Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

Something just occurred to me. Maybe David or someone else could answer this?

If the infamous Duke of Northumberland who stood and did nothing at
Bosworth, was...

* Born c.1449
* Transported on the orders of Edward IV to the Tower of London in
1464 (approx. age 15, but we don't know his definite age)
* Released 5 years later, in 1469 (age 20)

then...

* Whose household did he grow up in / was he trained as a knight/fighter?
* Would he have learned enough by the age of ~15, or serving
(reluctantly) under Richard, to fight competently and command his own
army?
* Had Northumberland enough training and experience to understand and
carry out whatever order Richard may have told him to move his army
and engage at Bosworth?

...or did Richard have a duke who was incapable of understanding what
the king wanted, and didn't know how to maneuver his army on a
battlefield?

Hadn't thought of that before probably because I didn't know enough about him, when he was born etc.My theory is that he was guarding the road to London and that is why Tudor turned off towards the Fenn Lanes. Richard may have told him to make sure that he stayed guarding the road.However, it is just my theory based on Michael Jones' book regarding where Northumberland was. I know Glenn Foard insists that his site of the battle is the only one but MJ's site is not far away and the battle would have been spread over a very large area. Is there any evidence that Richard sent him a message to commit to the battle?Mary

Is the 1449 birthdate solid? Last I'd heard, he was born circa 1445, which would have meant he likely was a squire of 15 or 16 when his father fell at Towton.

Then again, if he were that far into his teens and his squirehood (and I simply can't imagine the heir and scion of the Alnwick Percies not having any knightly training), why wasn't he with his father at Towton? Was it because he was his father's only son? Or was it also that he was indeed too young and untrained to take part?

Tamara

I've only seen his birthdate as circa 1449, so if that's now been revised to circa 1445...what's the source? How do we know when he was born and how old he was when his father died? If he was older and was at Towton, perhaps he was there as a squire, but we don't know. We do know he was imprisoned for five years, but I'd imagine he had basic luxuries provided (like a bed) and goodies delivered and time out of prison as did other wealthy prisoners since his family had money. It's not as if he were cast into the lowest cell of the Fleet. But it's also not as if his education in the military arts would have continued. I still wonder what sort of training he had, under whose supervision, and if that training was interrupted. Did Richard inherit someone who simply didn't know what to do when given a direct order? There's some debate that if Richard sent a message to Northumberland, he may not have left time for Northumberland to respond before he discovered where Tudor was and organized his charge down the hill. I don't know the answers to any of this. It just occurred to me that Northumberland may have lacked a military education Richard took for granted. ---In , <khafara@...> wrote :Is the 1449 birthdate solid? Last I'd heard, he was born circa 1445, which would have meant he likely was a squire of 15 or 16 when his father fell at Towton.

Then again, if he were that far into his teens and his squirehood (and I simply can't imagine the heir and scion of the Alnwick Percies not having any knightly training), why wasn't he with his father at Towton? Was it because he was his father's only son? Or was it also that he was indeed too young and untrained to take part?

Tamara

Jan here.I went to the triennial conference last week. In his talk Bob Woosnam-Savage mentioned that it was possible the total amount of hand to hand fighting at Bosworth may only have lasted 40 mins. Northumberland might have had no time to make an effective move. The king's charge would have taken 4 mins to reach Tudor's party ( he seemed quite confident of that ) & 200-600 people would have been involved. The charge could not be organised as a last-minute decision. BWS didn't dwell on the difficulties of battlefield communication but when I went on the battlefield walk at Barnet the organiser was concerned about them.I have never heard any suggestion previously that Northumberland was militarily incompetent. Wasn't he on the Scottish campaign? On 20 Apr 2015, at 21:50, wednesday.mac@... [] <> wrote:
I've only seen his birthdate as circa 1449, so if that's now been revised to circa 1445...what's the source? How do we know when he was born and how old he was when his father died? If he was older and was at Towton, perhaps he was there as a squire, but we don't know. We do know he was imprisoned for five years, but I'd imagine he had basic luxuries provided (like a bed) and goodies delivered and time out of prison as did other wealthy prisoners since his family had money. It's not as if he were cast into the lowest cell of the Fleet. But it's also not as if his education in the military arts would have continued. I still wonder what sort of training he had, under whose supervision, and if that training was interrupted. Did Richard inherit someone who simply didn't know what to do when given a direct order? There's some debate that if Richard sent a message to
Northumberland, he may not have left time for Northumberland to respond before he discovered where Tudor was and organized his charge down the hill. I don't know the answers to any of this. It just occurred to me that Northumberland may have lacked a military education Richard took for granted. ---In , <khafara@...> wrote :Is the 1449 birthdate solid? Last I'd heard, he was born circa 1445, which would have meant he likely was a squire of 15 or 16 when his father fell at Towton.

Then again, if he were that far into his teens and his squirehood (and I simply can't imagine the heir and scion of the Alnwick Percies not having any knightly training), why wasn't he with his father at Towton? Was it because he was his father's only son? Or was it also that he was indeed too young and untrained to take part?

Tamara

ÿ
Is there any truth that he was murdered by a mob because he
failed to support Richard, or was there another reason behind it?
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From:
Jan Mulrenan
janmulrenan@... []
To:
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 10:26
PM
Subject: Re:
Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?


Jan here.
I went to the triennial conference last week. In his talk Bob
Woosnam-Savage mentioned that it was possible the total amount of hand to hand
fighting at Bosworth may only have lasted 40 mins. Northumberland might have
had no time to make an effective move. The king's charge would have taken 4
mins to reach Tudor's party ( he seemed quite confident of that ) &
200-600 people would have been involved. The charge could not be organised as
a last-minute decision. BWS didn't dwell on the difficulties of battlefield
communication but when I went on the battlefield walk at Barnet the organiser
was concerned about them.
I have never heard any suggestion previously that Northumberland was
militarily incompetent. Wasn't he on the Scottish campaign?
On 20 Apr 2015, at 21:50, wednesday.mac@...
[] <>
wrote:
I've only seen his birthdate as circa 1449, so if that's now been revised
to circa 1445...what's the source? How do we know when he was born and how
old he was when his father died? If he was older and was at Towton,
perhaps he was there as a squire, but we don't know. We do know he
was imprisoned for five years, but I'd imagine he had basic luxuries
provided (like a bed) and goodies delivered and time out of prison as did
other wealthy prisoners since his family had money. It's not as if he were
cast into the lowest cell of the Fleet. But it's also not as if his
education in the military arts would have continued.
I still wonder what sort of training he had,
under whose supervision, and if that training was interrupted. Did Richard
inherit someone who simply didn't know what to do when given a direct order?
There's some debate that if Richard sent a message to
Northumberland, he may not have left time for Northumberland to respond
before he discovered where Tudor was and organized his charge down the
hill. I don't know the answers to any of this. It just
occurred to me that Northumberland may have lacked a military education
Richard took for granted. ---In ,
<khafara@...> wrote :
Is the 1449 birthdate solid? Last I'd heard, he
was born circa 1445, which would have meant he likely was a squire of 15 or
16 when his father fell at Towton. Then again, if he were that far
into his teens and his squirehood (and I simply can't imagine the heir and
scion of the Alnwick Percies not having any knightly training), why wasn't
he with his father at Towton? Was it because he was his father's only son?
Or was it also that he was indeed too young and untrained to take part?
Tamara

He was collecting taxes, always unpopular, was pulled from his horse
and killed. Many have said it was because he had failed Richard at
Bosworth, but who knows the real reasons.
Paul


On 20/04/2015 22:42, 'Sharon Feely'
43118@... [] wrote:
ÿ
Is there any truth that he was murdered by a
mob because he failed to support Richard, or was there another
reason behind it?
 
Sharon
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Jan
Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []
To:
Sent: Monday, April 20,
2015 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland,
Trained to Fight?

 

Jan here.
I went to the triennial conference last week. In his
talk Bob Woosnam-Savage mentioned that it was possible the
total amount of hand to hand fighting at Bosworth may only
have lasted 40 mins. Northumberland might have had no time
to make an effective move. The king's charge would have
taken 4 mins to reach Tudor's party ( he seemed quite
confident of that ) & 200-600 people would have been
involved. The charge could not be organised as a
last-minute decision. BWS didn't dwell on the difficulties
of battlefield communication but when I went on the
battlefield walk at Barnet the organiser was concerned
about them.
I have never heard any suggestion previously that
Northumberland was militarily incompetent. Wasn't he on
the Scottish campaign?


On 20 Apr 2015, at 21:50, wednesday.mac@...
[] <>
wrote:

 
I've only seen his birthdate as circa 1449, so if
that's now been revised to circa 1445...what's the
source? How do we know when he was born and how old
he was when his father died?

If he was older and was at Towton, perhaps he was
there as a squire, but we don't know.

We do know he was imprisoned for five years, but I'd
imagine he had basic luxuries provided (like a bed)
and goodies delivered and time out of prison as did
other wealthy prisoners since his family had money.
It's not as if he were cast into the lowest cell of
the Fleet. But it's also not as if his education in
the military arts would have continued.


I still wonder what sort of training he had, under
whose supervision, and if that training was
interrupted. Did Richard inherit someone who simply
didn't know what to do when given a direct order?

There's some debate that if Richard sent a message
to Northumberland, he may not have left time for
Northumberland to respond before he discovered where
Tudor was and organized his charge down the hill. 

I don't know the answers to any of this. It just
occurred to me that Northumberland may have lacked a
military education Richard took for granted.


---In ,
<khafara@...> wrote :

Is the 1449 birthdate
solid? Last I'd heard, he was born circa 1445,
which would have meant he likely was a squire of
15 or 16 when his father fell at Towton.

Then again, if he were that far into his teens and
his squirehood (and I simply can't imagine the
heir and scion of the Alnwick Percies not having
any knightly training), why wasn't he with his
father at Towton? Was it because he was his
father's only son? Or was it also that he was
indeed too young and untrained to take part?

Tamara

Re his date of birth as 1449 - his tomb is in Beverley Minster. I assume it's still there as the Minster says it is and gives his dates (b 1449) or age which are presumably on the tomb? Hope this helps. H From: "'Sharon Feely' 43118@... []" <> To: Sent: Monday, 20 April 2015, 22:42 Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?
ÿ
Is there any truth that he was murdered by a mob because he
failed to support Richard, or was there another reason behind it?
Sharon

----- Original Message -----
From:
Jan Mulrenan
janmulrenan@... []
To:
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 10:26
PM
Subject: Re:
Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

Jan here.
I went to the triennial conference last week. In his talk Bob
Woosnam-Savage mentioned that it was possible the total amount of hand to hand
fighting at Bosworth may only have lasted 40 mins. Northumberland might have
had no time to make an effective move. The king's charge would have taken 4
mins to reach Tudor's party ( he seemed quite confident of that ) &
200-600 people would have been involved. The charge could not be organised as
a last-minute decision. BWS didn't dwell on the difficulties of battlefield
communication but when I went on the battlefield walk at Barnet the organiser
was concerned about them.
I have never heard any suggestion previously that Northumberland was
militarily incompetent. Wasn't he on the Scottish campaign?
On 20 Apr 2015, at 21:50, wednesday.mac@...
[] <>
wrote:
I've only seen his birthdate as circa 1449, so if that's now been revised
to circa 1445...what's the source? How do we know when he was born and how
old he was when his father died? If he was older and was at Towton,
perhaps he was there as a squire, but we don't know. We do know he
was imprisoned for five years, but I'd imagine he had basic luxuries
provided (like a bed) and goodies delivered and time out of prison as did
other wealthy prisoners since his family had money. It's not as if he were
cast into the lowest cell of the Fleet. But it's also not as if his
education in the military arts would have continued.
I still wonder what sort of training he had,
under whose supervision, and if that training was interrupted. Did Richard
inherit someone who simply didn't know what to do when given a direct order?
There's some debate that if Richard sent a message to
Northumberland, he may not have left time for Northumberland to respond
before he discovered where Tudor was and organized his charge down the
hill. I don't know the answers to any of this. It just
occurred to me that Northumberland may have lacked a military education
Richard took for granted. ---In ,
<khafara@...> wrote :
Is the 1449 birthdate solid? Last I'd heard, he
was born circa 1445, which would have meant he likely was a squire of 15 or
16 when his father fell at Towton. Then again, if he were that far
into his teens and his squirehood (and I simply can't imagine the heir and
scion of the Alnwick Percies not having any knightly training), why wasn't
he with his father at Towton? Was it because he was his father's only son?
Or was it also that he was indeed too young and untrained to take part?
Tamara

Ah, Percy. Just supporting Henry, after Bosworth, might have done it for me.Judy Loyaulte me lie On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 2:04 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <> wrote:
He was collecting taxes, always unpopular, was pulled from his horse
and killed. Many have said it was because he had failed Richard at
Bosworth, but who knows the real reasons.
Paul


On 20/04/2015 22:42, 'Sharon Feely'
43118@... [] wrote:
ÿ
Is there any truth that he was murdered by a
mob because he failed to support Richard, or was there another
reason behind it?
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From: Jan
Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []
To:
Sent: Monday, April 20,
2015 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland,
Trained to Fight?

