RIII sites to visit in London at Christmastime??

Hi, All 

I'm planning a visit to London around Christmas this year, and I've already made arrangements to take in the Carol Service at Fotheringhay with the Richard III Society. So I'm curious  besides Westminster Abbey (site of the interment of Queen Anne and HVII), what sites of interest to Ricardians are available in the London area? Is there a guide to Ricardian sites in London and/or England as a whole available?

BTW, at one time I had an oversized plan/map/chart of all the Kings and Queens of England diagrammed (I think) as a large family tree. Unfortunately I lost it in one of my moves. Does anyone know if such a chart is still available and where I might be able to buy it in London?

Thanks for your suggestions!

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier

Email  jltournier60@...

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Thanks, Mary 

I will check the RIII Society website to see if they are still offering it. If not, I may be able to pick up a used copy somewhere.

Do you have any suggestions on spots in London that I should try to visit? In addition to the Abbey, I will plan to tour Westminster Hall and the Jewel Tower.

Thanks!

Johanne

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: maryfriend@... []
Sent: October 26, 2016 10:00 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RIII sites to visit in London at Christmastime??

Johanne, I think that there is a book published by the Society called Ricardian Britain. I think it is written by one of the members. I did have a copy many years ago. I seem to remember when the Worcestershire Branch went to view Bewdley's Edward IV charter, our Chairman wrote to the Town Council asking permission to include Bewdley and its Charter in Ricardian Britain.

Hi, Eileen!

Of course! I should have mentioned that I am planning on going there. I have read that it's a good idea to head first to see the Crown Jewels and then catch a Warder's (Beefeater's) tour, which I think is the only way to see the chapel. And I think that Thomas More's body and Anne Boleyn's are supposed to have been interred there (tho they don't know exactly where.)

I bought a 10 day London Pass, which allows you access to most of the sites I am interested in at no extra charge. Beside the sites, it includes 24 hrs.' Travel on the hop-on-hop-off tour bus and also 24 hrs. on the Thames cruise boats. Besides that I got an Oyster card with 50 pounds worth of travel on London Transport and a dining discount card for 10 pounds which gives one discounts up to 50% off at a lot of restaurants, pubs and such around London. (Only problem with the last is that many of the restaurants don't offer the specials in December, when I'm going  I suppose because they're already busy enough at that time of year.

But I'm going to have to work hard to get my money's worth from the cards!

Johanne

From: cherryripe.eileenb@... []
Sent: October 26, 2016 1:36 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: RIII sites to visit in London at Christmastime??

Johanne,,the Tower of London! Not sure what the queues are like.

Dear Eileen 

I haven't been to London (or England, or Europe for that matter) since 1973, when I was able to spend the Summer at the First International School of Librarianship in Aberystwyth. That included a 10 day study tour of (mostly) England. I got two courses, so it allowed me to complete my MLS. We also visited the ruins of Ludlow, although I think that was a separate trip, and Coventry, Kenilworth, and Warwick Castle, and earlier we toured Chatsworth. And in London we toured the Tower and more, so you see there were some Ricardian sites included even then. The whole experience was wonderful, wonderful, wonderful! (At Aberystwyth the food was so good, and I could see the kinship with the Hobbits  we had five meals a day, if you counted morning coffee and afternoon tea  and there were always lots of goodies available! The only thing I hated were the sausage rolls they used to include in the boxed lunches. 😊)

My mom and I also spent 5 days in London the year before, mainly for the purpose of taking in the Tutankhamen exhibit at the British Museum, so altogether I've spent about a month in London on several different occasions. Besides being a Ricardian, I'm a total Anglophile as well as being a monarchist, so it's been painful to not be able to get back before this. Of course I've done lots of traveling, but it's all been in this hemisphere.

TTYL 😊

Johanne

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: cherryripe.eileenb@... []
Sent: October 26, 2016 2:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: RIII sites to visit in London at Christmastime??

You can probably tell Johanne although I live in the Cotswolds now I am a London born and bred I love the dear old place...

Hi, Mary & Eileen -

Thanks for this discussion. I will check it out. The name of Etheldreda (Is that a female saint? The "a" on the end of the name makes me think so.) Is Anglo-Saxon, so I think and hope that that church may be a very old, historic one. Which is probably why JAH would have chosen it. Do you know if there's a more concrete connection to Anne or Richard?

Another Ricardian site that comes to mind is Crosby Place. Wasn't that one of the places Richard lived? Do you know if it is open to the public?

BTW I was contacted off list by another member of this Forum, who told me that there is a guide to Ricardian Britain available for free on the Society website. I will be sure to download that!

Thanks to everyone for the fascinating info!

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...

Get Outlook for Android

From: cherryripe.eileenb@... []
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 7:18 AM
Subject: RE: Re: RIII sites to visit in London at Christmastime??
To: cherryripe.eileenb@... []

I'm sorry Mary..I have a vague recollecton about reading about Anne's mass but can't recall where it was held. I would think your right as I see St Etheldreda's is Roman Catholic... JA-H...he's so caring isn't he...what a marvellous thing to do..Eileen

St Etheldreda's was the chapel of the Bishop of Ely's London residence. So we know who else worshipped there.*

I had no idea the Catholic Church had such an old place of worship at all. I thought all RC churches were built after Catholics became acceptable again, well after James II.

