richard's Parliament, we have no actual proof that Edward did marry Eleanor Butler" is basically Richard had no right to the throne and the evidence was manufactured.
See my earlier post for my reasoning to be so angry about this!
Paul

On 20/04/2015 14:02, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:

Very well said, and it is sad about JAH. Perhaps all the other fictions have had an effect on Ashton-Hill, and he is producing books faster and faster, and not as factuality well researched. It is sad to see, especially for all of you who have done such wonderful research.

On Apr 20, 2015, at 3:20 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I have started to read it Paul. I knew that Jane Bruyn, Thomas's mother had been lady in waiting to the Countess of Warwick, which is not surprising as the Burdetts had been MPs for Warwick and Sheriffs of Worcs (Arrow is on the border of both counties). I do think JAH neglected this and the Twynyho incident when he published his Clarence book. That's what I wanted to read about.

Re the book itself, I am beginning to worry about JAH. He makes categorical statement about things which he cannot prove - according to him Stillington carried out the marriage to Eleanor Butler! It's wrong to criticise the mythology of others when you create it yourself to back up an argument in your book. Besides, apart from the statement in Richard's Parliament, we have no actual proof that Edward did marry Eleanor Butler; it could have been concocted by someone (no not Richard) who wanted to destabilise the throne. As I said to Marie the other week, I have lots of names that fit together, but I can't write history based on surmises, which is what JAH is starting to do. And then we have the George height thing again .....

And what finally stitches it for me are the countless snide comments about Leicester (the Cathedral, the City, the University). Actually without their commitment Richard wouldn't have been dug up. As my lady from Leicester said, everyone knew where he was but no-one would take the punt on looking for a potential child-murderer. I reckon folk neglect the fact that it could have backfired terribly had not Richard had so many supporters willing to argue his case. And I have always been for York ! So please stop bitching about Leicester JAH, they did a good and honourable job in the end and Richard now has his own town rather than being subsumed into the melee of other monarchs.

Rant over. I admire JAH's work and always buy his books, but lately he seems to be churning out stuff which re-iterates his own views which have gone from supposition to tablets of stone. Sorry. (And the rant wasn't addressed at you Paul :) ) H

vie From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, 19 April 2015, 17:46
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Mythology

Anyone else reading John Ashdown-Hill's latest 'The Mythology of Richard
III'?
Opening chapter explains his expressions at the service as shown on tv
when the bishop praised the university for the discovery of Richard's
remains!
Some interesting things coming up too.
I had no idea, for example, that Clarence's man Thomas Burdett, who
George rashly defended in the royal council just before his own arrest
by brother Edward, had been attached to the household of the Butler
family, so may well have been privy to the marriage of Eleanor to King
Edward, and the source of the story for Clarence.
How many knew of this prior to 1483, and had Richard simply taken his
brother Edward's word that it was nonsense at the time of Clarence's arrest?
One does wonder.
Paul

Cairo dwellers are those a long way up denial.

John’s first degree included Modern Languages but his doctorate is in history. He has a complete case unless anyone has a scintilla of contrary evidence and his record in locating Richard and a DNA match attests to his accuracy.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 20 April 2015 19:49
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Mythology

What are Cairo-dwellers Stephen, honest I don't know? I don't want to prolong this but it all hinges on those words 'is likely'. It could just have easily been John Newton who knew about Eleanor, her brother-in-law, he was a lawyer, well-rewarded by Edward as a Justice of Common Pleas in the next few years, religious, and a descendant of Tudor to boot. That's the problem with 'is likely' - I can make a case, Hancock can make a case for Catesby (which I don't believe) and so on and so on.

That's not to pour cold water on a lot of JAH's research. But until you can produce a piece of evidence, everything will always be 'is likely' and open to challenge by someone who thinks their theory is more likely than than yours. And nowhere is there evidence that Stillington married Edward and Eleanor, that's unless you count as proof a letter from Chapuys some hundred years' later. Most of the rest of what JAH says I can actually live with, at least at present. H

PS It was JAH's own page which says his doctorate is in modern languages.

From: "'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []" < >
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 April 2015, 19:23
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Mythology

John’s doctorate is in history and “Beloved Cousin” was based on his dissertation.

Furthermore, he has piled up the evidence for the fact of the pre-contract. In “Eleanor”, he showed how and when it is likely to have happened, how Edward behaved the same way with EW, how Clarence was executed and Stillington imprisoned twice, how the Three Estates believed the evidence and petitioned Richard, how Catesby was executed and how “Tudor” covered up “Titulus Regius” but the truth escaped. In “Royal Marriage Secrets”, he showed that this happened in several other significant cases and now he has connected Burdett to the case. Our Brian has shown how two of Lady Eleanor’s sister’s servants were executed shortly after her death. It all adds up to a powerful case that outweighs the Cairo-dwellers’ squeals decisively and for it to have been manufactured requires anyone to guess at a widowed lady who was already dead, with no ongoing support and who had been in the right place from February 1460/1 to before the Woodville “marriage”.