Jan here.
I went to the triennial conference last week. In his
talk Bob Woosnam-Savage mentioned that it was possible the
total amount of hand to hand fighting at Bosworth may only
have lasted 40 mins. Northumberland might have had no time
to make an effective move. The king's charge would have
taken 4 mins to reach Tudor's party ( he seemed quite
confident of that ) & 200-600 people would have been
involved. The charge could not be organised as a
last-minute decision. BWS didn't dwell on the difficulties
of battlefield communication but when I went on the
battlefield walk at Barnet the organiser was concerned
about them.
I have never heard any suggestion previously that
Northumberland was militarily incompetent. Wasn't he on
the Scottish campaign?


On 20 Apr 2015, at 21:50, wednesday.mac@...
[] <>
wrote:

I've only seen his birthdate as circa 1449, so if
that's now been revised to circa 1445...what's the
source? How do we know when he was born and how old
he was when his father died?

If he was older and was at Towton, perhaps he was
there as a squire, but we don't know.

We do know he was imprisoned for five years, but I'd
imagine he had basic luxuries provided (like a bed)
and goodies delivered and time out of prison as did
other wealthy prisoners since his family had money.
It's not as if he were cast into the lowest cell of
the Fleet. But it's also not as if his education in
the military arts would have continued.

I still wonder what sort of training he had, under
whose supervision, and if that training was
interrupted. Did Richard inherit someone who simply
didn't know what to do when given a direct order?

There's some debate that if Richard sent a message
to Northumberland, he may not have left time for
Northumberland to respond before he discovered where
Tudor was and organized his charge down the hill.

I don't know the answers to any of this. It just
occurred to me that Northumberland may have lacked a
military education Richard took for granted.


---In ,
<khafara@...> wrote :

Is the 1449 birthdate
solid? Last I'd heard, he was born circa 1445,
which would have meant he likely was a squire of
15 or 16 when his father fell at Towton.

Then again, if he were that far into his teens and
his squirehood (and I simply can't imagine the
heir and scion of the Alnwick Percies not having
any knightly training), why wasn't he with his
father at Towton? Was it because he was his
father's only son? Or was it also that he was
indeed too young and untrained to take part?

Tamara

ÿ
Hi Hilary,
Yes his tomb is still in Beverley Minster (I last visited in
Sept 2013). His tomb chest stands in its own chapel, and is made of Purbeck
marble, with niches for weepers along both sides, but the top is plain. A
printed A4 sheet in a photo frame stands atop the tomb giving a brief
description of the chapel and of Percy, and this actually states that he was
born c.1446! I have a photo of this and of the tomb itself. Does anyone want me
to upload them? The chapel stands a little bit further along from the famous,
and beautiful, Percy tomb which lies alongside the altar.
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... []
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 9:49
AM
Subject: Re:
Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?


Re his date of birth as 1449 -
his tomb is in Beverley Minster. I assume it's still there as the Minster says
it is and gives his dates (b 1449) or age which are presumably on the tomb?
Hope this helps. H
From:
"'Sharon Feely' 43118@...
[]" <>To:
Sent: Monday, 20 April 2015,
22:42Subject: Re: [Richard
III Society Forum] Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to
Fight?

ÿ
Is there any truth that he was murdered by a mob because he
failed to support Richard, or was there another reason behind it?
Sharon

----- Original
Message -----
From:
Jan
Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []
To:
Sent:
Monday, April 20, 2015 10:26 PM
Subject:
Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland,
Trained to Fight?

Jan here.
I went to the triennial conference last week. In his talk Bob
Woosnam-Savage mentioned that it was possible the total amount of hand to
hand fighting at Bosworth may only have lasted 40 mins. Northumberland might
have had no time to make an effective move. The king's charge would have
taken 4 mins to reach Tudor's party ( he seemed quite confident of that )
& 200-600 people would have been involved. The charge could not be
organised as a last-minute decision. BWS didn't dwell on the difficulties of
battlefield communication but when I went on the battlefield walk at Barnet
the organiser was concerned about them.
I have never heard any suggestion previously that Northumberland was
militarily incompetent. Wasn't he on the Scottish campaign?
On 20 Apr 2015, at 21:50, wednesday.mac@...
[] <>
wrote:
I've only seen his birthdate as circa 1449, so if that's now been
revised to circa 1445...what's the source? How do we know when he was born
and how old he was when his father died? If
he was older and was at Towton, perhaps he was there as a squire, but we
don't know. We do know he was imprisoned for
five years, but I'd imagine he had basic luxuries provided (like a bed)
and goodies delivered and time out of prison as did other wealthy
prisoners since his family had money. It's not as if he were cast into the
lowest cell of the Fleet. But it's also not as if his education in the
military arts would have continued.
I still wonder what
sort of training he had, under whose supervision, and if that training was
interrupted. Did Richard inherit someone who simply didn't know what to do
when given a direct order? There's some
debate that if Richard sent a message to Northumberland, he may not have
left time for Northumberland to respond before he discovered where Tudor
was and organized his charge down the hill. I don't know the answers to any of this. It just occurred to me
that Northumberland may have lacked a military education Richard took for
granted. ---In ,
<khafara@...> wrote :
Is the 1449 birthdate solid? Last
I'd heard, he was born circa 1445, which would have meant he likely was a
squire of 15 or 16 when his father fell at Towton. Then again, if he were that far into his teens and his
squirehood (and I simply can't imagine the heir and scion of the Alnwick
Percies not having any knightly training), why wasn't he with his father
at Towton? Was it because he was his father's only son? Or was it also
that he was indeed too young and untrained to take part? Tamara

I would love to see the photos.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 21, 2015, at 7:12 PM, 'Sharon Feely'
43118@... [] <> wrote:

ÿ
Hi Hilary,
Yes his tomb is still in Beverley Minster (I last visited in Sept 2013). His tomb chest stands in its own chapel, and is made of Purbeck marble, with niches for weepers along both sides, but the top is plain. A printed A4 sheet in a photo
frame stands atop the tomb giving a brief description of the chapel and of Percy, and this actually states that he was born c.1446! I have a photo of this and of the tomb itself. Does anyone want me to upload them? The chapel stands a little bit further along
from the famous, and beautiful, Percy tomb which lies alongside the altar.
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From:
Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?


Re his date of birth as 1449 - his tomb is in Beverley Minster. I assume it's still there as the Minster says it is and gives his dates (b 1449) or age which are presumably on the tomb? Hope this helps. H

From: "'Sharon Feely'
43118@... []" <>
To:

Sent: Monday, 20 April 2015, 22:42
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

ÿ
Is there any truth that he was murdered by a mob because he failed to support Richard, or was there another reason behind it?
Sharon


----- Original Message -----
From:
Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []
To:
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

Jan here.
I went to the triennial conference last week. In his talk Bob Woosnam-Savage mentioned that it was possible the total amount of hand to hand fighting at Bosworth may only have lasted 40 mins. Northumberland might have had no time to make an effective move.
The king's charge would have taken 4 mins to reach Tudor's party ( he seemed quite confident of that ) & 200-600 people would have been involved. The charge could not be organised as a last-minute decision. BWS didn't dwell on the difficulties of battlefield
communication but when I went on the battlefield walk at Barnet the organiser was concerned about them.
I have never heard any suggestion previously that Northumberland was militarily incompetent. Wasn't he on the Scottish campaign?


On 20 Apr 2015, at 21:50,
wednesday.mac@... [] <> wrote:

I've only seen his birthdate as circa 1449, so if that's now been revised to circa 1445...what's the source? How do we know when he was born and how old he was when his father died?


If he was older and was at Towton, perhaps he was there as a squire, but we don't know.


We do know he was imprisoned for five years, but I'd imagine he had basic luxuries provided (like a bed) and goodies delivered and time out of prison as did other wealthy prisoners since his family had money. It's not as if he were cast into the lowest cell
of the Fleet. But it's also not as if his education in the military arts would have continued.


I still wonder what sort of training he had, under whose supervision, and if that training was interrupted. Did Richard inherit someone who simply didn't know what to do when given a direct order?


There's some debate that if Richard sent a message to Northumberland, he may not have left time for Northumberland to respond before he discovered where Tudor was and organized his charge down the hill.


I don't know the answers to any of this. It just occurred to me that Northumberland may have lacked a military education Richard took for granted.



---In
, <khafara@...> wrote :

Is the 1449 birthdate solid? Last I'd heard, he was born circa 1445, which would have meant he likely was a squire of 15 or 16 when his father fell at Towton.


Then again, if he were that far into his teens and his squirehood (and I simply can't imagine the heir and scion of the Alnwick Percies not having any knightly training), why wasn't he with his father at Towton? Was it because he was his father's only son?
Or was it also that he was indeed too young and untrained to take part?

Tamara

Someone who claims to have seen the tomb at Beverley Minster gives a date of 1446 for Northumberland's birth, but doesn't say that this is actually on the tomb. (In any event this could well be a typo.) From the pictures there doesn't seem to be any dates on it, at least not now:

http://www.silvertraveladvisor.com/review/attraction/152580-beverley-minster-one-of-the-best-gothic-churches-in-europe

There are drawings here of the tomb. (I apologize for the length and ugliness of the link.) No sign of any dates of birth or death, but there is a possible date of construction of "(14) 89" tucked away on it:

https://books.google.com/books?id=RHwfAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA695&lpg=PA695&dq=beverley+minster+tomb+henry&source=bl&ots=kD8UPFQUu5&sig=33353mMmXis3JShXKqgRoK6aNrQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CNU2Vcz1BImEyQSqgYGwAw&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=beverley%20minster%20tomb%20henry&f=false

Tamara

Thanks for that Sharon. So our one 'hope' is gone. Wonder where the 1449 comes from (perhaps a Visitation?). Yes it would be lovely if you could upload it. H From: "'Sharon Feely' 43118@... []" <> To: Sent: Tuesday, 21 April 2015, 19:41 Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?
ÿ
Hi Hilary,
Yes his tomb is still in Beverley Minster (I last visited in
Sept 2013). His tomb chest stands in its own chapel, and is made of Purbeck
marble, with niches for weepers along both sides, but the top is plain. A
printed A4 sheet in a photo frame stands atop the tomb giving a brief
description of the chapel and of Percy, and this actually states that he was
born c.1446! I have a photo of this and of the tomb itself. Does anyone want me
to upload them? The chapel stands a little bit further along from the famous,
and beautiful, Percy tomb which lies alongside the altar.
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... []
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 9:49
AM
Subject: Re:
Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

Re his date of birth as 1449 -
his tomb is in Beverley Minster. I assume it's still there as the Minster says
it is and gives his dates (b 1449) or age which are presumably on the tomb?
Hope this helps. H
From:
"'Sharon Feely' 43118@...
[]" <>To:
Sent: Monday, 20 April 2015,
22:42Subject: Re: [Richard
III Society Forum] Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to
Fight?

ÿ
Is there any truth that he was murdered by a mob because he
failed to support Richard, or was there another reason behind it?
Sharon

----- Original
Message -----
From:
Jan
Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []
To:
Sent:
Monday, April 20, 2015 10:26 PM
Subject:
Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland,
Trained to Fight?

