Bosworth update

For anyone that hasn't already seen this in the UK's National Media,
Leicestershire County Council has been awarded a Heritage Lottery Fund grant of
approx. one million pounds for use by the Bosworth Battlefield Centre. This
grant is for work on the battlefield and particularly to investigate the location
of the battlefield. Glenn Foard from the Battlefields Trust was interviewed
on BBC Radio 4 on Friday and stated that his work in this investigation will
be primarily on the site advocated by Peter Foss as the most likely site for
the Battle. Results of the research will eventually be incorporated into
the displays at the Bosworth Battlefield Centre.

It is to be hoped that Glenn also puts updates on the work on his own site
so we can all watch the progress

Diomedes

--- In , diomedes5465@a...
wrote:
Glenn Foard from the Battlefields Trust was interviewed
> on BBC Radio 4 on Friday and stated that his work in this
investigation will
> be primarily on the site advocated by Peter Foss as the most
likely site for
> the Battle. Results of the research will eventually be
incorporated into
> the displays at the Bosworth Battlefield Centre.
>
> It is to be hoped that Glenn also puts updates on the work on his
own site
> so we can all watch the progress
>
> Diomedes

This is indeed hopeful news. I am convinced that Peter Foss's
solution to the battlefield location is the most logical. It is
encouraging that "the powers that be" are willing to do some
research into this matter. Thanks for letting the list know this
information!

L.M.L.,
Janet

--- In , diomedes5465@a...
wrote:
> For anyone that hasn't already seen this in the UK's National
Media,
> Leicestershire County Council has been awarded a Heritage Lottery
Fund grant of
> approx. one million pounds for use by the Bosworth Battlefield
Centre. This
> grant is for work on the battlefield and particularly to
investigate the location
> of the battlefield.

See also
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=603044
or http://tinyurl.com/4mm8y :

"Leicestershire County Council is to embark on a three-year
archaeological and topographical research project to identify where
the Battle of Bosworth was really fought in 1485, marking the end of
the Wars of the Roses and the beginning of Tudor England. The battle
was the last time a British king was killed on the battlefield."

A badly written story :-(

--- In , "Janet"
<forevere@w...> wrote:
>
> --- In , diomedes5465@a...
> wrote:
> Glenn Foard from the Battlefields Trust was interviewed
> > on BBC Radio 4 on Friday and stated that his work in this
> investigation will
> > be primarily on the site advocated by Peter Foss as the most
> likely site for
> > the Battle. Results of the research will eventually be
> incorporated into
> > the displays at the Bosworth Battlefield Centre.
> >
> > It is to be hoped that Glenn also puts updates on the work on his
> own site
> > so we can all watch the progress
> >
> > Diomedes
>
> This is indeed hopeful news. I am convinced that Peter Foss's
> solution to the battlefield location is the most logical. It is
> encouraging that "the powers that be" are willing to do some
> research into this matter. Thanks for letting the list know this
> information!
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet

Sadly, I'm not so convinced about Dadlington. Last year I attended
both the Foundation's Study Day and Michael K Jones' tour of his site
with the Society, and I'm more than a little worried that
Leicestershire are desperately trying to hold on to the battle with
all the tourism implications, and are planning to do so
by 'researching the site' but excluding MKJ's, because this is more
in Warwickshire than Leicestershire. Then it becaomes simply a toss-
up between Ambien Hill and Dadlington.
The exposition of the Dadlington site at the Study Day (to which I
went genuinely with no preconceived opinion) left me rather puzzled:
it relied on Henry's army being, as I put it to a friend in an email
shortly afterwards: "lined up in a dry corridor between two stretches
of marsh, and all turning sideways to run along it to attack Norfolk
(without, apparently, knocking each other in). Richard then stupidly
charges straight into this big wide marsh in his attempt to reach
Tudor."
MKJ's site is very very good for cavalry, and I must say the
objections raised by the Dadlington lobby in one of the Foundation's
recent journals were based on some misunderstanding of his case.

I hope this generous grant doesn't turn out to be a great thing for
Leicestershire County Council and a bad thing for the truth.

Marie

PS. I'm sure I'm being controversial again. Can't help it, apparently.

Marie

There's nothing wrong with being contreversial - it makes everything much more interesting.

From his papers and articles as well as conversations with him in the pub at Battlefields Trust walks Glenn is a great advocate of Landscape Archaeology and metal detector research so I guess he may actually find some evidence of the true field if it survives. His work at Naseby (albeit that a lead musket bullet suvives far better than an iron arrow head) has changed the views of how the battle progressed. Let's just hope that his work at Bosworth is as revolutionary and as definitive. He is giving a talk at the Battlefield Archaeology Conference in July so it will be interesting so see what his topic is - Bosworth I am hoping.