To assume the pre-contract answers all questions but to assume otherwise requires significant mental gymnastics.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 20 April 2015 19:02
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Mythology

I'm sorry; I had no intention or upsetting or attacking anyone (no not even John Ashdown-Hill: writing history is dangerous when you get it wrong and it's easy to get a bit wrong ) but I have a right to my point of view as does everyone who critiques a book on Amazon. JAH's doctorate is in Modern Languages, not History, and sometimes, because of his enthusiasm, he lacks the rigour of the latter discipline. When you publish you risk criticism just or unjust, that's something every author on here will know.

And when you get it wrong the opposition, and I mean the opposition to Richard, will wade in and exploit, just as we do with them. So it's not about us arguing (which I certainly am not) but about our members getting even tiny things wrong which then devalue all the good arguments they and we as a body put forward. As for the Eleanor Butler story being manufactured (and I did say not to help Richard) we can really never know, can we? And it has absolutely nothing to do with Richard being in the right or in the wrong. He clearly believed it was true, so as far as his morality is concerned there is nothing to fear. H

From: " Judy Thomson judygerard.thomson@... []" < >
To: " " < >
Sent: Monday, 20 April 2015, 17:18
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Mythology

Paul, you have my support.

People, please, please - cease this bickering! And I say this without pointing the finger at any particular person, so try to understand.

We weaken our Goal, which is Richard, when we engage in these ad hom. attacks. It's when we lose track of "Richard," we become the very persons - easy targets - our "enemies" scoff at.

Judy

Loyaulte me lie

On Monday, April 20, 2015 11:05 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" < > wrote:style='font-family:Helvetica;color:black'>

What I find sad is that people are attacking him! Ricardians too!
When did your last pro Richard book come out Pam? And tell me Hilary, what was your contribution to the Looking For Richard project?
I wanted to discuss John's book, not assassinate his character.
Perhaps we could do that now instead of these attacks.
And as I said in my previous post I find your comment about the pre contract extraordinary! What you are saying with "apart from the statement in Richard's Parliament, we have no actual proof that Edward did marry Eleanor Butler" is basically Richard had no right to the throne and the evidence was manufactured.
See my earlier post for my reasoning to be so angry about this!
Paul

On 20/04/2015 14:02, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:

Very well said, and it is sad about JAH. Perhaps all the other fictions have had an effect on Ashton-Hill, and he is producing books faster and faster, and not as factuality well researched. It is sad to see, especially for all of you who have done such wonderful research.

On Apr 20, 2015, at 3:20 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I have started to read it Paul. I knew that Jane Bruyn, Thomas's mother had been lady in waiting to the Countess of Warwick, which is not surprising as the Burdetts had been MPs for Warwick and Sheriffs of Worcs (Arrow is on the border of both counties). I do think JAH neglected this and the Twynyho incident when he published his Clarence book. That's what I wanted to read about.

Re the book itself, I am beginning to worry about JAH. He makes categorical statement about things which he cannot prove - according to him Stillington carried out the marriage to Eleanor Butler! It's wrong to criticise the mythology of others when you create it yourself to back up an argument in your book. Besides, apart from the statement in Richard's Parliament, we have no actual proof that Edward did marry Eleanor Butler; it could have been concocted by someone (no not Richard) who wanted to destabilise the throne. As I said to Marie the other week, I have lots of names that fit together, but I can't write history based on surmises, which is what JAH is starting to do. And then we have the George height thing again .....

And what finally stitches it for me are the countless snide comments about Leicester (the Cathedral, the City, the University). Actually without their commitment Richard wouldn't have been dug up. As my lady from Leicester said, everyone knew where he was but no-one would take the punt on looking for a potential child-murderer. I reckon folk neglect the fact that it could have backfired terribly had not Richard had so many supporters willing to argue his case. And I have always been for York ! So please stop bitching about Leicester JAH, they did a good and honourable job in the end and Richard now has his own town rather than being subsumed into the melee of other monarchs.