Jan here.
I went to the triennial conference last week. In his talk Bob
Woosnam-Savage mentioned that it was possible the total amount of hand to
hand fighting at Bosworth may only have lasted 40 mins. Northumberland might
have had no time to make an effective move. The king's charge would have
taken 4 mins to reach Tudor's party ( he seemed quite confident of that )
& 200-600 people would have been involved. The charge could not be
organised as a last-minute decision. BWS didn't dwell on the difficulties of
battlefield communication but when I went on the battlefield walk at Barnet
the organiser was concerned about them.
I have never heard any suggestion previously that Northumberland was
militarily incompetent. Wasn't he on the Scottish campaign?
On 20 Apr 2015, at 21:50, wednesday.mac@...
[] <>
wrote:
I've only seen his birthdate as circa 1449, so if that's now been
revised to circa 1445...what's the source? How do we know when he was born
and how old he was when his father died? If
he was older and was at Towton, perhaps he was there as a squire, but we
don't know. We do know he was imprisoned for
five years, but I'd imagine he had basic luxuries provided (like a bed)
and goodies delivered and time out of prison as did other wealthy
prisoners since his family had money. It's not as if he were cast into the
lowest cell of the Fleet. But it's also not as if his education in the
military arts would have continued.
I still wonder what
sort of training he had, under whose supervision, and if that training was
interrupted. Did Richard inherit someone who simply didn't know what to do
when given a direct order? There's some
debate that if Richard sent a message to Northumberland, he may not have
left time for Northumberland to respond before he discovered where Tudor
was and organized his charge down the hill. I don't know the answers to any of this. It just occurred to me
that Northumberland may have lacked a military education Richard took for
granted. ---In ,
<khafara@...> wrote :
Is the 1449 birthdate solid? Last
I'd heard, he was born circa 1445, which would have meant he likely was a
squire of 15 or 16 when his father fell at Towton. Then again, if he were that far into his teens and his
squirehood (and I simply can't imagine the heir and scion of the Alnwick
Percies not having any knightly training), why wasn't he with his father
at Towton? Was it because he was his father's only son? Or was it also
that he was indeed too young and untrained to take part? Tamara

No, not a Visitation, I've just looked. Didn't realise he was brother-in-law to Thomas Hungerford who was the one executed in 1469 when Richard presided. Perhaps he'd been 'got at'. Add to that that his wife (who died in June 1485) had been William Herbert's daughter. In the YHB he comes over as quite a popular chap, more popular than Lovell. H From: "'Sharon Feely' 43118@... []" <> To: Sent: Tuesday, 21 April 2015, 19:41 Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?
ÿ
Hi Hilary,
Yes his tomb is still in Beverley Minster (I last visited in
Sept 2013). His tomb chest stands in its own chapel, and is made of Purbeck
marble, with niches for weepers along both sides, but the top is plain. A
printed A4 sheet in a photo frame stands atop the tomb giving a brief
description of the chapel and of Percy, and this actually states that he was
born c.1446! I have a photo of this and of the tomb itself. Does anyone want me
to upload them? The chapel stands a little bit further along from the famous,
and beautiful, Percy tomb which lies alongside the altar.
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... []
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 9:49
AM
Subject: Re:
Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

Re his date of birth as 1449 -
his tomb is in Beverley Minster. I assume it's still there as the Minster says
it is and gives his dates (b 1449) or age which are presumably on the tomb?
Hope this helps. H
From:
"'Sharon Feely' 43118@...
[]" <>To:
Sent: Monday, 20 April 2015,
22:42Subject: Re: [Richard
III Society Forum] Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to
Fight?

ÿ
Is there any truth that he was murdered by a mob because he
failed to support Richard, or was there another reason behind it?
Sharon

----- Original
Message -----
From:
Jan
Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []
To:
Sent:
Monday, April 20, 2015 10:26 PM
Subject:
Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland,
Trained to Fight?

Jan here.
I went to the triennial conference last week. In his talk Bob
Woosnam-Savage mentioned that it was possible the total amount of hand to
hand fighting at Bosworth may only have lasted 40 mins. Northumberland might
have had no time to make an effective move. The king's charge would have
taken 4 mins to reach Tudor's party ( he seemed quite confident of that )
& 200-600 people would have been involved. The charge could not be
organised as a last-minute decision. BWS didn't dwell on the difficulties of
battlefield communication but when I went on the battlefield walk at Barnet
the organiser was concerned about them.
I have never heard any suggestion previously that Northumberland was
militarily incompetent. Wasn't he on the Scottish campaign?
On 20 Apr 2015, at 21:50, wednesday.mac@...
[] <>
wrote:
I've only seen his birthdate as circa 1449, so if that's now been
revised to circa 1445...what's the source? How do we know when he was born
and how old he was when his father died? If
he was older and was at Towton, perhaps he was there as a squire, but we
don't know. We do know he was imprisoned for
five years, but I'd imagine he had basic luxuries provided (like a bed)
and goodies delivered and time out of prison as did other wealthy
prisoners since his family had money. It's not as if he were cast into the
lowest cell of the Fleet. But it's also not as if his education in the
military arts would have continued.
I still wonder what
sort of training he had, under whose supervision, and if that training was
interrupted. Did Richard inherit someone who simply didn't know what to do
when given a direct order? There's some
debate that if Richard sent a message to Northumberland, he may not have
left time for Northumberland to respond before he discovered where Tudor
was and organized his charge down the hill. I don't know the answers to any of this. It just occurred to me
that Northumberland may have lacked a military education Richard took for
granted. ---In ,
<khafara@...> wrote :
Is the 1449 birthdate solid? Last
I'd heard, he was born circa 1445, which would have meant he likely was a
squire of 15 or 16 when his father fell at Towton. Then again, if he were that far into his teens and his
squirehood (and I simply can't imagine the heir and scion of the Alnwick
Percies not having any knightly training), why wasn't he with his father
at Towton? Was it because he was his father's only son? Or was it also
that he was indeed too young and untrained to take part? Tamara

Hi all
If you can get to it there is an earlier  thread titled Northumberland at Bosworth. He was almost certainly inexperienced on a large battlefield, even if he had some training.  His wife probably died only 2 months ahead of Bosworth and that partially explains his lateness.
From the little we know this was a successful marriage. His actions can be viewed through the filter of a grieving widower going through the motions
Gillian
On 22/04/2015 6:22 PM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 
No, not a Visitation, I've just looked. Didn't realise he was brother-in-law to Thomas Hungerford who was the one executed in 1469 when Richard presided. Perhaps he'd been 'got at'.  Add to that that his wife (who died in June 1485) had been William Herbert's daughter. In the YHB he comes over as quite a popular chap, more popular than Lovell. H     From: "'Sharon Feely' 43118@... []" <> To: Sent: Tuesday, 21 April 2015, 19:41 Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?
 
ÿ
Hi Hilary,
 
Yes his tomb is still in Beverley Minster (I last visited in
Sept 2013). His tomb chest stands in its own chapel, and is made of Purbeck
marble, with niches for weepers along both sides, but the top is plain. A
printed A4 sheet in a photo frame stands atop the tomb giving a brief
description of the chapel and of Percy, and this actually states that he was
born c.1446! I have a photo of this and of the tomb itself. Does anyone want me
to upload them? The chapel stands a little bit further along from the famous,
and beautiful,  Percy tomb which lies alongside the altar.
 
Sharon
 
 
----- Original Message -----
 
From: Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... []
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 9:49
AM
Subject: Re:
Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?
 
Re his date of birth as 1449 -
his tomb is in Beverley Minster. I assume it's still there as the Minster says
it is and gives his dates (b 1449) or age which are presumably on the tomb?
Hope this helps. H 
From:
"'Sharon Feely' 43118@...
[]" <>To:
Sent: Monday, 20 April 2015,
22:42Subject: Re: [Richard
III Society Forum] Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to
Fight?

 
ÿ
Is there any truth that he was murdered by a mob because he
failed to support Richard, or was there another reason behind it?
 
Sharon
 
 

----- Original
Message -----
From:
Jan
Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []
To:
Sent:
Monday, April 20, 2015 10:26 PM
Subject:
Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland,
Trained to Fight?
 
Jan here.
I went to the triennial conference last week. In his talk Bob
Woosnam-Savage mentioned that it was possible the total amount of hand to
hand fighting at Bosworth may only have lasted 40 mins. Northumberland might
have had no time to make an effective move. The king's charge would have
taken 4 mins to reach Tudor's party ( he seemed quite confident of that )
& 200-600 people would have been involved. The charge could not be
organised as a last-minute decision. BWS didn't dwell on the difficulties of
battlefield communication but when I went on the battlefield walk at Barnet
the organiser was concerned about them.
I have never heard any suggestion previously that Northumberland was
militarily incompetent. Wasn't he on the Scottish campaign?
On 20 Apr 2015, at 21:50, wednesday.mac@...
[] <>
wrote:
 
I've only seen his birthdate as circa 1449, so if that's now been
revised to circa 1445...what's the source? How do we know when he was born
and how old he was when his father died? If
he was older and was at Towton, perhaps he was there as a squire, but we
don't know. We do know he was imprisoned for
five years, but I'd imagine he had basic luxuries provided (like a bed)
and goodies delivered and time out of prison as did other wealthy
prisoners since his family had money. It's not as if he were cast into the
lowest cell of the Fleet. But it's also not as if his education in the
military arts would have continued.
I still wonder what
sort of training he had, under whose supervision, and if that training was
interrupted. Did Richard inherit someone who simply didn't know what to do
when given a direct order? There's some
debate that if Richard sent a message to Northumberland, he may not have
left time for Northumberland to respond before he discovered where Tudor
was and organized his charge down the hill.  I don't know the answers to any of this. It just occurred to me
that Northumberland may have lacked a military education Richard took for
granted. ---In ,
<khafara@...> wrote :
Is the 1449 birthdate solid? Last
I'd heard, he was born circa 1445, which would have meant he likely was a
squire of 15 or 16 when his father fell at Towton. Then again, if he were that far into his teens and his
squirehood (and I simply can't imagine the heir and scion of the Alnwick
Percies not having any knightly training), why wasn't he with his father
at Towton? Was it because he was his father's only son? Or was it also
that he was indeed too young and untrained to take part? Tamara

Thanks Gillian. Yes, to be fair, the ones with experience of large battlefields (alas Hastings), with the exception of De Vere on the other side, were virtually all gone. I have a job to see Northumberland as a baddie in all this. You could say the same of Francis Lovell, who let HT's fleet sneak through. H From: "Bruce Laughton gillian.laughton1@... []" <> To: Sent: Wednesday, 22 April 2015, 10:43 Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?
Hi all
If you can get to it there is an earlier thread titled Northumberland at Bosworth. He was almost certainly inexperienced on a large battlefield, even if he had some training. His wife probably died only 2 months ahead of Bosworth and that partially explains his lateness.
From the little we know this was a successful marriage. His actions can be viewed through the filter of a grieving widower going through the motions
Gillian
On 22/04/2015 6:22 PM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
No, not a Visitation, I've just looked. Didn't realise he was brother-in-law to Thomas Hungerford who was the one executed in 1469 when Richard presided. Perhaps he'd been 'got at'. Add to that that his wife (who died in June 1485) had been William Herbert's daughter. In the YHB he comes over as quite a popular chap, more popular than Lovell. H From: "'Sharon Feely' 43118@... []" <> To: Sent: Tuesday, 21 April 2015, 19:41 Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?
ÿ
Hi Hilary,
Yes his tomb is still in Beverley Minster (I last visited in
Sept 2013). His tomb chest stands in its own chapel, and is made of Purbeck
marble, with niches for weepers along both sides, but the top is plain. A
printed A4 sheet in a photo frame stands atop the tomb giving a brief
description of the chapel and of Percy, and this actually states that he was
born c.1446! I have a photo of this and of the tomb itself. Does anyone want me
to upload them? The chapel stands a little bit further along from the famous,
and beautiful, Percy tomb which lies alongside the altar.
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... []
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 9:49
AM
Subject: Re:
Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

Re his date of birth as 1449 -
his tomb is in Beverley Minster. I assume it's still there as the Minster says
it is and gives his dates (b 1449) or age which are presumably on the tomb?
Hope this helps. H
From:
"'Sharon Feely' 43118@...
[]" <>To:
Sent: Monday, 20 April 2015,
22:42Subject: Re: [Richard
III Society Forum] Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to
Fight?

ÿ
Is there any truth that he was murdered by a mob because he
failed to support Richard, or was there another reason behind it?
Sharon

----- Original
Message -----
From:
Jan
Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []
To:
Sent:
Monday, April 20, 2015 10:26 PM
Subject:
Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland,
Trained to Fight?