Best wishes

Christine

*John Morton, big baddie, for newbies.

Hi, Mary & Eileen -

Thanks for this discussion. I will check it out. The name of Etheldreda (Is that a female saint? The "a" on the end of the name makes me think so.) Is Anglo-Saxon, so I think and hope that that church may be a very old, historic one. Which is probably why JAH would have chosen it. Do you know if there's a more concrete connection to Anne or Richard?

Another Ricardian site that comes to mind is Crosby Place. Wasn't that one of the places Richard lived? Do you know if it is open to the public?

BTW I was contacted off list by another member of this Forum, who told me that there is a guide to Ricardian Britain available for free on the Society website. I will be sure to download that!

Thanks to everyone for the fascinating info!

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...

Get Outlook for Android

From: cherryripe.eileenb@... []
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 7:18 AM
Subject: RE: Re: RIII sites to visit in London at Christmastime??
To: cherryripe.eileenb@... []

I'm sorry Mary..I have a vague recollecton about reading about Anne's mass but can't recall where it was held.  I would think your right as I see St Etheldreda's is Roman Catholic... JA-H...he's so caring isn't he...what a marvellous thing to do..Eileen 

Crosby Place has physically moved to Chelsea, too, so it's not even in the right place any more.

Best wishes

Christine

Hi, Mary & Eileen -

Thanks for this discussion. I will check it out. The name of Etheldreda (Is that a female saint? The "a" on the end of the name makes me think so.) Is Anglo-Saxon, so I think and hope that that church may be a very old, historic one. Which is probably why JAH would have chosen it. Do you know if there's a more concrete connection to Anne or Richard?

Another Ricardian site that comes to mind is Crosby Place. Wasn't that one of the places Richard lived? Do you know if it is open to the public?

BTW I was contacted off list by another member of this Forum, who told me that there is a guide to Ricardian Britain available for free on the Society website. I will be sure to download that!

Thanks to everyone for the fascinating info!

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...

Get Outlook for Android

From: cherryripe.eileenb@... []
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 7:18 AM
Subject: RE: Re: RIII sites to visit in London at Christmastime??
To: cherryripe.eileenb@... []

I'm sorry Mary..I have a vague recollecton about reading about Anne's mass but can't recall where it was held.  I would think your right as I see St Etheldreda's is Roman Catholic... JA-H...he's so caring isn't he...what a marvellous thing to do..Eileen 

As I said to JA-H at Ely Cathedral, she is also commemorated there. St. Ethelreda was the sister of Richard’s ancestor from the Wuffings who ruled East Anglia during the Heptarchy and the great-niece of Raedwald. She is also known as St. Audrey, who is supposed to have developed cancer after wearing cheap jewellery – hence “tawdry”.

See “Richard’s Ancient Ancestors” in Files.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 27 October 2016 11:36
To: cherryripe.eileenb@... []
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: RIII sites to visit in London at Christmastime??

Hi, Mary & Eileen -

Thanks for this discussion. I will check it out. The name of Etheldreda (Is that a female saint? The "a" on the end of the name makes me think so.) Is Anglo-Saxon, so I think and hope that that church may be a very old, historic one. Which is probably why JAH would have chosen it. Do you know if there's a more concrete connection to Anne or Richard?

Another Ricardian site that comes to mind is Crosby Place . Wasn't that one of the places Richard lived? Do you know if it is open to the public?

BTW I was contacted off list by another member of this Forum, who told me that there is a guide to Ricardian Britain available for free on the Society website. I will be sure to download that!

Thanks to everyone for the fascinating info!

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...

Get Outlook for Android

From: cherryripe.eileenb@... []
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 7:18 AM
Subject: RE: Re: RIII sites to visit in London at Christmastime??
To: cherryripe.eileenb@... []

I'm sorry Mary..I have a vague recollecton about reading about Anne's mass but can't recall where it was held. I would think your right as I see St Etheldreda's is Roman Catholic... JA-H...he's so caring isn't he...what a marvellous thing to do..Eileen

Hi, Eileen 

Windsor  of course! I forgot that, not only is it the Queen's preferred residence in the London area, but it has St. George's Chapel. That would be interesting for the seats for the Knights of the Garter as well as EIV's and EW's graves. And, as I recall, Henry VI is also buried there  moved there by Richard, as I recall.

I recall reading that there is some way I can get out to Windsor at no extra charge, even tho it's outside of the area usually covered by the Oyster card. And I think admission to the Castle is one of the attractions that's included in my London Pass. Also, I've never been there, so I would really like to go.

What about Barnet? Isn't that fairly close to Central London? Is there anything to be seen there?