Diomedes

--- In , diomedes5465@a...
wrote:
> Marie
>
> There's nothing wrong with being contreversial - it makes
everything much more interesting.
>
> From his papers and articles as well as conversations with him in
the pub at Battlefields Trust walks Glenn is a great advocate of
Landscape Archaeology and metal detector research so I guess he may
actually find some evidence of the true field if it survives. His
work at Naseby (albeit that a lead musket bullet suvives far better
than an iron arrow head) has changed the views of how the battle
progressed. Let's just hope that his work at Bosworth is as
revolutionary and as definitive. He is giving a talk at the
Battlefield Archaeology Conference in July so it will be interesting
so see what his topic is - Bosworth I am hoping.
>
> Diomedes

I'm sure he's very good. My only concern is that, without a
comparison of the two sites, any evidence at all from Dadlington will
be taken as proof that this was the place where the main fighting
took place. As a for-instance, one could cite the burials in
Dadlington churchyard. The pro-Dadlington people describe these
as "the battlefield burials" and thus argue that his must have been
the closest church to the battle site. MKJ, on the other hand, sees
this small number of burials as representing members of Tudor's own
army, singled out for proper burial on consecrated ground, and that
they would simply have been laid in the first church Henry and his
men came to on their march from the battlefield to Leicester: so this
only proves that Dadlington was the nearest church TO THE EAST. It's
all a matter of interpretation.
One problem is that MKJ's spot for the actual denouement of the
battle (as opposed to the two camps) is actually only a couple of
miles from Dadlington, and events certainly moved eastwards from then
on. Fleeing Yorkists would very likely also have headed back towards
their muster point at Leicester, perhaps not seeing this as Henry's
own next destination.
It is, is it not, the case that Leicestershire are already committed
to upgrading the visitors' centre at some considerable cost on
the 'battlesite' land they already own, and so cannot really
contemplate moving the action any further than Dadlington?

Marie

I imagine it would be difficult for the Leicestershire County Council to
justify spending money on excavations in Warwickshire. At least, that's
how it would work among counties here in Pennsylvania.

When Dadlington came up as a possibility, I believe I recall LCC taking
the position that wherever the battle may have ended up Ambien Hill had
more than a little importance at the beginning. I ask this as a purely
information-seeking question, not a rhetorical one: is there another hill
in the area that gives such commanding views of the surrounding
countryside?


mariewalsh2003 said:
>
>
> --- In , diomedes5465@a...
> wrote:
>> Marie
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with being contreversial - it makes
> everything much more interesting.
>>
>> From his papers and articles as well as conversations with him in
> the pub at Battlefields Trust walks Glenn is a great advocate of
> Landscape Archaeology and metal detector research so I guess he may
> actually find some evidence of the true field if it survives. His
> work at Naseby (albeit that a lead musket bullet suvives far better
> than an iron arrow head) has changed the views of how the battle
> progressed. Let's just hope that his work at Bosworth is as
> revolutionary and as definitive. He is giving a talk at the
> Battlefield Archaeology Conference in July so it will be interesting
> so see what his topic is - Bosworth I am hoping.
>>
>> Diomedes
>
> I'm sure he's very good. My only concern is that, without a
> comparison of the two sites, any evidence at all from Dadlington will
> be taken as proof that this was the place where the main fighting
> took place. As a for-instance, one could cite the burials in
> Dadlington churchyard. The pro-Dadlington people describe these
> as "the battlefield burials" and thus argue that his must have been
> the closest church to the battle site. MKJ, on the other hand, sees
> this small number of burials as representing members of Tudor's own
> army, singled out for proper burial on consecrated ground, and that
> they would simply have been laid in the first church Henry and his
> men came to on their march from the battlefield to Leicester: so this
> only proves that Dadlington was the nearest church TO THE EAST. It's
> all a matter of interpretation.
> One problem is that MKJ's spot for the actual denouement of the
> battle (as opposed to the two camps) is actually only a couple of
> miles from Dadlington, and events certainly moved eastwards from then
> on. Fleeing Yorkists would very likely also have headed back towards
> their muster point at Leicester, perhaps not seeing this as Henry's
> own next destination.
> It is, is it not, the case that Leicestershire are already committed
> to upgrading the visitors' centre at some considerable cost on
> the 'battlesite' land they already own, and so cannot really
> contemplate moving the action any further than Dadlington?
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@...
2041 Christian Street, Philadelphia PA 19146-1338
215-985-1445
(sent from my backup account, backup@...)

There are two other commanding views that are higher than the locarion of Ambion Hill. The road leading from Sutton Cheney Church to the current location did not exist in the Fifteenth Century so it is literally impossible to believe the current traditional site is the actual location.

Since boundaries of counties have changed over the centuries, it would be well advised for them to look at the prospects of the Warwickshire area outlined by Dr. Jones.

Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@...> wrote:
I imagine it would be difficult for the Leicestershire County Council to
justify spending money on excavations in Warwickshire. At least, that's
how it would work among counties here in Pennsylvania.

When Dadlington came up as a possibility, I believe I recall LCC taking
the position that wherever the battle may have ended up Ambien Hill had
more than a little importance at the beginning. I ask this as a purely
information-seeking question, not a rhetorical one: is there another hill
in the area that gives such commanding views of the surrounding
countryside?


mariewalsh2003 said:
>
>
> --- In , diomedes5465@a...
> wrote:
>> Marie
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with being contreversial - it makes
> everything much more interesting.
>>
>> From his papers and articles as well as conversations with him in
> the pub at Battlefields Trust walks Glenn is a great advocate of
> Landscape Archaeology and metal detector research so I guess he may
> actually find some evidence of the true field if it survives. His
> work at Naseby (albeit that a lead musket bullet suvives far better
> than an iron arrow head) has changed the views of how the battle
> progressed. Let's just hope that his work at Bosworth is as
> revolutionary and as definitive. He is giving a talk at the
> Battlefield Archaeology Conference in July so it will be interesting
> so see what his topic is - Bosworth I am hoping.
>>
>> Diomedes
>
> I'm sure he's very good. My only concern is that, without a
> comparison of the two sites, any evidence at all from Dadlington will
> be taken as proof that this was the place where the main fighting
> took place. As a for-instance, one could cite the burials in
> Dadlington churchyard. The pro-Dadlington people describe these
> as "the battlefield burials" and thus argue that his must have been
> the closest church to the battle site. MKJ, on the other hand, sees
> this small number of burials as representing members of Tudor's own
> army, singled out for proper burial on consecrated ground, and that
> they would simply have been laid in the first church Henry and his
> men came to on their march from the battlefield to Leicester: so this
> only proves that Dadlington was the nearest church TO THE EAST. It's
> all a matter of interpretation.
> One problem is that MKJ's spot for the actual denouement of the
> battle (as opposed to the two camps) is actually only a couple of
> miles from Dadlington, and events certainly moved eastwards from then
> on. Fleeing Yorkists would very likely also have headed back towards
> their muster point at Leicester, perhaps not seeing this as Henry's
> own next destination.
> It is, is it not, the case that Leicestershire are already committed
> to upgrading the visitors' centre at some considerable cost on
> the 'battlesite' land they already own, and so cannot really
> contemplate moving the action any further than Dadlington?
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@...
2041 Christian Street, Philadelphia PA 19146-1338
215-985-1445
(sent from my backup account, backup@...)



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

I think perhaps you are being a little unfair on Glenn's professionalism.
Maybe I am too trusting (gullible ?) but I think that if either the Ambien
Hill site or the MKJ site were to prove to have evidence then Glenn would
declare it (I personally think that the likelihood of either being the battle site
is about as remote as Alpha Centauri, also a contentious point in some camps
I know). I genuinely don't think that Glenn would risk his professional
reputation simply because LCC want the site in their County - in the end they are
not the paymaster, the HLF is.

The sort of archaeological evidence that turns up from a camp site and its
distribution is completely different from that which turns up on a battlefield
as the latter is distinct from that indicating a rout or pursuit. Whatever
the surveys show I don't think there is any chance whatsoever of one being
mistaken for another - and certainly not from someone with Glenn Foard's
experience. Actually I was quite relieved when I heard that he was in charge, it
made me feel that we would get a truly professional view of all sites and all
evidence. Glenn's pronouncement on which site he personally favoured was, I
think, based on his interpretation of the written evidence and the initial
landscape evidence but some of that is guesswork on my part based on a short
interview.


AS I said if his paper at the Conference IS about Bosworth I will report
back. One thing is, I think pretty certain, that a thorough investigation was
well overdue and will almost certainly kill all speculation or guess work on
alternate sites - except amongst those that don't want to hear and sadly there
are still a few of those out there.


We will have to wait and see but I am certain that what we will get in four
or five years time is a thorough analysis of all sites but until then (unless
we get interim reports which is to be hoped for) we can only speculate
amongst ourselves. But hey its fun speculating so long as no-one makes anything
personal 'cos in the end we ARE all guessing on the same evidence.

Diomedes

--- In , diomedes5465@a...
wrote:
>
> I think perhaps you are being a little unfair on Glenn's
professionalism.

I'm sorry, I'm not questioning Glenn's professionalism at all - only
the remit of the investigation, which does NOT (or certainly did not
in summer 2004)include MKJ's site, and Leicestershire County
Council's existing financial commitment to the Ambien Hill/
Dadlington area.
Have you visited MKJ's site, by the by? If so, I'd be interested in
your view of it.