Jan here.
I went to the triennial conference last week. In his talk Bob
Woosnam-Savage mentioned that it was possible the total amount of hand to
hand fighting at Bosworth may only have lasted 40 mins. Northumberland might
have had no time to make an effective move. The king's charge would have
taken 4 mins to reach Tudor's party ( he seemed quite confident of that )
& 200-600 people would have been involved. The charge could not be
organised as a last-minute decision. BWS didn't dwell on the difficulties of
battlefield communication but when I went on the battlefield walk at Barnet
the organiser was concerned about them.
I have never heard any suggestion previously that Northumberland was
militarily incompetent. Wasn't he on the Scottish campaign?
On 20 Apr 2015, at 21:50, wednesday.mac@...
[] <>
wrote:
I've only seen his birthdate as circa 1449, so if that's now been
revised to circa 1445...what's the source? How do we know when he was born
and how old he was when his father died? If
he was older and was at Towton, perhaps he was there as a squire, but we
don't know. We do know he was imprisoned for
five years, but I'd imagine he had basic luxuries provided (like a bed)
and goodies delivered and time out of prison as did other wealthy
prisoners since his family had money. It's not as if he were cast into the
lowest cell of the Fleet. But it's also not as if his education in the
military arts would have continued.
I still wonder what
sort of training he had, under whose supervision, and if that training was
interrupted. Did Richard inherit someone who simply didn't know what to do
when given a direct order? There's some
debate that if Richard sent a message to Northumberland, he may not have
left time for Northumberland to respond before he discovered where Tudor
was and organized his charge down the hill. I don't know the answers to any of this. It just occurred to me
that Northumberland may have lacked a military education Richard took for
granted. ---In ,
<khafara@...> wrote :
Is the 1449 birthdate solid? Last
I'd heard, he was born circa 1445, which would have meant he likely was a
squire of 15 or 16 when his father fell at Towton. Then again, if he were that far into his teens and his
squirehood (and I simply can't imagine the heir and scion of the Alnwick
Percies not having any knightly training), why wasn't he with his father
at Towton? Was it because he was his father's only son? Or was it also
that he was indeed too young and untrained to take part? Tamara

ÿ
Have uploaded pictures to the photos album. The tomb chest is
actually quite large and high, wasn't quite tall enough to see all of it, so
possibly there was an incised inscription that has worn smooth with time? It
definitely looks smooth now anyway. The information board makes no mention of
what the tomb originally looked like - was there an incised top? Were there
weepers in the niches on the sides? Or was it the same as it is
now?
Beverley Minster is a great place, and free to get in. There
is a small charge for photo permits. I'd recommend a visit to anyone who finds
themselves in the area.
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From:
Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... []
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 9:07
AM
Subject: Re:
Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?


Thanks for that Sharon. So our one 'hope' is gone. Wonder
where the 1449 comes from (perhaps a Visitation?). Yes it would be lovely if
you could upload it. H
From:
"'Sharon Feely' 43118@...
[]" <>To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 April
2015, 19:41Subject: Re:
Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland,
Trained to Fight?

ÿ
Hi Hilary,
Yes his tomb is still in Beverley
Minster (I last visited in Sept 2013). His tomb chest stands in its own
chapel, and is made of Purbeck marble, with niches for weepers along both
sides, but the top is plain. A printed A4 sheet in a photo frame stands atop
the tomb giving a brief description of the chapel and of Percy, and this
actually states that he was born c.1446! I have a photo of this and of the
tomb itself. Does anyone want me to upload them? The chapel stands a little
bit further along from the famous, and beautiful, Percy tomb which lies
alongside the altar.
Sharon
----- Original Message
-----

From: Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... []
To:
Sent: Tuesday,
April 21, 2015 9:49 AM
Subject: Re:
Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland,
Trained to Fight?

Re his date of
birth as 1449 - his tomb is in Beverley Minster. I assume it's still there
as the Minster says it is and gives his dates (b 1449) or age which are
presumably on the tomb? Hope this helps. H
From:
"'Sharon Feely' 43118@...
[]" <>To:
Sent: Monday,
20 April 2015, 22:42Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

ÿ
Is there any truth that he was murdered by a mob because
he failed to support Richard, or was there another reason behind it?
Sharon

----- Original
Message -----
From:
Jan
Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []
To:
Sent:
Monday, April 20, 2015 10:26 PM
Subject:
Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of
Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

Jan here.
I went to the triennial conference last week. In his talk Bob
Woosnam-Savage mentioned that it was possible the total amount of hand to
hand fighting at Bosworth may only have lasted 40 mins. Northumberland
might have had no time to make an effective move. The king's charge would
have taken 4 mins to reach Tudor's party ( he seemed quite confident of
that ) & 200-600 people would have been involved. The charge could not
be organised as a last-minute decision. BWS didn't dwell on the
difficulties of battlefield communication but when I went on the
battlefield walk at Barnet the organiser was concerned about them.
I have never heard any suggestion previously that Northumberland was
militarily incompetent. Wasn't he on the Scottish campaign?
On 20 Apr 2015, at 21:50, wednesday.mac@...
[] <>
wrote:
I've only seen his birthdate as circa 1449, so if that's now been
revised to circa 1445...what's the source? How do we know when he was
born and how old he was when his father died? If he was older and was at Towton, perhaps he was there as a
squire, but we don't know. We do know he
was imprisoned for five years, but I'd imagine he had basic luxuries
provided (like a bed) and goodies delivered and time out of prison as
did other wealthy prisoners since his family had money. It's not as if
he were cast into the lowest cell of the Fleet. But it's also not as if
his education in the military arts would have continued.
I still wonder
what sort of training he had, under whose supervision, and if that
training was interrupted. Did Richard inherit someone who simply didn't
know what to do when given a direct order? There's some debate that if Richard sent a message to
Northumberland, he may not have left time for Northumberland to respond
before he discovered where Tudor was and organized his charge down the
hill. I don't know the answers to
any of this. It just occurred to me that Northumberland may have lacked
a military education Richard took for granted. ---In ,
<khafara@...> wrote :
Is the 1449 birthdate solid?
Last I'd heard, he was born circa 1445, which would have meant he likely
was a squire of 15 or 16 when his father fell at Towton. Then again, if he were that far into his teens
and his squirehood (and I simply can't imagine the heir and scion of the
Alnwick Percies not having any knightly training), why wasn't he with
his father at Towton? Was it because he was his father's only son? Or
was it also that he was indeed too young and untrained to take part? Tamara

Oh my, it is so lovely. Like most things, unless you have an amazing camera, and are a talented photographer, the real thing does not look like any of my photos!



On Apr 22, 2015, at 5:33 PM, 'Sharon Feely'
43118@... [] <> wrote:

ÿ
Have uploaded pictures to the photos album. The tomb chest is actually quite large and high, wasn't quite tall enough to see all of it, so possibly there was an incised inscription that has worn smooth with time? It definitely looks smooth
now anyway. The information board makes no mention of what the tomb originally looked like - was there an incised top? Were there weepers in the niches on the sides? Or was it the same as it is now?
Beverley Minster is a great place, and free to get in. There is a small charge for photo permits. I'd recommend a visit to anyone who finds themselves in the area.
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From:
Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?


Thanks for that Sharon. So our one 'hope' is gone. Wonder where the 1449 comes from (perhaps a Visitation?). Yes it would be lovely if you could upload it. H
From: "'Sharon Feely'
43118@... []" <>
To:

Sent: Tuesday, 21 April 2015, 19:41
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

ÿ
Hi Hilary,
Yes his tomb is still in Beverley Minster (I last visited in Sept 2013). His tomb chest stands in its own chapel, and is made of Purbeck marble, with niches for weepers
along both sides, but the top is plain. A printed A4 sheet in a photo frame stands atop the tomb giving a brief description of the chapel and of Percy, and this actually states that he was born c.1446! I have a photo of this and of the tomb itself. Does anyone
want me to upload them? The chapel stands a little bit further along from the famous, and beautiful, Percy tomb which lies alongside the altar.
Sharon
----- Original Message -----


From:
Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

Re his date of birth as 1449 - his tomb is in Beverley Minster. I assume it's still there as the Minster says it is and gives his dates (b 1449) or age which are presumably on the tomb? Hope this
helps. H

From: "'Sharon Feely'
43118@... []" <>
To:

Sent: Monday, 20 April 2015, 22:42
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

ÿ
Is there any truth that he was murdered by a mob because he failed to support Richard, or was there another reason behind it?
Sharon


----- Original Message -----
From:
Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []
To:
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

Jan here.
I went to the triennial conference last week. In his talk Bob Woosnam-Savage mentioned that it was possible the total amount of hand to hand fighting at Bosworth may only have lasted 40 mins. Northumberland might have had no time to make an effective move.
The king's charge would have taken 4 mins to reach Tudor's party ( he seemed quite confident of that ) & 200-600 people would have been involved. The charge could not be organised as a last-minute decision. BWS didn't dwell on the difficulties of battlefield
communication but when I went on the battlefield walk at Barnet the organiser was concerned about them.
I have never heard any suggestion previously that Northumberland was militarily incompetent. Wasn't he on the Scottish campaign?


On 20 Apr 2015, at 21:50,
wednesday.mac@... [] <> wrote:

I've only seen his birthdate as circa 1449, so if that's now been revised to circa 1445...what's the source? How do we know when he was born and how old he was when his father died?


If he was older and was at Towton, perhaps he was there as a squire, but we don't know.


We do know he was imprisoned for five years, but I'd imagine he had basic luxuries provided (like a bed) and goodies delivered and time out of prison as did other wealthy prisoners since his family had money. It's not as if he were cast into the lowest cell
of the Fleet. But it's also not as if his education in the military arts would have continued.


I still wonder what sort of training he had, under whose supervision, and if that training was interrupted. Did Richard inherit someone who simply didn't know what to do when given a direct order?


There's some debate that if Richard sent a message to Northumberland, he may not have left time for Northumberland to respond before he discovered where Tudor was and organized his charge down the hill.


I don't know the answers to any of this. It just occurred to me that Northumberland may have lacked a military education Richard took for granted.



---In
, <khafara@...> wrote :

Is the 1449 birthdate solid? Last I'd heard, he was born circa 1445, which would have meant he likely was a squire of 15 or 16 when his father fell at Towton.


Then again, if he were that far into his teens and his squirehood (and I simply can't imagine the heir and scion of the Alnwick Percies not having any knightly training), why wasn't he with his father at Towton? Was it because he was his father's only son?
Or was it also that he was indeed too young and untrained to take part?

Tamara

ÿ
Thank you Pamela. I've only got a lower end range Nikon DSLR
and these weren't even tweaked on Lightroom, as I usually do to get the
contrasts better. I do like my photography though, and I appreciate your
compliment!
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From:
Pamela Bain
pbain@... []
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 12:07
AM
Subject: Re:
Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?


Oh my, it is so lovely. Like most things, unless you have an amazing
camera, and are a talented photographer, the real thing does not look like any
of my photos!
On Apr 22, 2015, at 5:33 PM, 'Sharon Feely' 43118@...
[] <>
wrote:
ÿ
Have uploaded pictures to the photos album. The tomb chest
is actually quite large and high, wasn't quite tall enough to see all of it,
so possibly there was an incised inscription that has worn smooth with time?
It definitely looks smooth now anyway. The information board makes no
mention of what the tomb originally looked like - was there an incised top?
Were there weepers in the niches on the sides? Or was it the same as it is
now?
Beverley Minster is a great place, and free to get in.
There is a small charge for photo permits. I'd recommend a visit to anyone
who finds themselves in the area.
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... []
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 9:07
AM
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to
Fight?


Thanks for that Sharon. So our one 'hope' is gone. Wonder
where the 1449 comes from (perhaps a Visitation?). Yes it would be lovely
if you could upload it. H
From: "'Sharon Feely' 43118@...
[]" <>To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 April
2015, 19:41Subject: Re:
Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland,
Trained to Fight?

ÿ
Hi
Hilary,
Yes his tomb is still in
Beverley Minster (I last visited in Sept 2013). His tomb chest stands in
its own chapel, and is made of Purbeck marble, with niches for weepers
along both sides, but the top is plain. A printed A4 sheet in a photo
frame stands atop the tomb giving a brief description of the chapel and of
Percy, and this actually states that he was born c.1446! I have a photo of
this and of the tomb itself. Does anyone want me to upload them? The
chapel stands a little bit further along from the famous, and beautiful,
Percy tomb which lies alongside the altar.
Sharon
----- Original
Message -----

From: Hilary
Jones hjnatdat@... []
To:
Sent:
Tuesday, April 21, 2015 9:49 AM
Subject: Re:
Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland,
Trained to Fight?