I know I can't see everything. It sounds like Crosby Place is a no go. Westminster Hall and other sites near the Parliament buildings are must-sees, plus the Tower. But I don't ever recall hearing about St. Ethelreda's Church, and it sounds like that will be really interesting, for many reasons!

Another thing, has no connection to RIII, but I am really thrilled that I got an orchestra seat to see Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen starring in the Samuel Beckett play No Man's Land. That's on the 16th. And their last performance is the next day, the 17th. (But I can't go on the 17th., because that's the day of the carol service at Fotheringhay.) Anyway, I'm almost delirious that I will get to see them in person!

Johanne

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: cherryripe.eileenb@... []
Sent: October 27, 2016 3:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: RIII sites to visit in London at Christmastime??

Johanne ..Another place considering if you had covered everything in London and you had time would be to get a train from Paddington station to Windsor for St. George chapel..it would take about 40-50 minutes. You would have to check that the chapel would be open that day..but when you consider the burials in there..Edward, EW and two of thier children, Mary and little George, plus Hastings..(there is a story that there are two more of Edward's children buried there too but who knows) you might consider it worth while.

Hi, Nico 

Thanks for the information! I wasn't sure if there might be much of a battlefield site such as Eileen mentioned is at Tewkesbury. It sounds like Barnet is probably something I can pass on. Tewkesbury might be worth while  I would certainly be interested in seeing it, but I think it's too far for a day trip from London. I would rather save that for another trip when I can spend more time further afield.

Johanne

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []
Sent: October 28, 2016 8:19 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: RIII sites to visit in London at Christmastime??

Hi Johanne,
There isn't anything particularly interesting in Barnet itself, but the Battle of Barnet was fought in Monken Hadley, an attractive village nearby, where there is a monument commemorating where Earl of Warwick died. You can take a train to Hadley Wood from Charing Cross which takes about an hour or take a taxi from Barnet which is at the end of the Northern Line.

Nico

On Friday, 28 October 2016, 10:40, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:


Hi, Eileen  Windsor  of course! I forgot that, not only is it the Queen's preferred residence in the London area, but it has St. George's Chapel. That would be interesting for the seats for the Knights of the Garter as well as EIV's and EW's graves. And, as I recall, Henry VI is also buried there  moved there by Richard, as I recall. I recall reading that there is some way I can get out to Windsor at no extra charge, even tho it's outside of the area usually covered by the Oyster card. And I think admission to the Castle is one of the attractions that's included in my London Pass. Also, I've never been there, so I would really like to go. What about Barnet? Isn't that fairly close to Central London? Is there anything to be seen there? I know I can't see everything. It sounds like Crosby Place is a no go. Westminster Hall and other sites near the Parliament buildings are must-sees, plus the Tower. But I don't ever recall hearing about St. Ethelreda's Church, and it sounds like that will be really interesting, for many reasons! Another thing, has no connection to RIII, but I am really thrilled that I got an orchestra seat to see Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen starring in the Samuel Beckett play No Man's Land. That's on the 16th. And their last performance is the next day, the 17th. (But I can't go on the 17th., because that's the day of the carol service at Fotheringhay.) Anyway, I'm almost delirious that I will get to see them in person! Johanne Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: cherryripe.eileenb@... []
Sent: October 27, 2016 3:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: RIII sites to visit in London at Christmastime?? Johanne ..Another place considering if you had covered everything in London and you had time would be to get a train from Paddington station to Windsor for St. George chapel..it would take about 40-50 minutes. You would have to check that the chapel would be open that day..but when you consider the burials in there..Edward, EW and two of thier children, Mary and little George, plus Hastings..(there is a story that there are two more of Edward's children buried there too but who knows) you might consider it worth while.

Walled garden? Even more of a delicacy than it is now?

And did the Thames freeze as thoroughly c. 1483 as it did c. 1660? How long was the 'midst of the Little Ice Age'?

Best wishes

Christine

Security to get into Westminster Hall could take more time than you wish to spend. And it might not be particularly open if Parliament isn't sitting. It's more of a working building than a tourist attraction. (And likely to close for several years at some point, so they can remove asbestos and generally make it fit for the 21st century, so it is worth trying while you are here.)

And, more for other people's information than yours, Johanne, Tewkesbury is not easy by public transport. You can't get to the nearest station, Ashchurch, direct from London - and Ashchurch is well the other side of the motorway from the town. Though Tewkesbury is very nice once you get there.

Best wishes

Christine

Hi, Eileen 

Windsor  of course! I forgot that, not only is it the Queen's preferred residence in the London area, but it has St. George's Chapel. That would be interesting for the seats for the Knights of the Garter as well as EIV's and EW's graves. And, as I recall, Henry VI is also buried there  moved there by Richard, as I recall.

I recall reading that there is some way I can get out to Windsor at no extra charge, even tho it's outside of the area usually covered by the Oyster card. And I think admission to the Castle is one of the attractions that's included in my London Pass. Also, I've never been there, so I would really like to go.

What about Barnet? Isn't that fairly close to Central London? Is there anything to be seen there?