I think that if either the Ambien
> Hill site or the MKJ site were to prove to have evidence then
Glenn would
> declare it (I personally think that the likelihood of either being
the battle site
> is about as remote as Alpha Centauri, also a contentious point in
some camps
> I know).

Well, I suppose that's honest. I'd be interested in your reasons
rather than simply your opinion, though. Genuinely.



> The sort of archaeological evidence that turns up from a camp site
and its
> distribution is completely different from that which turns up on a
battlefield
> as the latter is distinct from that indicating a rout or pursuit.

Please could you expand for the benefit of those of us (including
myself) who are not specialists in battlefield archaeology? I'm one
of those cussed b***rs who doesn't accept anything just on the say-so
of an 'authority', however eminent. Remember Hugh Trevor-Roper and
the Hitler Diaries? To an ignoramus like me they read like a load of
old tosh: and so, it turned out, they were. Anyway, I like to think I
am capable of following a reasoned argument and learning new
subjects.


Whatever
> the surveys show I don't think there is any chance whatsoever of
one being
> mistaken for another - and certainly not from someone with Glenn
Foard's
> experience. Actually I was quite relieved when I heard that he was
in charge, it
> made me feel that we would get a truly professional view of all
sites and all
> evidence. Glenn's pronouncement on which site he personally
favoured was, I
> think, based on his interpretation of the written evidence and the
initial
> landscape evidence but some of that is guesswork on my part based
on a short
> interview.
>
>
> AS I said if his paper at the Conference IS about Bosworth I will
report
> back. One thing is, I think pretty certain, that a thorough
investigation was
> well overdue and will almost certainly kill all speculation or
guess work on
> alternate sites - except amongst those that don't want to hear and
sadly there
> are still a few of those out there.

Sorry, Diomedes, I'm too thick-skinned to succumb to smear tactics.

>
>
> We will have to wait and see but I am certain that what we will get
in four
> or five years time is a thorough analysis of all sites

Apparently not: only of Ambien Hill & Dadlington, unless things have
changed since last summer. That was the whole thrust of my concern.

Look forward to your case for Dadlington.

Marie

--- In , "Laura Blanchard"
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> I imagine it would be difficult for the Leicestershire County
Council to
> justify spending money on excavations in Warwickshire. At least,
that's
> how it would work among counties here in Pennsylvania.
>
> When Dadlington came up as a possibility, I believe I recall LCC
taking
> the position that wherever the battle may have ended up Ambien Hill
had
> more than a little importance at the beginning. I ask this as a
purely
> information-seeking question, not a rhetorical one: is there
another hill
> in the area that gives such commanding views of the surrounding
> countryside?

MKJ's site for Richard's camp, around Sheepy Magna, is on a long
elevated position, with extremely commanding views and ample room
(solid land, too) for a cavalry charge down to the spot where the
road forded a stream (here I'm working from memory from last year's
tour: can't remember offhand the name of the stream, but apparently
there is documentary evidence of sand and marshy ground at the same
ford). I do feel it's not until one views this site that its real
merit becomes clear. And, of course, Merevale as the place where
Henry spent his last night does have the backing of our earliest
chronicle source, Croyland, the author of which, from the internal
evidence, appears to have been in Leicester when the battle was
fought (that is Michael Hicks' view not just that of Michael Jones,
both to give him credit and for those who like authorities), and so
he would have heard the reports first-hand from the incoming victors.

I have to say I'm not personally familiar with the Dadlington site
apart from driving round the area, a deficiency I plan to correct
this summer. So I'm not anti-Dadlington but find the dismissive
attitude taken towards the 'new' site rather puzzling. I know that
yet another possibility is a bit of a bore, but it seems to me that
so far it has the subject of less honest scholarly assessment than
spoiling tactics. Being the cussed individual I am, that tends to
make me go the opposite way; but I am very open to being convinced by
real scholarly debate.

Marie

Let us not forget that back in the 1970s Ambien Hill was not the first
site the LCC tried to buy for their Battlefield centre. The farmers
refused to sell, so they plumped for the hill and had their historian
write a new scenario that fitted.
Perhaps this time they will be putting the battle back where they
originally knew it to have been fought.
Paul Trevor Bale

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
> Let us not forget that back in the 1970s Ambien Hill was not the
first
> site the LCC tried to buy for their Battlefield centre. The farmers
> refused to sell, so they plumped for the hill and had their
historian
> write a new scenario that fitted.
> Perhaps this time they will be putting the battle back where they
> originally knew it to have been fought.
> Paul Trevor Bale

Can you tell me the location of the land they tried to buy, Paul?

Evidently they didn't invent the Ambien Hill scenario: it had a long
pedigree by that time, and had indeed become the accepted version.