Re his date
of birth as 1449 - his tomb is in Beverley Minster. I assume it's still
there as the Minster says it is and gives his dates (b 1449) or age
which are presumably on the tomb? Hope this helps. H
From: "'Sharon Feely' 43118@...
[]" <>To:
Sent:
Monday, 20 April 2015, 22:42Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

ÿ
Is there any truth that he was murdered by a mob
because he failed to support Richard, or was there another reason behind
it?
Sharon

-----
Original Message -----
From:
Jan
Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []
To:
Sent:
Monday, April 20, 2015 10:26 PM
Subject:
Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of
Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

Jan here.
I went to the triennial conference last week. In his talk Bob
Woosnam-Savage mentioned that it was possible the total amount of hand
to hand fighting at Bosworth may only have lasted 40 mins.
Northumberland might have had no time to make an effective move. The
king's charge would have taken 4 mins to reach Tudor's party ( he
seemed quite confident of that ) & 200-600 people would have been
involved. The charge could not be organised as a last-minute decision.
BWS didn't dwell on the difficulties of battlefield communication but
when I went on the battlefield walk at Barnet the organiser was
concerned about them.
I have never heard any suggestion previously that Northumberland
was militarily incompetent. Wasn't he on the Scottish campaign?
On 20 Apr 2015, at 21:50, wednesday.mac@...
[] <>
wrote:
I've only seen his birthdate as circa 1449, so if that's now
been revised to circa 1445...what's the source? How do we know when
he was born and how old he was when his father died? If he was older and was at Towton, perhaps
he was there as a squire, but we don't know. We do know he was imprisoned for five years, but I'd
imagine he had basic luxuries provided (like a bed) and goodies
delivered and time out of prison as did other wealthy prisoners
since his family had money. It's not as if he were cast into the
lowest cell of the Fleet. But it's also not as if his education in
the military arts would have continued.
I still wonder
what sort of training he had, under whose supervision, and if that
training was interrupted. Did Richard inherit someone who simply
didn't know what to do when given a direct order? There's some debate that if Richard sent a message to
Northumberland, he may not have left time for Northumberland to
respond before he discovered where Tudor was and organized his
charge down the hill. I don't
know the answers to any of this. It just occurred to me that
Northumberland may have lacked a military education Richard took for
granted. ---In ,
<khafara@...> wrote :
Is the 1449 birthdate
solid? Last I'd heard, he was born circa 1445, which would have
meant he likely was a squire of 15 or 16 when his father fell at
Towton. Then again, if he were that
far into his teens and his squirehood (and I simply can't imagine
the heir and scion of the Alnwick Percies not having any knightly
training), why wasn't he with his father at Towton? Was it because
he was his father's only son? Or was it also that he was indeed too
young and untrained to take part? Tamara

Thank you again for posting them. Everyday there is something new to learn!

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 22, 2015, at 6:17 PM, 'Sharon Feely'
43118@... [] <> wrote:

ÿ
Thank you Pamela. I've only got a lower end range Nikon DSLR and these weren't even tweaked on Lightroom, as I usually do to get the contrasts better. I do like my photography though, and I appreciate your compliment!
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From:
Pamela Bain pbain@... []
To:
<>
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?


Oh my, it is so lovely. Like most things, unless you have an amazing camera, and are a talented photographer, the real thing does not look like any of my photos!



On Apr 22, 2015, at 5:33 PM, 'Sharon Feely'
43118@... [] <> wrote:

ÿ
Have uploaded pictures to the photos album. The tomb chest is actually quite large and high, wasn't quite tall enough to see all of it, so possibly there was an incised inscription that has worn smooth with time? It definitely looks smooth
now anyway. The information board makes no mention of what the tomb originally looked like - was there an incised top? Were there weepers in the niches on the sides? Or was it the same as it is now?
Beverley Minster is a great place, and free to get in. There is a small charge for photo permits. I'd recommend a visit to anyone who finds themselves in the area.
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From:
Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?


Thanks for that Sharon. So our one 'hope' is gone. Wonder where the 1449 comes from (perhaps a Visitation?). Yes it would be lovely if you could upload it. H
From: "'Sharon Feely'
43118@... []" <>
To:

Sent: Tuesday, 21 April 2015, 19:41
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

ÿ
Hi Hilary,
Yes his tomb is still in Beverley Minster (I last visited in Sept 2013). His tomb chest stands in its own chapel, and is made of Purbeck marble, with niches for weepers
along both sides, but the top is plain. A printed A4 sheet in a photo frame stands atop the tomb giving a brief description of the chapel and of Percy, and this actually states that he was born c.1446! I have a photo of this and of the tomb itself. Does anyone
want me to upload them? The chapel stands a little bit further along from the famous, and beautiful, Percy tomb which lies alongside the altar.
Sharon
----- Original Message -----


From:
Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

Re his date of birth as 1449 - his tomb is in Beverley Minster. I assume it's still there as the Minster says it is and gives his dates (b 1449) or age which are presumably on the tomb? Hope this
helps. H

From: "'Sharon Feely'
43118@... []" <>
To:

Sent: Monday, 20 April 2015, 22:42
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

ÿ
Is there any truth that he was murdered by a mob because he failed to support Richard, or was there another reason behind it?
Sharon


----- Original Message -----
From:
Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []
To:
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?

Jan here.
I went to the triennial conference last week. In his talk Bob Woosnam-Savage mentioned that it was possible the total amount of hand to hand fighting at Bosworth may only have lasted 40 mins. Northumberland might have had no time to make an effective move.
The king's charge would have taken 4 mins to reach Tudor's party ( he seemed quite confident of that ) & 200-600 people would have been involved. The charge could not be organised as a last-minute decision. BWS didn't dwell on the difficulties of battlefield
communication but when I went on the battlefield walk at Barnet the organiser was concerned about them.
I have never heard any suggestion previously that Northumberland was militarily incompetent. Wasn't he on the Scottish campaign?


On 20 Apr 2015, at 21:50,
wednesday.mac@... [] <> wrote:

I've only seen his birthdate as circa 1449, so if that's now been revised to circa 1445...what's the source? How do we know when he was born and how old he was when his father died?


If he was older and was at Towton, perhaps he was there as a squire, but we don't know.


We do know he was imprisoned for five years, but I'd imagine he had basic luxuries provided (like a bed) and goodies delivered and time out of prison as did other wealthy prisoners since his family had money. It's not as if he were cast into the lowest cell
of the Fleet. But it's also not as if his education in the military arts would have continued.


I still wonder what sort of training he had, under whose supervision, and if that training was interrupted. Did Richard inherit someone who simply didn't know what to do when given a direct order?


There's some debate that if Richard sent a message to Northumberland, he may not have left time for Northumberland to respond before he discovered where Tudor was and organized his charge down the hill.


I don't know the answers to any of this. It just occurred to me that Northumberland may have lacked a military education Richard took for granted.



---In
, <khafara@...> wrote :

Is the 1449 birthdate solid? Last I'd heard, he was born circa 1445, which would have meant he likely was a squire of 15 or 16 when his father fell at Towton.


Then again, if he were that far into his teens and his squirehood (and I simply can't imagine the heir and scion of the Alnwick Percies not having any knightly training), why wasn't he with his father at Towton? Was it because he was his father's only son?
Or was it also that he was indeed too young and untrained to take part?

Tamara

Thank you for the pictures!Tamara

The tomb was apparently a lot more elaborate than it is now, but at no time was there anything indicating a date of death, much less of birth, for him. That sort of inscription didn't come into favor in England until the next century, when birthdates became more widely known as a result of the parish registers Henry VIII mandated (as Marie noted, this was how he tried to keep track of those people who didn't attend his new church) . And even then, the relevant information would have likely been put on a small plaque off to the side rather than on the tomb itself.

Tamara

I thought it was to keep track of the
72,000 people he had executed.
From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 23 April 2015 13:30
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?


The tomb
was apparently a lot more elaborate than it is now, but at no time was there
anything indicating a date of death, much less of birth, for him. That sort of
inscription didn't come into favor in England until the next century, when
birthdates became more widely known as a result of the parish registers Henry
VIII mandated (as Marie noted, this was how he tried to keep track of those
people who didn't attend his new church) . And even then, the relevant
information would have likely been put on a small plaque off to the side rather
than on the tomb itself.

Tamara

The figure of 72,000 comes from Hume in the 17th century and has nothing to verify the actual number of people executed in the reign of Henry Viii. Hume actually states that this figure is based on sources but then fails to list all of them, meaning it's an estimation of people who died as a result of his laws. Without actual records of each execution or trial this figure has to be taken as a myth. It cannot be verified. Yes large numbers of people were executed under Henry Viii, but the same is true of Elizabeth I, Edward I, George iii, and several other monarchs. Random figures invented by historians a century and a half after the events are not to be trusted.

Hilary wrote :Thanks Gillian. Yes, to be fair, the ones with experience of large battlefields (alas Hastings), with the exception of De Vere on the other side, were virtually all gone. I have a job to see Northumberland as a baddie in all this. You could say the same of Francis Lovell, who let HT's fleet sneak through. HAre you sure about that, Hilary? I thought that Francis Lovell was simply in the wrong place. To my knowledge, there's no question about his loyalty to Richard.By the way, if anyone wonders where I've been, first I had surgery on my eyelids for ptosis (drooping eyelids that were interfering with my vision) and then I moved to a new home ("moved house," I think you British call it). Still catching up on posting.Carol

Nice to have you back Carol. Hope all is now well on the health and home fronts. It seems to me that over the years, because of historians and novelists we have accumulated goodies and baddies in the Richard story and some of it is, dare I say, mythology. Poor Northumberland has gone down as being murdered for betraying Richard, when in fact he was probably reluctantly having to collect taxes for HT. Francis, mainly due to novels, has always been Richard's best buddy, but he was actually 4 years' younger than Richard and we aren't even sure their paths at Middleham ever crossed. If you look in the York House Books Northumberland seems well respected like Richard whilst they are more cautious about Francis and his acquisitions - granted Francis was not of such a high status. In fact, apart from service in Scotland, do we really know that much about Francis, other than Richard trusted him; er but he trusted Buckingham as well. Perhaps he saw in these younger blokes the mirror of himself and Edward? H From: "justcarol67@... []" <> To: Sent: Monday, 25 May 2015, 23:46 Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?
Hilary wrote :Thanks Gillian. Yes, to be fair, the ones with experience of large battlefields (alas Hastings), with the exception of De Vere on the other side, were virtually all gone. I have a job to see Northumberland as a baddie in all this. You could say the same of Francis Lovell, who let HT's fleet sneak through. HAre you sure about that, Hilary? I thought that Francis Lovell was simply in the wrong place. To my knowledge, there's no question about his loyalty to Richard.By the way, if anyone wonders where I've been, first I had surgery on my eyelids for ptosis (drooping eyelids that were interfering with my vision) and then I moved to a new home ("moved house," I think you British call it). Still catching up on posting.Carol

Hi Hilary,I'm not so sure Northumberland was necessarily as well liked by the York elite as Richard. Because of his status they would have been expected to provide presents for him when he visited and write to him politely. Look at any extant city accounts for this period and you'll see the same pattern. It's probably also true that within a year of Bosworth a new faction came to dominate the city's politics, determined to work with the new regime (which included Northumberland) and protect the city by staying well clear of any rebellion. But the old guard's resistance to Northumberland's demands to have them accept King Henry's command to dismiss Miles Metcalfe as City Recorder, and appoint his own servant instead, tells a rather different story. I think the evidence with regard to Northumberland's sympathies at Bosworth is ambiguous, probably because he was not motivated by party loyalties but by loyalty to the House of Percy, just as his father and grandfather had been. Remember that he was married to Maude Herbert, the girl initially set aside for HT, and had fairly briefly been her father's ward just like Tudor, so they may have got to know each other in the late 1460s. Northumberland had certainly supported Richard when he took the throne, but was probably less than pleased that this had not won him the free rein (or even reign) in the North-east that he might have expected. So he did have motives for backing Henry at Bosworth although in practice this was probably not possible because the northern men he was leading wouldn't have stood for it. Ironically, he was even more constrained by King Henry than he had been by Richard, and as you say was forced to implement highly unpopular policies. By 1488 there were people who believed he was about to switch sides, but it didn't happen. Then the tax issue hits. I don't think it's possible to distinguish between anger at Northumberland's failure to bring in his men on Richard's side at Bosworth (which may simply have been down to lack of time), anger at his support of Henry VII, and anger at the tax: all these things actually are all facets of the same thing, i.e. the Earl's continuing support of the man who had killed Richard to gain the throne for himself and whose rule was so harsh. If Northumberland had weighed in on the rebel side in 1487, like the Scropes, the outcome at Stoke might have been very different. What's interesting about his murder is that his own retainers did nothing to defend him and a rebellion broke out straight afterwards which involved some old Ricardian diehards like Thomas Wrangwysh.