I know I can't see everything. It sounds like Crosby Place is a no go. Westminster Hall and other sites near the Parliament buildings are must-sees, plus the Tower. But I don't ever recall hearing about St. Ethelreda's Church, and it sounds like that will be really interesting, for many reasons!

Another thing, has no connection to RIII, but I am really thrilled that I got an orchestra seat to see Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen starring in the Samuel Beckett play No Man's Land. That's on the 16th. And their last performance is the next day, the 17th. (But I can't go on the 17th., because that's the day of the carol service at Fotheringhay.) Anyway, I'm almost delirious that I will get to see them in person!

Johanne

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: cherryripe.eileenb@... []
Sent: October 27, 2016 3:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: RIII sites to visit in London at Christmastime??

Johanne ..Another place considering if you had covered everything in London and you had time would be to get a train from Paddington  station to Windsor for St. George chapel..it would take about 40-50 minutes.  You would have to check that the chapel would be open that day..but when you consider the burials in there..Edward, EW and two of thier children, Mary and little George, plus Hastings..(there is a story that there are two more of Edward's children buried there too but who knows) you might consider it worth while.  

Thanks, Christine 

Re: Security to get into the Parliament buildings (incl. Westminster Hall)  yes, I went to the website after my previous exchange with Eileen. There is a separate page just dealing with security matters like what you are and aren't permitted to bring, and so on. However, I would really like to tour Parliament this time if possible, because with all the time I previously spent in London, I never made it to Parliament. I have been to the Tower and Westminster Abbey and the Guild Hall, which I loved, as well as the Archives (what's it called)  I am sure that they have Ricardian documents, though they may not be on display. I love ancient legal documents! (I am a retired barrister and solicitor and enjoy seeing the formalities that we still observe (often in somewhat diminished form, like the legal seal) in full flower! For example  many documents had numerous wax seals dangling from tabs  very impressive! And indentures  legal contracts of some sort  were literally documents where their pages were trimmed with a wavy line across the page. I suppose the purpose was to prove that you had the correct other half by being able to fit your document perfectly to it.

I tend to think the lines for Westminster Hall (etc.) won't be too bad at Christmas time, because it's not prime tourist season. The website describes the security measures as basically being the same as airline security, and they said to allow 15 min., I believe, to allow for the screening. And there may be secondary screenings when once indoors. Don't plan on bringing your Swiss Army knife  they are specifically mentioned as being prohibited! 😊

BTW, just out of curiosity, are there any mementoes/residues in London of Sir John Falstaff or the Pastons? That would be interesting!

I've spent a lot of time in the British Museum on my previous visits. It's one of my favourite places on earth. 😊 But I wasn't specifically looking for Ricardian (or even Tudor) material. Is there much there that would be of interest? I did visit the National Portrait Gallery on an occasion long ago and purchased a print of the wonderful portrait of RIII. Left behind (unfortunately!) when I moved  I hope to buy another one! Are there any other museums in London that have much relevant material? The Museum of London? I'm not even sure that existed when I was in London in 1973  I don't remember reading about it.

Johanne

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Christine Headley lists@... []
Sent: October 28, 2016 9:12 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: RIII sites to visit in London at Christmastime??

Security to get into Westminster Hall could take more time than you wish to spend. And it might not be particularly open if Parliament isn't sitting. It's more of a working building than a tourist attraction. (And likely to close for several years at some point, so they can remove asbestos and generally make it fit for the 21st century, so it is worth trying while you are here.)

And, more for other people's information than yours, Johanne, Tewkesbury is not easy by public transport. You can't get to the nearest station, Ashchurch, direct from London - and Ashchurch is well the other side of the motorway from the town. Though Tewkesbury is very nice once you get there.

Best wishes

Christine

Hi, Eileen 

Windsor  of course! I forgot that, not only is it the Queen's preferred residence in the London area, but it has St. George's Chapel. That would be interesting for the seats for the Knights of the Garter as well as EIV's and EW's graves. And, as I recall, Henry VI is also buried there  moved there by Richard, as I recall.

I recall reading that there is some way I can get out to Windsor at no extra charge, even tho it's outside of the area usually covered by the Oyster card. And I think admission to the Castle is one of the attractions that's included in my London Pass. Also, I've never been there, so I would really like to go.

What about Barnet? Isn't that fairly close to Central London? Is there anything to be seen there?

I know I can't see everything. It sounds like Crosby Place is a no go. Westminster Hall and other sites near the Parliament buildings are must-sees, plus the Tower. But I don't ever recall hearing about St. Ethelreda's Church, and it sounds like that will be really interesting, for many reasons!

Another thing, has no connection to RIII, but I am really thrilled that I got an orchestra seat to see Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen starring in the Samuel Beckett play No Man's Land. That's on the 16th. And their last performance is the next day, the 17th. (But I can't go on the 17th., because that's the day of the carol service at Fotheringhay.) Anyway, I'm almost delirious that I will get to see them in person!