Marie

I would imagine, if things in England run in the same way they do here, if
the grantee is Leicestershire the work will be done in Leicestershire.
That's a lot different than saying that the work will *favor*
Leicestershire. It's possible for an archaeologist to review the evidence
at a particular location and say that based on that evidence he would be
uncomfortable siting the battle there until further investigations were
made elsewhere.

It's also possible for Leicestershire to interpret the findings that
relate to that county without claiming ownership of the entire story. I
don't think anyone would have a problem accepting the notion that a battle
embraced both Leicestershire and Warwickshire. Ambien Hill will offer fine
vantage points in either event, or so it seems to me.

diomedes5465@... said:
>
>
> I think perhaps you are being a little unfair on Glenn's professionalism.
> Maybe I am too trusting (gullible ?) but I think that if either the
> Ambien
> Hill site or the MKJ site were to prove to have evidence then Glenn would
> declare it (I personally think that the likelihood of either being the
> battle site
> is about as remote as Alpha Centauri, also a contentious point in some
> camps
> I know). I genuinely don't think that Glenn would risk his professional
> reputation simply because LCC want the site in their County - in the end
> they are
> not the paymaster, the HLF is.

>[brevity snip]

--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@...
2041 Christian Street, Philadelphia PA 19146-1338
215-985-1445
(sent from my backup account, backup@...)

--- In , "Laura Blanchard"
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> I would imagine, if things in England run in the same way they do
here, if
> the grantee is Leicestershire the work will be done in
Leicestershire.
> That's a lot different than saying that the work will *favor*
> Leicestershire. It's possible for an archaeologist to review the
evidence
> at a particular location and say that based on that evidence he
would be
> uncomfortable siting the battle there until further investigations
were
> made elsewhere.
>
> It's also possible for Leicestershire to interpret the findings that
> relate to that county without claiming ownership of the entire
story. I
> don't think anyone would have a problem accepting the notion that a
battle
> embraced both Leicestershire and Warwickshire. Ambien Hill will
offer fine
> vantage points in either event, or so it seems to me.

I'm sorry, perhaps I've not made the position entirely clear. At the
Foundation's Bosworth Study Day, Paul Startin, representing the
Battlefield Site, discussed and displayed on maps the area comprised
by the coming investigation. It does not reach to the county boundary
or anywhere near it, and does NOT comprise ANY of Michael Jones'
site. To quote the notes I made during the talk: "Reference to Glenn
Ford's book about how to reassess the battle site. They plan to use
soil-type images to identify suitable locations, but will be only be
looking around the Ambien Hill/Dadlington areas."
On questioning, Paul Startin said the reason they had not included
Michael K. Jones' site is that it would make the area too large to be
practical.
The four-year redevelopment programme at the visitors' centre is
hugely expensive (I didn't note down the cost), and will be largely
finished before any results come in. If this doesn't make the
situation clear, I don't know what does: they will hit on the most
suitable terrain in the area under investigation. The case has to
that extent been prejudged, and as far as the 'official' tourist
battlesite is concerned, Michael K. Jones' site is, I regret to say,
not an option.

Marie

Marie

I would concur with you in that viewing MKJ theory and site is not an option for the LCC. In part because they do not believe in his theory and in part because the HF did not give funds to go to the boundaries of Warwickshire.

I would also state that Glenn Foard, a most reputable archaeologist, is not going to risk his reputatation to say something that isn't true or to satisfy the LCC or BBC. He doesn't only work with them but also with the Battlefield Trust which is highly reputable in the UK. A major update will go out on the Foundation's website (some I'm told) in the next few days from the LCC and BBC.

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:

--- In , "Laura Blanchard"
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> I would imagine, if things in England run in the same way they do
here, if
> the grantee is Leicestershire the work will be done in
Leicestershire.
> That's a lot different than saying that the work will *favor*
> Leicestershire. It's possible for an archaeologist to review the
evidence
> at a particular location and say that based on that evidence he
would be
> uncomfortable siting the battle there until further investigations
were
> made elsewhere.
>
> It's also possible for Leicestershire to interpret the findings that
> relate to that county without claiming ownership of the entire
story. I
> don't think anyone would have a problem accepting the notion that a
battle
> embraced both Leicestershire and Warwickshire. Ambien Hill will
offer fine
> vantage points in either event, or so it seems to me.

I'm sorry, perhaps I've not made the position entirely clear. At the
Foundation's Bosworth Study Day, Paul Startin, representing the
Battlefield Site, discussed and displayed on maps the area comprised
by the coming investigation. It does not reach to the county boundary
or anywhere near it, and does NOT comprise ANY of Michael Jones'
site. To quote the notes I made during the talk: "Reference to Glenn
Ford's book about how to reassess the battle site. They plan to use
soil-type images to identify suitable locations, but will be only be
looking around the Ambien Hill/Dadlington areas."
On questioning, Paul Startin said the reason they had not included
Michael K. Jones' site is that it would make the area too large to be
practical.
The four-year redevelopment programme at the visitors' centre is
hugely expensive (I didn't note down the cost), and will be largely
finished before any results come in. If this doesn't make the
situation clear, I don't know what does: they will hit on the most
suitable terrain in the area under investigation. The case has to
that extent been prejudged, and as far as the 'official' tourist
battlesite is concerned, Michael K. Jones' site is, I regret to say,
not an option.