Rant over. I admire JAH's work and always buy his books, but lately he seems to be churning out stuff which re-iterates his own views which have gone from supposition to tablets of stone. Sorry. (And the rant wasn't addressed at you Paul :) ) H

vie From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, 19 April 2015, 17:46
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Mythology

Anyone else reading John Ashdown-Hill's latest 'The Mythology of Richard
III'?
Opening chapter explains his expressions at the service as shown on tv
when the bishop praised the university for the discovery of Richard's
remains!
Some interesting things coming up too.
I had no idea, for example, that Clarence's man Thomas Burdett, who
George rashly defended in the royal council just before his own arrest
by brother Edward, had been attached to the household of the Butler
family, so may well have been privy to the marriage of Eleanor to King
Edward, and the source of the story for Clarence.
How many knew of this prior to 1483, and had Richard simply taken his
brother Edward's word that it was nonsense at the time of Clarence's arrest?
One does wonder.
Paul

John is also a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, and they don't hand out fellowships to anybody.
Paul

On 20/04/2015 19:49, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
What are Cairo-dwellers Stephen, honest I don't know? I don't want to prolong this but it all hinges on those words 'is likely'. It could just have easily been John Newton who knew about Eleanor, her brother-in-law, he was a lawyer, well-rewarded by Edward as a Justice of Common Pleas in the next few years, religious, and a descendant of Tudor to boot. That's the problem with 'is likely' - I can make a case, Hancock can make a case for Catesby (which I don't believe) and so on and so on. That's not to pour cold water on a lot of JAH's research. But until you can produce a piece of evidence, everything will always be 'is likely' and open to challenge by someone who thinks their theory is more likely than than yours. And nowhere is there evidence that Stillington married Edward and Eleanor, that's unless you count as proof a letter from Chapuys some hundred years' later. Most of the rest of what JAH says I can actually live with, at least at present. H PS It was JAH's own page which says his doctorate is in modern languages.
From: "'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 20 April 2015, 19:23
Subject: RE: Mythology

John's doctorate is in history and Beloved Cousin was based on his dissertation. Furthermore, he has piled up the evidence for the fact of the pre-contract. In Eleanor, he showed how and when it is likely to have happened, how Edward behaved the same way with EW, how Clarence was executed and Stillington imprisoned twice, how the Three Estates believed the evidence and petitioned Richard, how Catesby was executed and how Tudor covered up Titulus Regius but the truth escaped. In Royal Marriage Secrets, he showed that this happened in several other significant cases and now he has connected Burdett to the case. Our Brian has shown how two of Lady Eleanor's sister's servants were executed shortly after her death. It all adds up to a powerful case that outweighs the Cairo-dwellers' squeals decisively and for it to have been manufactured requires anyone to guess at a widowed lady who was already dead, with no ongoing support and who had been in the right place from February 1460/1 to before the Woodville marriage. To assume the pre-contract answers all questions but to assume otherwise requires significant mental gymnastics.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 20 April 2015 19:02
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Mythology I'm sorry; I had no intention or upsetting or attacking anyone (no not even John Ashdown-Hill: writing history is dangerous when you get it wrong and it's easy to get a bit wrong ) but I have a right to my point of view as does everyone who critiques a book on Amazon. JAH's doctorate is in Modern Languages, not History, and sometimes, because of his enthusiasm, he lacks the rigour of the latter discipline. When you publish you risk criticism just or unjust, that's something every author on here will know. And when you get it wrong the opposition, and I mean the opposition to Richard, will wade in and exploit, just as we do with them. So it's not about us arguing (which I certainly am not) but about our members getting even tiny things wrong which then devalue all the good arguments they and we as a body put forward. As for the Eleanor Butler story being manufactured (and I did say not to help Richard) we can really never know, can we? And it has absolutely nothing to do with Richard being in the right or in the wrong. He clearly believed it was true, so as far as his morality is concerned there is nothing to fear. H From: " Judy Thomson judygerard.thomson@... []" < >
To: " " < >
Sent: Monday, 20 April 2015, 17:18
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Mythology
[The entire original message is not included.]

http://yorkistage.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/a-mystery-from-1468.html

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 21 April 2015 12:02
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Mythology

Stephen wrote 'two of Eleanor's sisters servants were executed after her death....'.

Which sister was it and when were they executed?

Nico

On Tuesday, 21 April 2015, 11:15, "Eva D domelaeva@... []" < > wrote:

am new to this group so have some things to catch up to, but what is 'George height thing...' about?

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" < >
To: " " < >
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Mythology

..... which is what JAH is starting to do. And then we have the George height thing again ...

John is also a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, and they don't hand out fellowships to anybody.
Paul

I saw him speak at the Norwich branch study day last year and I was very impressed.
He is not only very well informed but also has an attractive and mischievous style which I enjoyed.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Thank you Jess.
I've never actually met John, though I nearly did in Leicester, but I have an enormous respect for his work on the Looking For Richard project, and his continuing research into Richard's world.
Paul

John is also a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, and they don't hand out fellowships to anybody.
Paul

Is it known where the Talbot marriage took place....roughly even...If Stillington's whereabouts could be ascertained would be enlightening ..one way or the other,,,Eileen

Hi Mary,

I also am a long time replying - missed this one first time round. Personally I don't think it's correct to say that Eleanor acted as a married woman, not a widow. John bases that on the fact that we have a reference to her "testament" rather than will, and he knew that married women needed their husband's permission to make a will.