Johanne

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: cherryripe.eileenb@... []
Sent: October 27, 2016 3:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: RIII sites to visit in London at Christmastime??

Johanne ..Another place considering if you had covered everything in London and you had time would be to get a train from Paddington station to Windsor for St. George chapel..it would take about 40-50 minutes. You would have to check that the chapel would be open that day..but when you consider the burials in there..Edward, EW and two of thier children, Mary and little George, plus Hastings..(there is a story that there are two more of Edward's children buried there too but who knows) you might consider it worth while.

The British Library is brilliant. You can't get into the reading rooms if you don't have a card, but it's an amazing building, with cafes and places to sit, and the King's Library in all its glory is the centrepiece. You wouldn't need to spend much time there to see all the public areas, but it's also a good place to sit down with your laptop and a cup of coffee and catch up on e-mails. (Christmas opening, or not, here http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/quickinfo/loc/seasonalclosures/index.html )

Best wishes

Christine

Thanks, Christine 

Re: Security to get into the Parliament buildings (incl. Westminster Hall)  yes, I went to the website after my previous exchange with Eileen. There is a separate page just dealing with security matters like what you are and aren't permitted to bring, and so on. However, I would really like to tour Parliament this time if possible, because with all the time I previously spent in London, I never made it to Parliament. I have been to the Tower and Westminster Abbey and the Guild Hall, which I loved, as well as the Archives (what's it called)  I am sure that they have  Ricardian documents, though they may not be on display. I love ancient legal documents! (I am a retired barrister and solicitor and enjoy seeing the formalities that we still observe (often in somewhat diminished form, like the legal seal) in full flower! For example  many documents had numerous wax seals dangling from tabs  very impressive! And indentures  legal contracts of some sort  were literally documents where their pages were trimmed with a wavy line across the page. I suppose the purpose was to prove that you had the correct other half by being able to fit your document perfectly to it.

I tend to think the lines for Westminster Hall (etc.) won't be too bad at Christmas time, because it's not prime tourist season. The website describes the security measures as basically being the same as airline security, and they said to allow 15 min., I believe, to allow for the screening. And there may be secondary screenings when once indoors. Don't plan on bringing your Swiss Army knife  they are specifically mentioned as being prohibited! =

BTW, just out of curiosity, are there any mementoes/residues in London of Sir John Falstaff or the Pastons? That would be interesting!

I've spent a lot of time in the British Museum on my previous visits. It's one of my favourite places on earth. = But I wasn't specifically looking for Ricardian (or even Tudor) material. Is there much there that would be of interest? I did visit the National Portrait Gallery on an occasion long ago and purchased a print of the wonderful portrait of RIII. Left behind (unfortunately!) when I moved  I hope to buy another one! Are there any other museums in London that have much relevant material? The Museum of London? I'm not even sure that existed when I was in London in 1973  I don't remember reading about it.

Johanne

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Christine Headley lists@... []
Sent: October 28, 2016 9:12 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: RIII sites to visit in London at Christmastime??

Security to get into Westminster Hall could take more time than you wish to spend. And it might not be particularly open if Parliament isn't sitting. It's more of a working building than a tourist attraction. (And likely to close for several years at some point, so they can remove asbestos and generally make it fit for the 21st century, so it is worth trying while you are here.)

And, more for other people's information than yours, Johanne, Tewkesbury is not easy by public transport. You can't get to the nearest station, Ashchurch, direct from London - and Ashchurch is well the other side of the motorway from the town. Though Tewkesbury is very nice once you get there.

Best wishes

Christine

Hi, Eileen 

Windsor  of course! I forgot that, not only is it the Queen's preferred residence in the London area, but it has St. George's Chapel. That would be interesting for the seats for the Knights of the Garter as well as EIV's and EW's graves. And, as I recall, Henry VI is also buried there  moved there by Richard, as I recall.

I recall reading that there is some way I can get out to Windsor at no extra charge, even tho it's outside of the area usually covered by the Oyster card. And I think admission to the Castle is one of the attractions that's included in my London Pass. Also, I've never been there, so I would really like to go.

What about Barnet? Isn't that fairly close to Central London? Is there anything to be seen there?

I know I can't see everything. It sounds like Crosby Place is a no go. Westminster Hall and other sites near the Parliament buildings are must-sees, plus the Tower. But I don't ever recall hearing about St. Ethelreda's Church, and it sounds like that will be really interesting, for many reasons!

Another thing, has no connection to RIII, but I am really thrilled that I got an orchestra seat to see Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen starring in the Samuel Beckett play No Man's Land. That's on the 16th. And their last performance is the next day, the 17th. (But I can't go on the 17th., because that's the day of the carol service at Fotheringhay.) Anyway, I'm almost delirious that I will get to see them in person!

Johanne

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: cherryripe.eileenb@... []
Sent: October 27, 2016 3:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: RIII sites to visit in London at Christmastime??