Marie







---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

I'm not so sue it did have a long pedigree. Danny Williams, writing for
the LCC, did make the entire battle fit into the site they had just
purchased, conveniently!
I understand the land they tried to buy was farmland more towards the
Dadlington side.

Paul

On Jan 26, 2005, at 23:28, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>>
>> Let us not forget that back in the 1970s Ambien Hill was not the
> first
>> site the LCC tried to buy for their Battlefield centre. The farmers
>> refused to sell, so they plumped for the hill and had their
> historian
>> write a new scenario that fitted.
>> Perhaps this time they will be putting the battle back where they
>> originally knew it to have been fought.
>> Paul Trevor Bale
>
> Can you tell me the location of the land they tried to buy, Paul?
>
> Evidently they didn't invent the Ambien Hill scenario: it had a long
> pedigree by that time, and had indeed become the accepted version.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie

My apologies - I didn't mean any smear with what I said - if it came over that way then I do genuinely apologise, I was thinking about at least one individual that I know who wouldn't revise his opinion if Richard came back in person and took him there.

I'll try to put some of my thoughts about the MKJ site into intelligable form and post them - running ideas past other people is always a good test anyway and might even tell me where I have gone wrong in interpretation and make me revise my opinion :-). The problem is always, of course, that there are numerous sites which would be suitable and, in essence, I remain entirely unconvinced by 18th C "Dick's Yard" type evidence and using it makes me highly suspicious that there isn't enoughh real evidence and needs other dubious stuff to back it up - anyway I'm waffling and I said I wouldn't but would collate something intelligible ! I have seen the site but not on a tour - the problem with such 'lonely' visits is that in such a visit MKJ's site is no more convincing that any other - including Ambien Hill.

On which subject I think we can all agree that the Ambien Hill site is "convenient" rather than accurate but if we think we've got problems what about the poor guys trying to find the site of Boudicca's defeat - they don't even know what County it is/was in !!!

Diomedes

Paul -

You are correct. From what I have been told, they did approach the landowners nearer to Dadlington to purchase the land but they refused. They did get Danny Williams to write his work according to the current location.

The site where Richard "supposedly" drank water didn't even exist then and was structured in the 18th century. The "memorial" stone to Richard is in the wrong direction but that I guess would depend upon whose theory one believes in.

I am more partial to Foss and Foard's theory but I wouldn't bet the house on it until the LCC finishes their work. I just hope that given all the funding that they received, some good will come of it and we will be wiser.

Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
I'm not so sue it did have a long pedigree. Danny Williams, writing for
the LCC, did make the entire battle fit into the site they had just
purchased, conveniently!
I understand the land they tried to buy was farmland more towards the
Dadlington side.

Paul

On Jan 26, 2005, at 23:28, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>>
>> Let us not forget that back in the 1970s Ambien Hill was not the
> first
>> site the LCC tried to buy for their Battlefield centre. The farmers
>> refused to sell, so they plumped for the hill and had their
> historian
>> write a new scenario that fitted.
>> Perhaps this time they will be putting the battle back where they
>> originally knew it to have been fought.
>> Paul Trevor Bale
>
> Can you tell me the location of the land they tried to buy, Paul?
>
> Evidently they didn't invent the Ambien Hill scenario: it had a long
> pedigree by that time, and had indeed become the accepted version.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! ý What will yours do?

Much as I like Michael Jones and his take on Richard (he clearly likes
the man a lot), I have had the tour of his sight by the man himself, as
well as heard him talk on it 3 times, and naturally questioned him
about various aspects of his theories. I still tend to go more for
Peter Foss theories and placements. Jones description of Richard's
final charge and what happened I find very convincing, but that of
course could have taken place anywhere on the plain or Redemore.
Of course, all this is really just a bit of academic fun, as the wrong
man won the battle, no matter where it was fought.
Would be nice to have the memorial stone moved to a place more likely
than the stupid one it is now in. Richard could have spat on Tudor from
the top of the hill as things are now laid out, no charge being needed,
just a flight or two of arrows would have done the job!
Paul

On Jan 27, 2005, at 13:31, Murron Wallace wrote:

>
> Paul -
>
> You are correct. From what I have been told, they did approach the
> landowners nearer to Dadlington to purchase the land but they refused.
> They did get Danny Williams to write his work according to the
> current location.
>
> The site where Richard "supposedly" drank water didn't even exist then
> and was structured in the 18th century. The "memorial" stone to
> Richard is in the wrong direction but that I guess would depend upon
> whose theory one believes in.
>
> I am more partial to Foss and Foard's theory but I wouldn't bet the
> house on it until the LCC finishes their work. I just hope that given
> all the funding that they received, some good will come of it and we
> will be wiser.
>
> Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
> I'm not so sue it did have a long pedigree. Danny Williams, writing for
> the LCC, did make the entire battle fit into the site they had just
> purchased, conveniently!
> I understand the land they tried to buy was farmland more towards the
> Dadlington side.
>
> Paul
>
> On Jan 26, 2005, at 23:28, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Let us not forget that back in the 1970s Ambien Hill was not the
>> first
>>> site the LCC tried to buy for their Battlefield centre. The farmers
>>> refused to sell, so they plumped for the hill and had their
>> historian
>>> write a new scenario that fitted.
>>> Perhaps this time they will be putting the battle back where they
>>> originally knew it to have been fought.
>>> Paul Trevor Bale
>>
>> Can you tell me the location of the land they tried to buy, Paul?
>>
>> Evidently they didn't invent the Ambien Hill scenario: it had a long
>> pedigree by that time, and had indeed become the accepted version.
>>
>> Marie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Jan 27, 2005, at 12:29, diomedes5465@... wrote:

> On which subject I think we can all agree that the Ambien Hill site is
> "convenient" rather than accurate but if we think we've got problems
> what about the poor guys trying to find the site of Boudicca's defeat
> - they don't even know what County it is/was in !!!
>
Yes Diomedes, they could soon be digging up Kings Cross station to find
her grave!! her 'supposed' grave site that is! :-)

Paul

Paul Trevor Bale said:
>
> Much as I like Michael Jones and his take on Richard (he clearly likes
> the man a lot), I have had the tour of his sight by the man himself, as
> well as heard him talk on it 3 times, and naturally questioned him
> about various aspects of his theories. I still tend to go more for
> Peter Foss theories and placements.

Someone else commented that the designated archaeologist is one of good
repute, so we can hope that his findings will be objective irrespective of
the paymaster.


--
Laura Blanchard
lblanchard@...
2041 Christian Street, Philadelphia PA 19146-1338
215-985-1445
(sent from my backup account, backup@...)

Paul

You hit it on the head - the wrong man did win the battle, and by right, Richard should have. Something terribly went wrong that day - we may find out what and find out where - one can only hope, and hopefully not in vain.

Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
Much as I like Michael Jones and his take on Richard (he clearly likes
the man a lot), I have had the tour of his sight by the man himself, as
well as heard him talk on it 3 times, and naturally questioned him
about various aspects of his theories. I still tend to go more for
Peter Foss theories and placements. Jones description of Richard's
final charge and what happened I find very convincing, but that of
course could have taken place anywhere on the plain or Redemore.
Of course, all this is really just a bit of academic fun, as the wrong
man won the battle, no matter where it was fought.
Would be nice to have the memorial stone moved to a place more likely
than the stupid one it is now in. Richard could have spat on Tudor from
the top of the hill as things are now laid out, no charge being needed,
just a flight or two of arrows would have done the job!
Paul

On Jan 27, 2005, at 13:31, Murron Wallace wrote:

>
> Paul -
>
> You are correct. From what I have been told, they did approach the
> landowners nearer to Dadlington to purchase the land but they refused.
> They did get Danny Williams to write his work according to the
> current location.
>
> The site where Richard "supposedly" drank water didn't even exist then
> and was structured in the 18th century. The "memorial" stone to
> Richard is in the wrong direction but that I guess would depend upon
> whose theory one believes in.
>
> I am more partial to Foss and Foard's theory but I wouldn't bet the
> house on it until the LCC finishes their work. I just hope that given
> all the funding that they received, some good will come of it and we
> will be wiser.
>
> Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
> I'm not so sue it did have a long pedigree. Danny Williams, writing for
> the LCC, did make the entire battle fit into the site they had just
> purchased, conveniently!
> I understand the land they tried to buy was farmland more towards the
> Dadlington side.
>
> Paul
>
> On Jan 26, 2005, at 23:28, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Let us not forget that back in the 1970s Ambien Hill was not the
>> first
>>> site the LCC tried to buy for their Battlefield centre. The farmers
>>> refused to sell, so they plumped for the hill and had their
>> historian
>>> write a new scenario that fitted.
>>> Perhaps this time they will be putting the battle back where they
>>> originally knew it to have been fought.
>>> Paul Trevor Bale
>>
>> Can you tell me the location of the land they tried to buy, Paul?
>>
>> Evidently they didn't invent the Ambien Hill scenario: it had a long
>> pedigree by that time, and had indeed become the accepted version.
>>
>> Marie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! ý What will yours do?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> I'm not so sue it did have a long pedigree. Danny Williams, writing
for
> the LCC, did make the entire battle fit into the site they had just
> purchased, conveniently!
> I understand the land they tried to buy was farmland more towards
the
> Dadlington side.
>
> Paul