The problem is that:-

a) "testament" was the normal shorthand for will and testament back then just as "will" is today; and

b) a married woman also needed her husband's permission to make a testament. The only property over which her husband had no control was her clothes.

In fact, Eleanor seems to have demised her property in the same way as nearly everyone else of her class at that period: settling her land by means of enfeoffments - i.e. trusts (I take it that is what the 'deeds of gift' that John found would actually have been), and using her will & testament to make arrangements for her burial, bequeath her goods and possibly give instructions to her feoffees. We don't have the testament so we can't know for sure.

Actually, if Eleanor had wanted to act as a married woman but had no husband to give her permissions, she would have been pretty much unable to do anything at all - it wasn't a practical proposition for her.

Anyway, to come back to the will. Re Hilary's post, it can't have been Eleanor's will that left Caldicote to her sister Elizabeth, Throckmorton and Eyres because John is sure the will is not extant. A demise with multiple names to me shrieks enfeoffment, probably to the use of the sister. That the other individuals named were lawyers would absolutely fit that interpretation.

Marie

Because of the threat or likelihood of violence. We know that two of her sister’s servants were executed just weeks after Lady Eleanor died, that Clarence was executed with his attainder referring to a threat to Edward’s family and that Stillington was imprisoned.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of poohlandeva
Sent: 21 May 2015 03:49
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Mythology

Hi Maryfriend, I have to admit that having read Eleanor Butler's story by JAH I found his arguments that there was a contract between her and Edward to be very persuasive. He has put a lot of effort into bringing her story to life and to reconstructing her family life and the possible consumation of a relationship with Edward IV; his arguments are compelling. I am not convinced that an actual wedding took place, but that is just me personally, but given the arguments that JAH made in this brilliant study, I would not dismiss it either. I do believe that Edward consumated his relationship with Eleanor and that he made a promise to live with her as man and wife, which would have been enough in canon law to constitute a contractual agreement and a recognised 'marriage' but did Bishop Shillington actually marry them or was he a witness to a betrothal? Did Edward actually promise to marry Eleanor and mean it or did he make such a promise in ord er to get her into bed? He was a robust young man who seems to have had a long list of ladies that he tricked into his bed. Even without any proof; it is my personal belief that some promises were made and the couple slept together; partly because of the mythology that Edward had attatched to his name when it came to young women. I think he tricked Eleanor into bed by a promise of marriage. I would not be at all surprised if he did not do this more than once, but we have no evidence which has survived that we can show as a document to prove it. I believe that the book gives a good argument to show that other people knew about Edwards contract with Eleanor but said nothing. Why would this Bishop invent such a story? He had no reason to an he was believed to be honest and not corrupt. Richard may not have invented the story; he may have been just shocked and surprised, but having now been convinced that his nephew's were not legitimate; he had to act to secure the throne for the safety of the nation. It would be ideal if we had more solid evidence for the contract to be certain, but if nothing else, it sounds like something Edward IV would do. What I want to know is that when he then married Elizabeth Woodville, why did Eleanor or her father not say anything?

Sorry to be so very long replying to this Mary - work called. Just a few side points. Your post made me look at the docs in the NA again. In them (or their heading translation) it says Caldicot and Draycott were in Wilts. If it was those, they belonged to the Stourtons and Longs according to BH online. But there are two Caldicots in Northants. Now one was actually confiscated by Edward in 1461 under the attainder of John Lovell (Francis's father) and given to Anne of Exeter according to BH online. Similarly Draycott in Warks is a stone's throw from Burton Dassett and would make total sense. Has anyone seen the orginal document? Secondly, Eleanor's will leaves her lands to sister Elizabeth, Thomas Throckmorton and John Eyers. Now JAH has Throckmorton as a lawyer. I can find no evidence of that anywhere. He (later knighted) was a High Sheriff of Warks and moved in the same circle as the Burdetts, the Montforts and the Beauchamps. He was also to own land in nearby Ladbroke with the Catesbys and of course the great collaboration of the Catesbys and Throckmortons was to come in 1605. This was a time when everyone would have been vying for land in the Burton Dassetts because of - sheep. So Eleanor's manor would have been coveted. Personally I don't think because the Burdetts, Catesbys and Throckmortons were linked with Eleanor's family it necessarily had any significance. Her mother was a Beauchamp and these all were like flies round a candle to the Beauchamps. Indeed it must have been a real shock when Richard Neville moved in. They were probably more interested in making money out of the Berkeley inheritance row. H
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 April 2015, 21:30
Subject: RE: Mythology