Johanne ..Another place considering if you had covered everything in London and you had time would be to get a train from Paddington  station to Windsor for St. George chapel..it would take about 40-50 minutes.  You would have to check that the chapel would be open that day..but when you consider the burials in there..Edward, EW and two of thier children, Mary and little George, plus Hastings..(there is a story that there are two more of Edward's children buried there too but who knows) you might consider it worth while.  

Hi Johanne,

We don't yet know exactly where the battle was fought, though there is archaeology going on in the area right now.

The battle monument stands in the fork between the Great North Road (the east prong of the fork) and Kitts End Lane (the west prong).

Monken Hadley lies on the east side of the Great North Road, and Hadley Wood is to the east of that. Hadley Wood station is about 1.5 miles from the monument.

Some other theories regarding the site are, roughly:

a) that it took place on Hadley Green (south of the monument, between the monument and Barnet), or

b) that it was fought on what is now Old Fold Golf Course, on the west side of Kitts End Lane ( in 1471 this was Old Fold Manor, the home of Henry Frowyk), or

c) that it was fought across the two roads.

I won't tell you my favourite.

If you don't want to walk up from Hadley Wood, or don't want to do it both ways, you could take the train on to the next stop, which is Potters Bar, where you will easily get a taxi outside the station. The other advantage is that the fast trains stop at Potters Bar but not at Hadley Wood. The taxi will only need to turn right out of the station and keep straight on in order to reach Kitts End Lane. 2.7 miles according to Google Maps.

The nice thing is that the battle area - whichever version of it you prefer - is outside of Barnet and not built up. The down side is that, if you go in the winter, it will be leafless, cold and maybe muddy - or even snowy. The lanes are lovely in summer, though. Might be worth waiting till, with any luck, the actual site is found.

Another place to visit in London might be the church of St. James Garlickhythe, where Richard's daughter was buried. The medieval church is gone, sadly, but there is still a church on the site.

So much to see and do in London, particularly at this time of year Johanne. Delighted that you are able to come to the Fotheringhay lunch and carol service.

If you do visit St James Garlickhythe then do make sure it's on a Thursday as that is when the Friends of the City Churches open the church (11am until 3pm)

I am a church watcher myself and as this church has particular meaning for me as a Ricardian therefore I am a frequent watcher and guide there.

When you go to Westminster Abbey, don't forget to visit the Jewell Tower. The only remaining part of the Palace of Westminster which Richard would have known.

D

Doug asked:

Do we have any evidence that he went out of his way to search out Lancastrians in need of legal assistance or was he simply taking on work from people in his home area and afterwards availed himself of the contacts that work had provided? If the latter was the case, then any seeming Lancastrian tilt in his clientage might be simply a matter of who his original contacts, for his legal work anyway, had been.

Marie:

I'm not aware that Catesby had worked for Lancastrians in general. He had worked for Hastings and Buckingham, but as you suggest, this can be easily explained by the fact that they were Midlanders. Catesby also did work for Lord Stanley, but that is not surprising either since his wife was Margaret Beaufort's niece. So I don't think there was any political reason he had ended up with these clients, but it did then put him in a certain position.

Re Catesby: I think his execution had to do with how much he knew about Titulus Regius and the marriage of Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot Butler--information that HT--and/or his wily adviser, Bishop Morton--did not wish to become well known. They made sure to silence Stillington as well though it would not have been acceptable to execute an aging priest.

Carol

Re Catesby: I think his execution had to do with how much he knew about Titulus Regius and the marriage of Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot Butler--information that HT--and/or his wily adviser, Bishop Morton--did not wish to become well known. They made sure to silence Stillington as well though it would not have been acceptable to execute an aging priest.

Carol

David wrote:

Crosby place is now in private hands. I was lucky to be able to visit it many years ..it's just the great hall actually..when it was being used by a youth hosltry thingie or something along those lines., anyway it was fabulous as you can imagine. If I recall there is not much to be seen from the street so it's no good loitering outside trying to have a peep. It's a great shame but I suppose we're lucky it's survived.

Hi Mary,

The thing to bear in mind is that, when it comes to the doings of individuals, lack of knowledge is the norm. We simply don't know whether William Herbert was with Richard at Bosworth but then we don't know where most people were that day. He could have been there, and forgiven by Henry, or he could have been ill - he died young, and had made his will back in the summer of 1483.

The same is true of Katherine's death. With Richard gone, she simply wasn't of sufficient importance for her death to be recorded by any commentator. If she died during the sweating sickness then the event would have been even more overshadowed.

Since she was buried in the parish church that served the Herberts' London mansion, I think we can be pretty confident that she died there and not in a nunnery.

Are you certain that it was William, Earl of Huntingdon, who was Cradok's steward, and not another Herbert?

On Sunday, October 30, 2016, 21:35, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Marie, I agree it's extremely difficult to place everyone or even to get a handle on their affinity but there is a lot of extremely detailed work out there by people like Rawcliffe, Carpenter, Horrox, Acheson on the other characters in the 'cast'. It needs pulling together and that is no easy task. For example, Sir Thomas Vaughan had caused immense problems to Buckingham in Brecon by actually attacking his property. Was he the first victim and if he was it was nothing to do with the rights of young Edward or indeed Richard? It's so very difficult to wade through the mists of legend in all this and get at the truth - which is often very boringly about money and possessions. Such is most of life. H

Marie:

Obviously I'm aware of this work - I have my own copy of Rawcliffe's book on the Staffords, and I even have digital copies of the indictments relating to the Vaughan uprising of 1486, which I have transcribed and studied.