There is also the Stanley northern power to consider. Could there
have been private negotiations between them regarding dividing up
the north after Richard? Perhaps Harry was waiting to see which side
the Stanleys would jump down on before committing himself?
Possible, though I personally think  he never got a direct order
from Richard to bring in his forces, and because of the dust thrown
up on such a hot dry day, could see little of what was going on.
Also the new thinking on the battle suggest that some of the French
forces had already reached Northumberland's flank at the time of
Richard's charge, and they were being driven back.
All I all I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not one to
ever show any initiative, he waited. Then it was too late.
Paul


On 28/05/2015 13:54, mariewalsh2003
wrote:
Hi Hilary,
I'm not so sure Northumberland was necessarily as well liked by
the York elite as Richard. Because of his status they would have
been expected to provide presents for him when he visited and
write to him politely. Look at any extant city accounts for this
period and you'll see the same pattern. It's probably also true
that within a year of Bosworth a new faction came to dominate
the city's politics, determined to work with the new regime
(which included Northumberland) and protect the city by staying
well clear of any rebellion. But the old guard's resistance to
Northumberland's demands to have them accept King Henry's
command to dismiss Miles Metcalfe as City Recorder, and appoint
his own servant instead, tells a rather different story.
I think the evidence with regard to Northumberland's sympathies
at Bosworth is ambiguous, probably because he was not motivated
by party loyalties but by loyalty to the House of Per
cy, just as his father and grandfather had been.  Remember that
he was married to Maude Herbert, the girl initially set aside
for HT, and had fairly briefly been her father's ward just like
Tudor, so they may have got to know each other in the late
1460s. Northumberland had certainly supported Richard when he
took the throne, but was probably less than pleased that this
had not won him the free rein (or even reign) in the North-east
that he might have expected. So he did have motives for backing
Henry at Bosworth although in practice this was probably not
possible because the northern men he was leading wouldn't have
stood for it. Ironically, he was even more constrained by King
Henry than he had been by Richard, and as you say was forced to
implement highly unpopular policies. By 1488 there were people
who believed he was about to switch sides, but it didn't
happen. Then the tax issue hits.  
I don't think it's possib
le to distinguish between anger at Northumberland's failure
to bring in his men on Richard's side at Bosworth (which may
simply have been down to lack of time), anger at his support of
Henry VII, and anger at the tax: all these things actually are
all facets of the same thing, i.e. the Earl's continuing support
of the man who had killed Richard to gain the throne for himself
and whose rule was so harsh. If Northumberland had weighed in on
the rebel side in 1487, like the Scropes, the outcome at Stoke
might have been very different. What's interesting about his
murder is that his own retainers did nothing to defend him and a
rebellion broke out straight afterwards which involved some old
Ricardian diehards like Thomas Wrangwysh.

Hilary wrote :

"Nice to have you back Carol. Hope all is now well on the health and home fronts."

Carol responds:

Thanks, Hilary. Just some leftover dust allergies--you know how it is when you move--and my two favorite cookbooks still missing. Otherwise, things seem to be going smoothly.

Hilary wrote:

"It seems to me that over the years, because of historians and novelists we have accumulated goodies and baddies in the Richard story and some of it is, dare I say, mythology. Poor Northumberland has gone down as being murdered for betraying Richard, when in fact he was probably reluctantly having to collect taxes for HT. Francis, mainly due to novels, has always been Richard's best buddy, but he was actually 4 years' younger than Richard and we aren't even sure their paths at Middleham ever crossed. If you look in the York House Books Northumberland seems well respected like Richard whilst they are more cautious about Francis and his acquisitions - granted Francis was not of such a high status. In fact, apart from service in Scotland, do we really know that much about Francis, other than Richard trusted him; er but he trusted Buckingham as well. Perhaps he saw in these younger blokes the mirror of himself and Edward? H"

Carol responds:

I agree with you that we may have misjudged Northumberland. After all, Henry did (briefly) imprison him in the Tower, and he didn't have much choice about accepting the new regime--as he had done earlier with both Edward and Richard. Then, again, he may have been a Lancastrian at heart. To me, he remains an enigma.

But Lovell is another matter. Richard knighted him for his service in Scotland and made him Lord Chamberlain (a very high office) to replace Hastings. He helped Richard suppress the so-called Buckingham's Rebellion (as did Northumberland). He was assigned to protect the south coast of England (which Tudor avoided), so cannot be blamed for letting Tudor into Wales (that was Rhys ap Thomas's doing, as you know). He joined Margaret and Lincoln in opposing Henry. The only indication of distrust of him that I know of comes from Tudor supporters like Colyngbourne, who of course implied that Richard ruled the kingdom through three henchmen, all of whom are made to appear disreputable (as is Richard) through association with animals. But a rhyme posted by an enemy is hardly reason to discredit someone.

Anyway, it seems unfair to blame Tudor's successful entry into Wales on Lovell, who was where he was supposed to be.

Carol

Not the Stanley "northern power house" I hope Paul!=They even had the queen saying it yesterday!= JessFrom: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []Sent: 28/05/2015 18:53To: Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland,Trained to Fight?

There is also the Stanley northern power to consider. Could there
have been private negotiations between them regarding dividing up
the north after Richard? Perhaps Harry was waiting to see which side
the Stanleys would jump down on before committing himself?
Possible, though I personally think he never got a direct order
from Richard to bring in his forces, and because of the dust thrown
up on such a hot dry day, could see little of what was going on.
Also the new thinking on the battle suggest that some of the French
forces had already reached Northumberland's flank at the time of
Richard's charge, and they were being driven back.
All I all I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not one to
ever show any initiative, he waited. Then it was too late.
Paul


On 28/05/2015 13:54, mariewalsh2003
wrote:
Hi Hilary,
I'm not so sure Northumberland was necessarily as well liked by
the York elite as Richard. Because of his status they would have
been expected to provide presents for him when he visited and
write to him politely. Look at any extant city accounts for this
period and you'll see the same pattern. It's probably also true
that within a year of Bosworth a new faction came to dominate
the city's politics, determined to work with the new regime
(which included Northumberland) and protect the city by staying
well clear of any rebellion. But the old guard's resistance to
Northumberland's demands to have them accept King Henry's
command to dismiss Miles Metcalfe as City Recorder, and appoint
his own servant instead, tells a rather different story.
I think the evidence with regard to Northumberland's sympathies
at Bosworth is ambiguous, probably because he was not motivated
by party loyalties but by loyalty to the House of Per
cy, just as his father and grandfather had been. Remember that
he was married to Maude Herbert, the girl initially set aside
for HT, and had fairly briefly been her father's ward just like
Tudor, so they may have got to know each other in the late
1460s. Northumberland had certainly supported Richard when he
took the throne, but was probably less than pleased that this
had not won him the free rein (or even reign) in the North-east
that he might have expected. So he did have motives for backing
Henry at Bosworth although in practice this was probably not
possible because the northern men he was leading wouldn't have
stood for it. Ironically, he was even more constrained by King
Henry than he had been by Richard, and as you say was forced to
implement highly unpopular policies. By 1488 there were people
who believed he was about to switch sides, but it didn't
happen. Then the tax issue hits.
I don't think it's possib
le to distinguish between anger at Northumberland's failure
to bring in his men on Richard's side at Bosworth (which may
simply have been down to lack of time), anger at his support of
Henry VII, and anger at the tax: all these things actually are
all facets of the same thing, i.e. the Earl's continuing support
of the man who had killed Richard to gain the throne for himself
and whose rule was so harsh. If Northumberland had weighed in on
the rebel side in 1487, like the Scropes, the outcome at Stoke
might have been very different. What's interesting about his
murder is that his own retainers did nothing to defend him and a
rebellion broke out straight afterwards which involved some old
Ricardian diehards like Thomas Wrangwysh.

Oh, please don't get me started on what the 22% voted for Tories
said via Betty Windsor!!
Paul


On 28/05/2015 21:48, Janjovian
janjovian@... [] wrote:
Not
the Stanley "northern power house" I hope Paul!=
They even had the queen saying it yesterday!=

Jess
From: Paul
Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 28/05/2015 18:53
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland,Trained to
Fight?

 
There is also the Stanley northern power to consider. Could
there have been private negotiations between them regarding
dividing up the north after Richard? Perhaps Harry was waiting
to see which side the Stanleys would jump down on before
committing himself?
Possible, though I personally think  he never got a direct
order from Richard to bring in his forces, and because of the
dust thrown up on such a hot dry day, could see little of what
was going on. Also the new thinking on the battle suggest that
some of the French forces had already reached Northumberland's
flank at the time of Richard's charge, and they were being
driven back.
All I all I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not one
to ever show any initiative, he waited. Then it was too late.
Paul



On 28/05/2015 13:54, mariewalsh2003
wrote:
Hi Hilary,
I'm not so sure Northumberland was necessarily as well
liked by the York elite as Richard. Because of his status
they would have been expected to provide presents for him
when he visited and write to him politely. Look at any
extant city accounts for this period and you'll see the same
pattern. It's probably also true that within a year of
Bosworth a new faction came to dominate the city's politics,
determined to work with the new regime (which included
Northumberland) and protect the city by staying well clear
of any rebellion. But the old guard's resistance to
Northumberland's demands to have them accept King Henry's
command to dismiss Miles Metcalfe as City Recorder, and
appoint his own servant instead, tells a rather different
story.
I think the evidence with regard to Northumberland's
sympathies at Bosworth is ambiguous, probably because he was
not motivated by party loyalties but by loyalty to the House
of Per cy, just as his father and grandfather had been. 
Remember that he was married to Maude Herbert, the girl
initially set aside for HT, and had fairly briefly been her
father's ward just like Tudor, so they may have got to know
each other in the late 1460s. Northumberland had certainly
supported Richard when he took the throne, but was probably
less than pleased that this had not won him the free rein
(or even reign) in the North-east that he might have
expected. So he did have motives for backing Henry at
Bosworth although in practice this was probably not possible
because the northern men he was leading wouldn't have stood
for it. Ironically, he was even more constrained by King
Henry than he had been by Richard, and as you say was forced
to implement highly unpopular policies. By 1488 there were
people who believed he was about to switch sides, but it
didn't happen. Then the tax issue hits.  
I don't think it's possib le to distinguish between anger
at Northumberland's failure to bring in his men on Richard's
side at Bosworth (which may simply have been down to lack of
time), anger at his support of Henry VII, and anger at the
tax: all these things actually are all facets of the same
thing, i.e. the Earl's continuing support of the man who had
killed Richard to gain the throne for himself and whose rule
was so harsh. If Northumberland had weighed in on the rebel
side in 1487, like the Scropes, the outcome at Stoke might
have been very different. What's interesting about his
murder is that his own retainers did nothing to defend him
and a rebellion broke out straight afterwards which involved
some old Ricardian diehards like Thomas Wrangwysh.