In Eleanor John discovered that Eleanor owned lands which were not part of her Dower lands. John didn't know where some of these lands were and wondered if it was possible that she had received these lands from Edward. I think that he had written an article in the Ricardian regarding one of the properties that could well have been given to her by Edward.
One was named as Caldicote, so I e-mailed him and said that there was a Caldicot in Monmouthshire. I looked on the internet and discovered that Caldicot Castle was part of Edward's Duchy of Lancaster lands that he had gained when he became King. John thought that it could be a possibility but there are also other places called Caldicote. When I spoke to him in Leicester he said that a lot more research would have to be done before he could say definitely that it was the Caldicote and obviously he had been a bit busy and had not had time to do the research. He also told me when he first knew about TR he decided to read up about Eleanor but discovered that no one had written anything about her. That's when he decided to do the research and "Eleanor the Secret Queen" was the result. There is a lot of compelling evidence in the book but nothing conclusive and he does not claim to have definitely proved that they were married, however, for me I think that there are lots of connections, particularly the death of the servants and the fact that she acted as a married woman not a widow, that make me think that they were married.

Afraid I disagree. As for calling it too personal. That is like the producer who called my script about Richard's life a "bit too biographical".
All I can say is John's passion for Richard shines from every page, and his wishes to see what he feels Richard would have wanted are clearly laid out with erudite, convincing arguments, based not only on feelings, but facts. There are extensive and numerous footnotes.
As for the Sutton Cheyney comment of who cares? John's point is that if you accept the little lie you may as well accept the big ones too. And that particular one is supported by the Richard the Third Society for some unknown reason, except that perhaps the Society organises an event there every year, and 'Society' in the 'Richard the Third Society' seems often to come before Richard.
Paul


On 21/05/2015 03:17, poohlandeva wrote:
Hi, I have been reading the Mythology of Richard III during the last couple of weeks and I have to admit to being disappointed. I think there are a number of good points: but also several things in the book actually had me very angry. I have read JHDs other books and been very pleased by them; this was a missed opportunity.
For one thing; the chapters are just too short and not detailed enough with few sources examined or other experts brought into the debate. The author does a good job debunking the usual myths but not enough time is spent on balancing out the evidence. Hence he is at risk of creating his own Richard III mythology.
Two, the book is too personal. When it comes to debunking and correcting the modern mythology coming out of Leicester University; much of what JHD has said, may be correct but it is also a lot of knit picking. He is correct to remind us that the lead was taken by the Looking F or Richard Project not the University and that in fact much groundwork research was done before the Uni were even persuaded to come on board. He is also correct to give praise to Philippa Langley and to point out his own research; but some of the terms that he uses smacks of his own anger at being left out of much of the credit once the Uni started to publish its papers. He should have been given more credit for the initial research he did; but I think taking apart every little thing the uni says is a bit much. People always see things from their own point of view and sometimes you have to accept that, especially with academics; they call it academic snobbery and it is one of those things.
Three the attack on positive local traditions I find does JDH no credit at all. So what if Richard may not have heard Mass at Sutton Cheney; who cares? It states in everything that the Church of Saint James has published there and in their ow n statements that Richard III is believed to have heard Mass there on the eve of the Battle of Bosworth. It is not stated as a historical fact but as a local tradition. It is doing no harm to anyone and it is a possitive thing as Richard III is honoured in this local village church, where I stayed 15 days last year and hope to go back to in September, if my husband is able to come as well; and I can tell you now the local people love speaking of Richard as their local King and honour his memory in this village and church. How long did JHD stay there: has he even been there? These local legends and myths are not historical facts and I accept they cannot be proved to be so, but most are positive stories of Richard and the Battle and the days around this; they do not degrade Richard and they do not insult his memory; they are places people go to show respect for his memory. What harm are they doing if they state that it is a tradition or a belief? How can JHD know they are not true? Was he there in 1485? Some are improbable, yes, but his criticism goes too far and I found myself wanting to scream. I like local stories and traditions; as long as they say they are this or it is believed something is this; if a modern sign says to the contrary; why should the original story not also have been told? There are two places other than the so called well on the battlefield; one far too far in Sheepy for it to be real; but it is gaining ground over the original; there is a plaque but it states clearly it is only a tale. The criticism of the memorial stone that used to mark the place where it was once believed that Richard III was killed is nonsense. The stone does now stand in the courtyard at the Battlefield Centre; yes, but JDH omits the fact that although the stone is there and has its original inscription on, a plaque stands there clearly stating that this is not the place that Richard III was kille d but that the stone was removed in 2005 after it became clear the original site was incorrect and the land closed off. It also states that this is where the stone was moved to; not this is where Richard III died. So JHD is creating his own myths. These are a few examples; but to local people they are important. We are not talking negative nonsense; we are talking positive local stories with a long tradition; which do no-one any harm and many which it is stated that it is only a story so why attack it?
I have stated that JHD does a reasonable job in debunking the main myths about Richard and his reputation; but there is not enough material in the book to fully explore the issues; I would have liked to have seen more sources and less of the book being dedicated to his personal battle with the University.