But it is still the case that we don't have day-to-day detail on most individuals. We simply don't. Historians' claims about who was where at Bosworth are mostly spurious. And we can't expect to have chroniclers noting Katherine's death.

I do question again whether the Herbert who acted as Cradok's steward was Earl William or someone else. It is absolutely vital not to confuse different Herberts as they weren't all on the same side.

Hilary wrote:

Richard is so often criticised for his cartulary but one can understand it - particularly as he was the youngest, and therefore the poorest.

Only by Hicks and his acolytes. Everyone kept their legal documents, as they do now, but only a relatively small number from the 15th century have survived. Some of the stuff in Richard's was just inherited - old Neville documents. There's nothing odd or greedy about Richard "cartulary" once you take away the spin.

Besides, Richard was too young when his father died to have been influenced by the family's money worries.

Re Catesby's comment regarding the Stanleys in his will I see David and Marie think along the lines that possibly the Stanley's had tried to help Catesby but failed.which could be the case

Marie:

I'm not necessarily saying that. That may have been the case, but it's equally possible that Catesby had been relying on the Stanleys to put in a good word for him, but in the event they threw him to the wolves.

Marie:

What I take from Catesby's will is that he felt he had nothing to atone for as regards Hastings. If C. had simply become aware of a plot and warned Richard, he would surely have seen himself as the good guy.

The break for strawberry fetching is More's addition to the tale. I agree with others that the strawberries are probably mere symbolism, and perhaps the break is a way of explaining why Hastings didn't die until noon if he was offered no hearing?

Mancini claims that Richard alleged the conspirators had hidden arms with which to attack.

Marie wrote:  What I take from Catesby's will is that he felt he had nothing to atone for as regards Hastings. If C. had simply become aware of a plot and warned Richard, he would surely have seen himself as the good guy. Doug here: That's basically my take on Catesby's actions, with the problem being trying to determine the motives of someone who's been dead for half a millennium! Marie concluded: The break for strawberry fetching is More's addition to the tale. I agree with others that the strawberries are probably mere symbolism, and perhaps the break is a way of explaining why Hastings didn't die until noon if he was offered no hearing? Mancini claims that Richard alleged the conspirators had hidden arms with which to attack. Doug here: Darn! Oh well, back to the drawing board...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

But someone wrote the original TR. Richard's motto, now on his tombstone, is Loyalty Binds Me. I'm sorry, but it clearly didn't bind him to the brother who had furthered his career, despite all that brother's worldly faults. One would have thought Richard could have asked whoever to tone it down a bit. After all, the crux was the pre-contract, not slighting everything else his brother (or his brother's 'wife') had done. Of all the allegations about Richard it's the most difficult to swallow; it smacks of the hypocrisy and very little loyalty. And it's what makes it look like a coup and gives most of his biographers a field day. H

Hilary wrote:

But someone wrote the original TR. Richard's motto, now on his tombstone, is Loyalty Binds Me. I'm sorry, but it clearly didn't bind him to the brother who had furthered his career, despite all that brother's worldly faults. One would have thought Richard could have asked whoever to tone it down a bit. After all, the crux was the pre-contract, not slighting everything else his brother (or his brother's 'wife') had done. Of all the allegations about Richard it's the most difficult to swallow; it smacks of the hypocrisy and very little loyalty. And it's what makes it look like a coup and gives most of his biographers a field day. H

Marie replies:

I don't see it as hypocrisy at all - unless you also accept the view that there had been no attempted coup at Stony Stratford, and no Tower plot, and that Richard didn't really believe the Woodvilles encouraged Edward to have Clarence executed.

I didn't get a chance to respond to the question raised a short while ago regarding evidence that Richard blamed the Woodvilles for Clarence's death. Mancini states quite categorically that the Queen persuaded Edward to have Clarence put to death, and Richard alludes to the self-same thing in his message to the Earl of Desmond (which was a private message to a man living in a remote Gaelic-speaking area of the West of Ireland and therefore not part of any public propaganda exercise).

This explains why Richard kept himself out of the way after Clarence's death, and why he and the Woodvilles were so unable to work together after Edward IV's death. The Queen may well have believed that Richard would now take his revenge on her for Clarence's death, and Richard would be waiting for Woodville attempts on his own life, but for all that he does seem to have been working with the Council to try to mend bridges during May. After Friday 13th June Richard must have known there was absolutely no possibility of this strategy working, and no possibility of his own long-term survival. The disclosure of the precontract not only offered him a way out, but would also have made new sense of the awful things that had occurred since Edward's marriage: everything that followed from it was spiritually poisoned.