Yes Marie I do think it's difficult. For example I think someone else on here mentioned that he'd just lost his wife as well. And of course the Percies could with some justification think of the Nevilles as upstarts and put Richard in with them.The other thing is it's difficult to distinguish between plain disloyalty (like the Stanleys) and incompetence/mistake on the day. After I wrote the first post I was reading about the gaffs made by a number of normally good commanders on all sides at Waterloo. That was because some were worn out (Ney), some were distracted, some were doing a job they hadn't done before. To the faithful this would look like disloyalty in the aftermath of a defeat. Northumberland could well have been in that camp. H From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> To: Sent: Thursday, 28 May 2015, 13:54 Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?
Hi Hilary,I'm not so sure Northumberland was necessarily as well liked by the York elite as Richard. Because of his status they would have been expected to provide presents for him when he visited and write to him politely. Look at any extant city accounts for this period and you'll see the same pattern. It's probably also true that within a year of Bosworth a new faction came to dominate the city's politics, determined to work with the new regime (which included Northumberland) and protect the city by staying well clear of any rebellion. But the old guard's resistance to Northumberland's demands to have them accept King Henry's command to dismiss Miles Metcalfe as City Recorder, and appoint his own servant instead, tells a rather different story. I think the evidence with regard to Northumberland's sympathies at Bosworth is ambiguous, probably because he was not motivated by party loyalties but by loyalty to the House of Percy, just as his father and grandfather had been. Remember that he was married to Maude Herbert, the girl initially set aside for HT, and had fairly briefly been her father's ward just like Tudor, so they may have got to know each other in the late 1460s. Northumberland had certainly supported Richard when he took the throne, but was probably less than pleased that this had not won him the free rein (or even reign) in the North-east that he might have expected. So he did have motives for backing Henry at Bosworth although in practice this was probably not possible because the northern men he was leading wouldn't have stood for it. Ironically, he was even more constrained by King Henry than he had been by Richard, and as you say was forced to implement highly unpopular policies. By 1488 there were people who believed he was about to switch sides, but it didn't happen. Then the tax issue hits. I don't think it's possible to distinguish between anger at Northumberland's failure to bring in his men on Richard's side at Bosworth (which may simply have been down to lack of time), anger at his support of Henry VII, and anger at the tax: all these things actually are all facets of the same thing, i.e. the Earl's continuing support of the man who had killed Richard to gain the throne for himself and whose rule was so harsh. If Northumberland had weighed in on the rebel side in 1487, like the Scropes, the outcome at Stoke might have been very different. What's interesting about his murder is that his own retainers did nothing to defend him and a rebellion broke out straight afterwards which involved some old Ricardian diehards like Thomas Wrangwysh.

Yes Carol - see my post to Marie. It was probably a bit of the same. Colyngbourne was almost certainly a relative of Buckingham's mother via the Darells so we didn't get the Cat, Rat, the Dog and Buckngham, or was he dead by then? It's just to me Lovell remains a shady character. Now I can get my head round Catesby; I bet HT regretted executing him but mummy and Reggie wanted his sheep lands. He had the makings of another Cromwell. I would love to know what really happened to Francis. I take it someone has looked in the Scottish archives? H From: "justcarol67@... []" <> To: Sent: Thursday, 28 May 2015, 20:45 Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?
Hilary wrote :

"Nice to have you back Carol. Hope all is now well on the health and home fronts."

Carol responds:

Thanks, Hilary. Just some leftover dust allergies--you know how it is when you move--and my two favorite cookbooks still missing. Otherwise, things seem to be going smoothly.

Hilary wrote:

"It seems to me that over the years, because of historians and novelists we have accumulated goodies and baddies in the Richard story and some of it is, dare I say, mythology. Poor Northumberland has gone down as being murdered for betraying Richard, when in fact he was probably reluctantly having to collect taxes for HT. Francis, mainly due to novels, has always been Richard's best buddy, but he was actually 4 years' younger than Richard and we aren't even sure their paths at Middleham ever crossed. If you look in the York House Books Northumberland seems well respected like Richard whilst they are more cautious about Francis and his acquisitions - granted Francis was not of such a high status. In fact, apart from service in Scotland, do we really know that much about Francis, other than Richard trusted him; er but he trusted Buckingham as well. Perhaps he saw in these younger blokes the mirror of himself and Edward? H"

Carol responds:

I agree with you that we may have misjudged Northumberland. After all, Henry did (briefly) imprison him in the Tower, and he didn't have much choice about accepting the new regime--as he had done earlier with both Edward and Richard. Then, again, he may have been a Lancastrian at heart. To me, he remains an enigma.

But Lovell is another matter. Richard knighted him for his service in Scotland and made him Lord Chamberlain (a very high office) to replace Hastings. He helped Richard suppress the so-called Buckingham's Rebellion (as did Northumberland). He was assigned to protect the south coast of England (which Tudor avoided), so cannot be blamed for letting Tudor into Wales (that was Rhys ap Thomas's doing, as you know). He joined Margaret and Lincoln in opposing Henry. The only indication of distrust of him that I know of comes from Tudor supporters like Colyngbourne, who of course implied that Richard ruled the kingdom through three henchmen, all of whom are made to appear disreputable (as is Richard) through association with animals. But a rhyme posted by an enemy is hardly reason to discredit someone.

Anyway, it seems unfair to blame Tudor's successful entry into Wales on Lovell, who was where he was supposed to be.

Carol

Hillary wrote Yes Marie I do think it's difficult. For example I think someone else on here mentioned that he'd just lost his wife as well. And of course the Percies could with some justification think of the Nevilles as upstarts and put Richard in with them.The other thing is it's difficult to distinguish between plain disloyalty (like the Stanleys) and incompetence/mistake on the day. After I wrote the first post I was reading about the gaffs made by a number of normally good commanders on all sides at Waterloo. That was because some were worn out (Ney), some were distracted, some were doing a job they hadn't done before. To the faithful this would look like disloyalty in the aftermath of a defeat. Northumberland could well have been in that camp. HMarie replies:Indeed. Whatever his leanings, I think the thing to remember about Northumberland is that he was not a man to take risks with his hard-won-back inheritance. His early years had been extremely difficult. He had seen so many members of his family die for Lancaster, and had spent some of his precious youth in the Tower - he was not, I think, prepared to return to that place no matter what the potential rewards of a successful rebellion. Perhaps he did not even have the confidence to commit at Bosworth after seeing what happened to Norfolk's wing. I know it's said now that the charge would have been over so quickly Northumberland wouldn't have had time to engage, but he would have had as much time as Sir William Stanley, and surely Richard would not have begun the charge without getting an explanation and instructions to Northumberland first so that the Earl's men would have been horsed (like Stanley's) and ready to go if needed. It isn't said that Northumberland started moving but got there too late, but rather that he made no attempt to engage. The rumours that he had deliberately let Richard down started very early - the merchants coming from England whom de Valera quizzed in Spain evidently said as much, and de Valera's came away completely confused between Northumberland and Stanley in his account of 'Milort Tamorlant' who fought against the King's vanguard, but was arrested and imprisoned by Henry anyway to make him give up the Earl of Warwick.By the by, the frequent claim that Northumberland's wife died before Bosworth simply isn't right. This idea seems to have arisen from the précis of his will (written shortly before Bosworth) in 'Testamenta Vetusta'. In fact, in the main body of the will she is referred to as alive (Test Vest misses that reference out), and the reference to her tomb (which it gives) belongs to a codicil written in the February of an unspecified year. She was definitely alive and well early in 1486, because she called the York City Council to the Guildhall in York to give them her instructions regarding the new city Recorder. My suspicion is that she died in Feb 1487 as Northumberland seems to have been absent for most of the Great Council that sat at Shene that month, only turning up at the beginning of March when it was about to finish.

Paul
wrote:
There
is also the Stanley northern power to consider. Could there have been private
negotiations between them regarding dividing up the north after Richard? Perhaps
Harry was waiting to see which side the Stanleys would jump down on before
committing himself?
Doug
here:
Well,
if Northumberland had been negotiating with the Stanleys to divide the North,
there were only two options open to them to gain their desired results: become
such solid, trustworthy supporters of Richard that Richard voluntarily agreed to
their managing the North for him or support Tudor and get the North in reward.
As you may guess, I tend toward the latter view...
Paul
continued:
Possible,
though I personally think he never got a direct order from Richard to
bring in his forces, and because of the dust thrown up on such a hot dry day,
could see little of what was going on. Also the new thinking on the battle
suggest that some of the French forces had already reached Northumberland's
flank at the time of Richard's charge, and they were being driven
back.
Doug
here:
Wouldn't any orders by Richard to Northumberland
have been contingent on Stanley's actions? If Stanley stayed put, then so could
Northumberland. If, however, Stanley intervened in the fighting, then
Northumberland was also to enter the battle. Everything I've read about Bosworth
tells me that Norfolk's men were, at the very least, holding their own until
Norfolk was killed and it was then they began to give way. So Northumberland's
troops weren't needed by Richard to win the battle; all that was necessary was
leadership and a fresh impetus - both of which Richard provided. with
Northumberland being used as a check on any moves by Stanley.
Marie
wrote in the post on 28 May you responded to that Northumberland ...did have
motives for backing Henry at Bosworth although in practice this was probably not
possible because the northern men he was leading wouldn't have stood for it.
Might Northumberland's inability to lead his men to actively support
Henry, have led him to a strategy of inaction? IOW, Northumberland, and
Stanley, knew that Northumberland couldn't lead his men against Richard because
they would have refused to follow such an order, but by the inaction of his
troops, which he was able to effect, Northumberland could allow Stanley
to swoop in without resistance.
If
Oxford and Norfolk's respective forces were roughly equal then, which I believe
was the case, then sooner or later, Richard and his escort would be drawn into
the fighting  if only to provide that last push needed to rout Tudor, and
regardless of whether Norfolk was sill alive or not. Once Richard moved away
from the protection provided by Northumberland's men, Stanley could
intervene, knowing Northumberland would, at the very least, delay until it was
too late. The only occasion in which Richard wouldn't enter the
fighting was if Tudor's forces quickly gave way and Henry was killed, captured
or fled. (Interesting thought: what would Stanley have done had any of those
events been likely/occurred?)
I
think that fits what we know, but a lot of it is, I admit,
conjecture.
Personally, I
have very strong doubts about that new thinking. I've always understood that,
after Richard's death, Northumberland led his men away and that the complaint
against Northumberland, including by his own men, was that they'd never fought!
If Northumberland's men, any of them, had been under attack, then he,
and they, had a perfectly valid reason for not going to Richard's assistance.
Not to mention all those witnesses to support that claim.
BTW,
that mention of dust thrown up on such a hot dry day, set me thinking about
something just the opposite: the (in)famous marsh/bog that, as I understand it,
served as an anchor for Tudor's right flank (I believe).
Could
it be we've been looking for something that only existed because of human
actions? The article in WIki regarding water meadows implies a fair amount of
channeling and workings so as to saturate the ground with water, but were there
any simpler methods available and, most importantly, was any water meadow
even possible near the battle site?
The
Wiki article also contained the statement:
In
Europe, wet meadows are sometimes managed by hay-cutting and grazing. Grazing,
of course, goes on year-round unless conditions (snow too deep?) prohibits
access to the grass/hay. But when would hay-making commence? Would a hay meadow,
if there was one, be flooded in August to help increase the harvest
later?
Paul
concluded:All I all I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not
one to ever show any initiative, he waited. Then it was too late.
Doug here:
I guess it all comes
down to whether one thinks that waiting was deliberately planned or an example
of lack of ability/competence.
Doug

Doug wrote:> BTW,
that mention of dust thrown up on such a hot dry day, set me thinking about
something just the opposite: the (in)famous marsh/bog that, as I understand it,
served as an anchor for Tudor's right flank (I believe).Could
it be we've been looking for something that only existed because of human
actions? The article in WIki regarding water meadows implies a fair amount of
channeling and workings so as to saturate the ground with water, but were there
any simpler methods available and, most importantly, was any water meadow
even possible near the battle site?The
Wiki article also contained the statement:In
Europe, wet meadows are sometimes managed by hay-cutting and grazing. Grazing,
of course, goes on year-round unless conditions (snow too deep?) prohibits
access to the grass/hay. But when would hay-making commence? Would a hay meadow,
if there was one, be flooded in August to help increase the harvest
later? Wednesday here: Today, hay is grown and cut twice in one growing season. It has to dry in the field after each cutting because moisture creates moldy hay that can't be fed for fear of killing your
livestock, so soggy ground would be worrisome during a hay harvest. Harvest began in late July for winter-planted crops and in August for spring-planted crops, but I don't know if that schedule holds for medieval hay cuttings. It makes sense that a harvested hay field would be chosen for a battle site, but the bog close by wouldn't give me warm fuzzies in terms of preventing moldy hay from creeping into my crop. That said, there's nothing to prevent hay from having been planted alongside other crops. Medieval farmers worked on a three-field rotation system: one field for
grain, one field for hay, and a third left fallow, which often meant sowing it with a legume which subsequently would be plowed under to enrich the soil.