Yes, so it's a deed in the Warwick Record office, not Eleanor's will.

I don't see anything odd about Eleanor's land transactions myself, but I do think it likely the precontract was real enough. It is in keeping with Edward IV's behaviour, and if Richard and his cronies had decided to invent a precontract surely they would have chosen not just a dead woman but an obscure woman without powerful connections.

I don't know if the executions of Norfolk's servants in 1468 had anything to do with knowledge of the precontract - I just haven't looked into it. It's risky to assume that every unusual thing that happened to any of Eleanor's relations must have been caused by her big secret.

Hi Sandra,

Totally agree that the delayed announcement of the Woodville marriage is fishy, and that Elizabeth probably outclassed Edward and forced his hand.

Perhaps Elizabeth had witnesses hidden, but Edward might have made the promise in front of witnesses in the belief they would not actually dare to challenge him. I wonder if Elizabeth and her mother also made use of their Luxembourg connections to force Edward to honour his promise. They could even have sent the witnesses over there .....

If he had acknowledged her against his will, though, do you think it's odd that Edward didn't seem to resent Elizabeth? Or did her her determination and craftiness win his undying admiration?

Edward IV apparently had Butler of Ormond beheaded on the same day as he “married” ?!

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 21 May 2015 18:12
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Mythology

Hi Sandra,

Totally agree that the delayed announcement of the Woodville marriage is fishy, and that Elizabeth probably outclassed Edward and forced his hand.

Perhaps Elizabeth had witnesses hidden, but Edward might have made the promise in front of witnesses in the belief they would not actually dare to challenge him. I wonder if Elizabeth and her mother also made use of their Luxembourg connections to force Edward to honour his promise. They could even have sent the witnesses over there .....

If he had acknowledged her against his will, though, do you think it's odd that Edward didn't seem to resent Elizabeth ? Or did her her determination and craftiness win his undying admiration?

Hi Sandra,

Totally agree that the delayed announcement of the Woodville marriage is fishy, and that Elizabeth probably outclassed Edward and forced his hand.

Perhaps Elizabeth had witnesses hidden, but Edward might have made the promise in front of witnesses in the belief they would not actually dare to challenge him. I wonder if Elizabeth and her mother also made use of their Luxembourg connections to force Edward to honour his promise. They could even have sent the witnesses over there .....

If he had acknowledged her against his will, though, do you think it's odd that Edward didn't seem to resent Elizabeth? Or did her her determination and craftiness win his undying admiration?

If I'd been Stillington I would certainly have kept my mouth shut during Edfward IV's lifetime.

There is the odd matter of Stillington's imprisonment after Clarence's death. It can't have been the result of his having told Clarence about the precontract, because if Clarence had blabbed it Stillington would have been arrested much earlier, and the precontract story would have been old news in 1483. But it's possible that it made him particularly uneasy about Clarence's execution, and he unburdened himself to a third party, who informed on him. It's all speculation.

Also, canon law and the philosophy of marriage were one thing, but real life was another. There were many people who had made perfectly legal clandestine marriages but couldn't get them recognised by the Church because they had no witnesses, and had to watch a bigamous marriage being given the Church's blessing. And there was at least one case I have read about where the Church ruled in favour of a bigamous marriage similar to Edward and Elizabeth's for the sake of the children. There's no doubt that a prior clandestine marriage to Eleanor Butler would have made Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville technically void and unable to be legalised, but it's also true that it was by 1483 a bit late, and a church court could just possibly have ruled that other considerations - the position of children who had been recognised as legitimate all their lives, the stability of the kingdom - outweighed the breach of rules, particularly since Eleanor herself had never come forward to 'claim' her marriage.

My own view is that the precontract probably was real but was only put forward now because of the political crisis. For Richard it must have seemed like a God-given way out.