You may well be right about the LCC's attempt to buy land nearer
Dadlington, but the ambien Hill stuff goes back to at least
Holinshed, who wrote that Richard pitched his field "on a hill called
Anne Beame". The association of Ambien Hill with the battle was
reinforced by Hutton, who even stated that Richard died 'near Amyon
Leys'. Kendall, writing in the early 1950s, has Richard placed on
Ambien Hill. Etc.

It is an interesting point that the LCC apparently really believed in
Dadlington even then, but when they could only get the Ambion Hill
site bought and marketed that instead. It shows that:-

a) the LCC have once before put financial interests before historical
considerations
b) they actually have a very longstanding belief in Dadlington as the
site.

Both of these facts would militate against any consideration of
Michael Jones' site.

I don't, I repeat, dispute Glenn Foard's integrity or sincerity. But
I suspect he was also convinced by the Dadlington site long before
the alternative came along, and so sees no real reason to consider
it. What we do seem to have established is that I was completely
correct when I said that Michael Jones' site is not in the official
running. In other words, no matter what the merits, and however good
an archaelogist Glenn foard may be, it IS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION THAT
IT WILL NOT BECOME THE OFFICIAL SITE, WHETHER OR NOT IS IS THE TRUE
HISTORICAL SITE.
I think Paul, you hit the nail on the head when you said there could
be several suitable sites found. So surely if we have two still in
the running (it seems all are agreed that Ambien Hill is not
geographically suitable), both would need to be evaluated in order to
decide between them.

To return to Diomedes' last point - I'm not so convinced by the
folklore either. It's highly interesting (I do love folk traditions,
they make my hair stand on end) but can't be considered solid
evidence, particularly as similar names can be found over the whole
area in dispute. However, I do find some of the documentary evidence
compelling - the compensation grants, Crowland's testimony, etc., and
Henry's particular interest in Merevale. One would perhaps expect him
to revisit or commemorate the site in some way, and such
commemoration is found at Merevale. Also there is the young Henry
VIII's quite extensive detour with Sir J Cheyney's son to visit the
abbey on one occasion.
By way of comparison, I note, for instance, that in 1498, whilst
Henry VII was on progress with his mother and passing by Banbury,
documentary evidence shows that Margaret at least left the town to
make a stay at Edgcote - there is no reason to suppose the pair split
up for the night, so presumably Henry was there too. Now, Henry had
been present with Sir William Herbert at the Battle of Edgcote, his
only other real battle (he was safely away from the fighting at
Stoke). So a useful comparison.
And, from what I saw on the Study Day, Michael Jones' site actually
looks considerably more suitable than Dadlington, which appeared to
have had, in the 15th century, just so much marsh and woodland that
quite an ingenious (and not completely convincing) strategy had been
worked out to fit the battle in. I know we need some marsh for
Richard to get stuck in at the end, but too much and it makes him
into a complete ninny for making his camp in such a spot at all. And
makes the earlier phases of the battle difficult to stage.
At least the soil analysis should give us a better understanding of
how the Dadlington terrain really looked at the time. Could we have
the same survey of Michael Jones' site, we might of course find out
some unpleasant truths there: but we're not going to get it.
By the by, I am not convinced by the protests that Sheepy Magna is
too far for Richard to have brought his army in one day. There are
many comparable marches before other Wars of the Roses battles.
Indeed, did Edward not push his army 30 miles in a day before
Tewkesbury?

Marie

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 2005, at 12:29, diomedes5465@... wrote:
>
>
>>On which subject I think we can all agree that the Ambien Hill site is
>>"convenient" rather than accurate but if we think we've got problems
>>what about the poor guys trying to find the site of Boudicca's defeat
>>- they don't even know what County it is/was in !!!
>>
>
> Yes Diomedes, they could soon be digging up Kings Cross station to find
> her grave!! her 'supposed' grave site that is! :-)

But won't that interfere with access to Platform 9 3/4?

*runs away quickly*

Jenny

> >>what about the poor guys trying to find the site
> of Boudicca's defeat
> >>- they don't even know what County it is/was in
> !!!
> >>
> >
> > Yes Diomedes, they could soon be digging up Kings
> Cross station to find
> > her grave!! her 'supposed' grave site that is! :-)
>
> But won't that interfere with access to Platform 9
> 3/4?
>
> *runs away quickly*
>
> Jenny
>
> Tee hee -- good one Jenny! ;-)
Rene'
>