The archaeologists have found evidence of a marsh from the correct
period on the battlefield. Took them a while to locate the right one
as they found a number of marshy areas that all dated from a later
period than the battle, but eventually the right one showed up.
I never rely on anything in Wiki, and don't really understand why
you are going on this flight of fancy when we have the actual marsh
mentioned in chronicles.
Paul

On 02/06/2015 17:40,
wednesday.mac@... [] wrote:
Doug wrote:

>
BTW,
that mention of dust thrown up on such a hot dry
day, set me thinking about
something just the opposite: the (in)famous marsh/bog
that, as I understand it,
served as an anchor for Tudor's right flank (I
believe).
Could
it be we've been looking for something that only
existed because of human
actions? The article in WIki regarding water
meadows implies a fair amount of
channeling and workings so as to saturate the ground
with water, but were there
any simpler methods available and, most importantly,
was any water meadow
even possible near the battle site?
The
Wiki article also contained the statement:
In
Europe, wet meadows are sometimes managed by
hay-cutting and grazing. Grazing,
of course, goes on year-round unless conditions
(snow too deep?) prohibits
access to the grass/hay. But when would hay-making
commence? Would a hay meadow,
if there was one, be flooded in August to help
increase the harvest
later?
 
Wednesday
here:

Today, hay is grown and cut twice in one growing
season. It has to dry in the field after each cutting
because moisture creates moldy hay that can't be fed
for fear of killing your
livestock, so soggy ground would be worrisome during a
hay harvest.

Harvest began in late July for winter-planted crops
and in August for spring-planted crops, but I don't
know if that schedule holds for medieval hay cuttings.
It makes sense that a harvested hay field would be
chosen for a battle site, but the bog close by
wouldn't give me warm fuzzies in terms of preventing
moldy hay from creeping into my crop.

That said, there's nothing to prevent hay from having
been planted alongside other crops. Medieval farmers
worked on a three-field rotation system: one field for
grain, one field for hay, and a third left fallow,
which often meant sowing it with a legume which
subsequently would be plowed under to enrich the soil.

Paul wrote:
The
archaeologists have found evidence of a marsh from the correct period on the
battlefield. Took them a while to locate the right one as they found a number of
marshy areas that all dated from a later period than the battle, but eventually
the right one showed up.I never rely on anything in Wiki, and don't really
understand why you are going on this flight of fancy when we have the actual
marsh mentioned in chronicles.
Thanks,
I hadn't about the finding of that last marsh that fitted the time period for
the battle. So, as it seemed that a regular marsh couldn't be found to fit, I
just wondered if there might have been some sort of man-made marsh, such as a
water meadow. The Wiki article wasn't all that informative, which is why I
asked if anyone had further knowledge.Doug

Wednesday wrote: Today, hay is grown and cut twice in one growing season. It has
to dry in the field after each cutting because moisture creates moldy hay that
can't be fed for fear of killing your livestock, so soggy ground would be
worrisome during a hay harvest. Harvest began in late July for
winter-planted crops and in August for spring-planted crops, but I don't know if
that schedule holds for medieval hay cuttings. It makes sense that a harvested
hay field would be chosen for a battle site, but the bog close by wouldn't give
me warm fuzzies in terms of preventing moldy hay from creeping into my crop.
That said, there's nothing to prevent hay from having been planted
alongside other crops. Medieval farmers worked on a three-field rotation system:
one field for grain, one field for hay, and a third left fallow, which often
meant sowing it with a legume which subsequently would be plowed under to enrich
the soil. 
Doug here:
Thank you. Apparently, according
to Paul's post, a properly-sited marsh from the correct period has been found,
so there's no need to hunt for any man-made bogs. I presume if a water meadow
was used to grow hay, it would wouldn't be harvested until well after the meadow
had drained. Even haymaking by hand using a scythe would require solid ground,
wouldn't it?
I knew about the three field
system, although I didn't know one of the three strips would have been put to
hay  learn something new every day!
Doug
who's still not certain the exact
purpose of a water meadow  grazing or growing? Or, more likely, just to confuse
me!

Apparently it was the farmer who ploughs the land now who directed the archaeologists to the marsh.He said that the tractor always got bogged down in that spot!So they went and looked and that is where they found canonballs, the white boar emblem etc.It would seem from that this is just a normal "marshy" spot, and not one deliberately cultivated.JessFrom: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []Sent: 03/06/2015 07:10To: Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland,Trained to Fight?

Wednesday wrote: Today, hay is grown and cut twice in one growing season. It has
to dry in the field after each cutting because moisture creates moldy hay that
can't be fed for fear of killing your livestock, so soggy ground would be
worrisome during a hay harvest. Harvest began in late July for
winter-planted crops and in August for spring-planted crops, but I don't know if
that schedule holds for medieval hay cuttings. It makes sense that a harvested
hay field would be chosen for a battle site, but the bog close by wouldn't give
me warm fuzzies in terms of preventing moldy hay from creeping into my crop.
That said, there's nothing to prevent hay from having been planted
alongside other crops. Medieval farmers worked on a three-field rotation system:
one field for grain, one field for hay, and a third left fallow, which often
meant sowing it with a legume which subsequently would be plowed under to enrich
the soil. 
Doug here:
Thank you. Apparently, according
to Paul's post, a properly-sited marsh from the correct period has been found,
so there's no need to hunt for any man-made bogs. I presume if a water meadow
was used to grow hay, it would wouldn't be harvested until well after the meadow
had drained. Even haymaking by hand using a scythe would require solid ground,
wouldn't it?
I knew about the three field
system, although I didn't know one of the three strips would have been put to
hay  learn something new every day!
Doug
who's still not certain the exact
purpose of a water meadow  grazing or growing? Or, more likely, just to confuse
me!

Jess wrote:
Apparently it was
the farmer who ploughs the land now who directed the archaeologists to the
marsh.He said that the tractor always got bogged down in that spot!So
they went and looked and that is where they found canonballs, the white boar
emblem etc.It would seem from that this is just a normal "marshy" spot, and
not one deliberately cultivated.
Doug
here:
Thanks for the info! This all began because I hadn't heard that the
marsh had been found and wondered if there was a possibility the marsh was
actually a water meadow; man-made and not necessarily easily
discoverable.
It
looks as if I'll be spending some time on Google. I know fields where rice and
cranberries are grown are flooded because the plants can't support the grains or
berries, but I'm still in the dark just as to why
meadows would be flooded.
Thanks again,
Doug

So sorry not to come back to you before this Marie - blame the man in Tesco carpark who gifted me with a 4 week old kitten! So much of this is rumour, upon rumour, upon rumour. And who can blame anyone? Even with News teams today we can't get it right. It's interesting about his wife; again how things get interpreted and then taken as truth. I'm actually reading the Conn Iggulden book about the Wars of the Roses - fiction but rather good - and the Percy family and their rivalry with the Nevilles feature in this. As it's set in the 1450s leading up to Wakefield I can't actually say whether it's accurate or not but so far there are few stereotypes and that's refreshing. Anything which captures peoples' imaginations around this period is good.and is occasionally a relief from the hard graft. BTW not on this topic, but I love the cover of the Bulletin. Dount whether he could have had a better send off in his own time. H From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> To: Sent: Friday, 29 May 2015, 11:57 Subject: Re: Re: Henry Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland, Trained to Fight?
Hillary wrote Yes Marie I do think it's difficult. For example I think someone else on here mentioned that he'd just lost his wife as well. And of course the Percies could with some justification think of the Nevilles as upstarts and put Richard in with them.The other thing is it's difficult to distinguish between plain disloyalty (like the Stanleys) and incompetence/mistake on the day. After I wrote the first post I was reading about the gaffs made by a number of normally good commanders on all sides at Waterloo. That was because some were worn out (Ney), some were distracted, some were doing a job they hadn't done before. To the faithful this would look like disloyalty in the aftermath of a defeat. Northumberland could well have been in that camp. HMarie replies:Indeed. Whatever his leanings, I think the thing to remember about Northumberland is that he was not a man to take risks with his hard-won-back inheritance. His early years had been extremely difficult. He had seen so many members of his family die for Lancaster, and had spent some of his precious youth in the Tower - he was not, I think, prepared to return to that place no matter what the potential rewards of a successful rebellion. Perhaps he did not even have the confidence to commit at Bosworth after seeing what happened to Norfolk's wing. I know it's said now that the charge would have been over so quickly Northumberland wouldn't have had time to engage, but he would have had as much time as Sir William Stanley, and surely Richard would not have begun the charge without getting an explanation and instructions to Northumberland first so that the Earl's men would have been horsed (like Stanley's) and ready to go if needed. It isn't said that Northumberland started moving but got there too late, but rather that he made no attempt to engage. The rumours that he had deliberately let Richard down started very early - the merchants coming from England whom de Valera quizzed in Spain evidently said as much, and de Valera's came away completely confused between Northumberland and Stanley in his account of 'Milort Tamorlant' who fought against the King's vanguard, but was arrested and imprisoned by Henry anyway to make him give up the Earl of Warwick.By the by, the frequent claim that Northumberland's wife died before Bosworth simply isn't right. This idea seems to have arisen from the précis of his will (written shortly before Bosworth) in 'Testamenta Vetusta'. In fact, in the main body of the will she is referred to as alive (Test Vest misses that reference out), and the reference to her tomb (which it gives) belongs to a codicil written in the February of an unspecified year. She was definitely alive and well early in 1486, because she called the York City Council to the Guildhall in York to give them her instructions regarding the new city Recorder. My suspicion is that she died in Feb 1487 as Northumberland seems to have been absent for most of the Great Council that sat at Shene that month, only turning up at the beginning of March when it was about to finish.

Hilary : 'blame the man in the Tesco car park who gifted me a 4 week old kitten...'good luck with that Hilary...this tiny little bundle of fluff will soon be ruling your household with a paw of velvet...But back to the Bulletin...yes a very good and in many way touching one..Phil Stone's comment 'goodnight sweet prince and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest' would have finished me off entirely...the only flaw in June's Bulletin was, for me, a mention of the awful 'internationally successful author Alison Weir' giving another of her interminable talks somewhere of other...God...does she never give it a rest..I know everyone is entitled to their opinion but need she blast it out so frequently..on and on and on,.,even in the very week of Richard's reburial...she is certainly making a good living from him despite her low opinion of him...oh the irony....Eileen

So Maud Herbert was alive and apparently in possession of her faculties a good year after Bosworth?

Then the whole "he was grieving over his lost wife" idea is no longer operative, to use a Watergate-ism. Though he may well have been worried about the state of his wife's health, he having impregnated her 'round about ten times up to that point.

The case of Henry Percy seems to me to be another cautionary tale for those who think that things like the births and deaths of nobles (legitimate or not) were always recorded prior to the creation of Fat Henry's parish registries (which as Marie has noted were intended for use in tracking down and harassing those who still followed the "Papist" faith over the one Henry created). We don't even know what year Henry Percy was born, much less the month and day, and he was arguably the most powerful man between York and Edinburgh, after Richard, and of a family that for centuries had ruled (or tried to rule) Northumbria as a separate kingdom. We're not even sure how many children he had by Maud Herbert.

Tamara

Given all of the men and women Henry VIII drove out of the monasteries and convents he and his minions dissolved -- who had nowhere else to go, who weren't given pensions, who became beggars because they didn't know how to survive outside of the Church, and who were subsequently branded [sometimes literally] as vagabond -- I'd say 72,000 is a fair estimate. As a source, we might begin with G.J. Meyers' *The Tudors," as the author is fastidious about his primary sources as he offers minute details regarding what each Tudor and their officials did, and to whom.

Hi everyone, I've been doing lots of reading on Henry Percy 4th Earl, of late. There are some good references to him in the Plantagenet Ancestry books by Douglas Richardson edited by Kimball G Everingham. He has his birth dated about 1449. It also has details of marriage, titles etc.Also, worth noting is the theories presented in the Kings of the North by Alexander Rose, who describes a couple of thoughts on why he didn't engage. One of which was that this was Percy's first time participating in and leading a contingent in a large scale battle. He had lead the siege at Berwick, and had participated in some tussles in the Scottish marches, but those were not as significant in magnitude. His early life can only be pieced together in fragments, but it has been possible to pull some thoughts together on what may have occurred. There is minor reference to him in the Paston letters.I for one sympathize with this Henry. I think he has gotten a bad reputation throughout history... neither side claims him as their own... Farrah