Yes there are several deeds in the Warwick Record Office to which JAH refers and they are of course now online at the NA. H
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 May 2015, 18:02
Subject: Re: Eleanor's Lands (was mythology)

Yes, so it's a deed in the Warwick Record office, not Eleanor's will.I don't see anything odd about Eleanor's land transactions myself, but I do think it likely the precontract was real enough. It is in keeping with Edward IV's behaviour, and if Richard and his cronies had decided to invent a precontract surely they would have chosen not just a dead woman but an obscure woman without powerful connections.I don't know if the executions of Norfolk's servants in 1468 had anything to do with knowledge of the precontract - I just haven't looked into it. It's risky to assume that every unusual thing that happened to any of Eleanor's relations must have been caused by her big secret.

That also sounds like Henry VIII!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 8:34 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Eleanor's Lands (was mythology)

I often wonder if Hastings knew quite a lot about the pre-contract marriage in particular and Edward's love life generally.
They seem to have had a reputation for carousing together and seem to have treated the women in their lives almost as "prey."

Jess

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 22/05/2015 09:41
To:
Subject: Re: Eleanor's Lands (was mythology)

Yes there are several deeds in the Warwick Record Office to which JAH refers and they are of course now online at the NA. H

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 May 2015, 18:02
Subject: Re: Eleanor's Lands (was mythology)

Yes, so it's a deed in the Warwick Record office, not Eleanor's will.

I don't see anything odd about Eleanor's land transactions myself, but I do think it likely the precontract was real enough. It is in keeping with Edward IV's behaviour, and if Richard and his cronies had decided to invent a precontract surely they would have chosen not just a dead woman but an obscure woman without powerful connections.

I don't know if the executions of Norfolk's servants in 1468 had anything to do with knowledge of the precontract - I just haven't looked into it. It's risky to assume that every unusual thing that happened to any of Eleanor's relations must have been caused by her big secret.

Hi Hilary,

Yes indeed, high time someone invented a trans-temporal bugging device - you know, wire it into a wall in Crosby Place today, set it to 12th June 1483 and press Go.

I suppose I ought to add a couple of things to my previous post:-

1) Re Stillington's soul. There are two options: either a) the precontract was true and he kept quiet about it until after Edward IV was dead, or b) it was not true and he connived at perpetrating the biggest constitutional fraud of the age. Either way he was no saint and martyr.

2) Although a Church court might possibly ruled against the letter of canon law and allowed the Woodville marriage, this would have been a breach of the rules and could therefore have prompted an appeal to Rome, and it would have been a very messy solution for this and other reasons. Given the constitutional significance, it was IMO absolutely right for the impact on the succession to be decided by Parliament. There were differences between canon law and English common law regarding the matter of legitimacy - for instance, if a child was born to two unmarried people and the parents later married each other, then that child became legitimate under canon law but not under common law. The couple's heir would therefore be the first son born to them after their marriage, despite the canon-law legitimation of the elder child. Therefore the principle was clearly set that, whilst a church court might rule on a marriage, it was for the law of the land to determine legitimacy for its own purposes. (This is why Parliament had had to legitimise the Beauforts despite their parents' subsequent marriage.)

So it was - Crowland notwithstanding - not for the Church to decide whether Edward IV's children should keep their place in the royal succession. Churchmen inevitably didn't like the independence of common law in this regard, and criticised its attitude to children born before their parents' marriage, but that didn't change the facts.

Speaking of Fat Henry, I was reading a piece on Nan Bullen's understandably cranky ghost just now, and the following passage jumped out at me (fortunately I wrestled it to the ground before it could do any harm) :

"Today is the anniversary of the beheading of Anne Boleyn in 1536. While there are stories of that doomed queen leading a procession of the dead at St. Peter ad Vincula, where she is buried, and of her haunting, among other sites, Hever Castle, Blicking Hall and Salle Church, her spirit never achieved the cult status of, say, Mary, Queen of Scots, which we have previously covered in these pages. We do not even have a reliable portrait of Anne, let alone an immense collection of relics like those treasured by Mary's fans. King Henry was as assiduous about erasing the physical record of his discarded bride as any Stalinist censor with an airbrush and a pair of scissors."

Hmmm. Sounds like Henry took after his Da in the rewriting-history department, eh?

The article in question is here:

hauntedohiobooks.com/news/an-indignant-awheleyn-defends-her-honor-from-beyond-the-grave/

Tamara

Hi, I have been reading the Mythology of Richard III during the last couple of weeks and I have to admit to being disappointed.  I think there are a number of good points: but also several things in the book actually had me very angry.  I have read JHDs other books and been very pleased by them; this was a missed opportunity.

Hi Maryfriend, I have to admit that having read Eleanor Butler's story by JAH I found his arguments that there was a contract between her and Edward to be very persuasive.  He has put a lot of effort into bringing her story to life and to reconstructing her family life and the possible consumation of a relationship with Edward IV; his arguments are compelling.  I am not convinced that an actual wedding took place, but that is just me personally, but given the arguments that JAH made in this brilliant study, I would not dismiss it either.  I do believe that Edward consumated his relationship with Eleanor and that he made a promise to live with her as man and wife, which would have been enough in canon law to constitute a contractual agreement and a recognised 'marriage' but did Bishop Shillington actually marry them or was he a witness to a betrothal?  Did Edward actually promise to marry Eleanor and mean it or did he make such a promise in order to get her into bed?  He was a robust young man who seems to have had a long list of ladies that he tricked into his bed.  Even without any proof; it is my personal belief that some promises were made and the couple slept together; partly because of the mythology that Edward had attatched to his name when it came to young women.  I think he tricked Eleanor into bed by a promise of marriage.  I would not be at all surprised if he did not do this more than once, but we have no evidence which has survived that we can show as a document to prove it.  I believe that the book gives a good argument to show that other people knew about Edwards contract with Eleanor but said nothing.  Why would this Bishop invent such a story?  He had no reason to an he was believed to be honest and not corrupt. Richard may not have invented the story; he may have been just shocked and surprised, but having now been convinced that his nephew's were not legitimate; he had to act to secure the throne for the safety of the nation.  It would be ideal if we had more solid evidence for the contract to be certain, but if nothing else, it sounds like something Edward IV would do.  What I want to know is that when he then married Elizabeth Woodville, why did Eleanor or her father not say anything?

ÿ

Speaking of Fat Henry, I was reading a piece on Nan Bullen's understandably cranky ghost just now, and the following passage jumped out at me (fortunately I wrestled it to the ground before it could do any harm) :

"Today is the anniversary of the beheading of Anne Boleyn in 1536. While there are stories of that doomed queen leading a procession of the dead at St. Peter ad Vincula, where she is buried, and of her haunting, among other sites, Hever Castle, Blicking Hall and Salle Church, her spirit never achieved the cult status of, say, Mary, Queen of Scots, which we have previously covered in these pages. We do not even have a reliable portrait of Anne, let alone an immense collection of relics like those treasured by Mary's fans. King Henry was as assiduous about erasing the physical record of his discarded bride as any Stalinist censor with an airbrush and a pair of scissors."

Hmmm. Sounds like Henry took after his Da in the rewriting-history department, eh?

The article in question is here:

hauntedohiobooks.com/news/an-indignant-awheleyn-defends-her-honor-from-beyond-the-grave/

Tamara

'that was cast from life, and that is said to be the closest likeness - which is more than we have of Richard!'
but we do know how he looks like

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:27 PM, 'Sharon Feely' 43118@... [] <> wrote:

ÿ

Speaking of Fat Henry, I was reading a piece on Nan Bullen's understandably cranky ghost just now, and the following passage jumped out at me (fortunately I wrestled it to the ground before it could do any harm) :

"Today is the anniversary of the beheading of Anne Boleyn in 1536. While there are stories of that doomed queen leading a procession of the dead at St. Peter ad Vincula, where she is buried, and of her haunting, among other sites, Hever Castle, Blicking Hall and Salle Church, her spirit never achieved the cult status of, say, Mary, Queen of Scots, which we have previously covered in these pages. We do not even have a reliable portrait of Anne, let alone an immense collection of relics like those treasured by Mary's fans. King Henry was as assiduous about erasing the physical record of his discarded bride as any Stalinist censor with an airbrush and a pair of scissors."

Hmmm. Sounds like Henry took after his Da in the rewriting-history department, eh?

The article in question is here:

hauntedohiobooks.com/news/an-indignant-awheleyn-defends-her-honor-from-beyond-the-grave/

Tamara

ÿ

ÿ

Speaking of Fat Henry, I was reading a piece on Nan Bullen's understandably cranky ghost just now, and the following passage jumped out at me (fortunately I wrestled it to the ground before it could do any harm) :

"Today is the anniversary of the beheading of Anne Boleyn in 1536. While there are stories of that doomed queen leading a procession of the dead at St. Peter ad Vincula, where she is buried, and of her haunting, among other sites, Hever Castle, Blicking Hall and Salle Church, her spirit never achieved the cult status of, say, Mary, Queen of Scots, which we have previously covered in these pages. We do not even have a reliable portrait of Anne, let alone an immense collection of relics like those treasured by Mary's fans. King Henry was as assiduous about erasing the physical record of his discarded bride as any Stalinist censor with an airbrush and a pair of scissors."

Hmmm. Sounds like Henry took after his Da in the rewriting-history department, eh?

The article in question is here:

hauntedohiobooks.com/news/an-indignant-awheleyn-defends-her-honor-from-beyond-the-grave/

Tamara