I think it's highly unlikely that either Richard or Queen Elizabeth would have been in a calm state of mind that summer, and 15th-century rational thought about cause and effect was not the same as ours.

Not everything was about money or family connections. You look at family trees, you'll see the effect of kinship groupings. You look at deeds, you'll see the involvement of land and money. Both these things played their part, but if we had more sources for most people's lives we'd see how much more complicated the true picture could be. And, after a period of civil war, bitterness, distrust and grief were close to the surface for many people.

Thanks very much, Eileen, for your kind words. I'm looking at that period at present and so I'm feeling right in there.

To support what Doug says, 'loyalty' at that period did not carry the overtones that it later acquired. Of the many definitions in the OED, only one has examples from this period, and that is: "Faithful adherence to one's promise, oath, word of honour, etc.; conjugal faithfulness, fidelity. Also in phrase by my loyalty."

Richard, like many others, evidently struggled with the fact that he had sworn an oath of allegiance to Edward V, both as Prince of Wales and king, but the advice he was given - and then gave to others - is that an oath given solely on the basis of false information is not binding. Who knows whether he would have accepted that as easily in less dangerous circumstances. It appears that he did struggle with the question of what to do, because he later rewarded Thomas Metcalfe "for the part he took in the acceptance of the crown by the King.

Just one point about Richard's visits south. He did travel south a lot in the earlier years, though that may have been partly because Parliament was sitting much more. There is a change in the last few years - due to Clarence's execution, perhaps?

Also, regarding who drafted TR, Henry VII was told by his council that Bishop Stillington "made the Bill".

Thanks very much, Eileen, for your kind words. I'm looking at that period at present and so I'm feeling right in there.

To support what Doug says, 'loyalty' at that period did not carry the overtones that it later acquired. Of the many definitions in the OED, only one has examples from this period, and that is: "Faithful adherence to one's promise, oath, word of honour, etc.; conjugal faithfulness, fidelity. Also in phrase by my loyalty."

Richard, like many others, evidently struggled with the fact that he had sworn an oath of allegiance to Edward V, both as Prince of Wales and king, but the advice he was given - and then gave to others - is that an oath given solely on the basis of false information is not binding. Who knows whether he would have accepted that as easily in less dangerous circumstances. It appears that he did struggle with the question of what to do, because he later rewarded Thomas Metcalfe "for the part he took in the acceptance of the crown by the King.

Just one point about Richard's visits south. He did travel south a lot in the earlier years, though that may have been partly because Parliament was sitting much more. There is a change in the last few years - due to Clarence's execution, perhaps?

Also, regarding who drafted TR, Henry VII was told by his council that Bishop Stillington "made the Bill".

Doug here:

Thank you, Marie. I was at fault for solely relying on my memory concerning Richard's trips south! We've discussed Clarence's execution and its' aftermath so much, perhaps that was why. Still, I need to check such things first!

How would it be best to interpret the phrase made the Bill based on the usage of made during that period? Would it be best to presume that it means just that Stillington was the person who drew up the Bill into the form that was passed? Or would would it also have the meaning that it would have been Stillington who was responsible for both the contents of the Bill and how those contents were phrased?

Or am I trying to make a distinction that really doesn't matter?

Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Thanks very much, Eileen, for your kind words. I'm looking at that period at present and so I'm feeling right in there.

To support what Doug says, 'loyalty' at that period did not carry the overtones that it later acquired. Of the many definitions in the OED, only one has examples from this period, and that is: "Faithful adherence to one's promise, oath, word of honour, etc.; conjugal faithfulness, fidelity. Also in phrase by my loyalty."

Richard, like many others, evidently struggled with the fact that he had sworn an oath of allegiance to Edward V, both as Prince of Wales and king, but the advice he was given - and then gave to others - is that an oath given solely on the basis of false information is not binding. Who knows whether he would have accepted that as easily in less dangerous circumstances. It appears that he did struggle with the question of what to do, because he later rewarded Thomas Metcalfe "for the part he took in the acceptance of the crown by the King.

Just one point about Richard's visits south. He did travel south a lot in the earlier years, though that may have been partly because Parliament was sitting much more. There is a change in the last few years - due to Clarence's execution, perhaps?

Also, regarding who drafted TR, Henry VII was told by his council that Bishop Stillington "made the Bill".

Doug asked:

How would it be best to interpret the phrase made the Bill based on the usage of made during that period? Would it be best to presume that it means just that Stillington was the person who drew up the Bill into the form that was passed? Or would would it also have the meaning that it would have been Stillington who was responsible for both the contents of the Bill and how those contents were phrased?

Or am I trying to make a distinction that really doesn't matter?

Marie:

I suspect it's a distinction that doesn't matter. I would need to check, but I think the original is in French. The entries in the Yearbooks are rather condensed. I don't think that disclosing the precontract would count as making the Bill. Stillington might just have provided a list of contents, but he would have had to check the final wording carefully because none of the statements in TR are mere whingeing or mud slinging about Edward and his lady. Each and every one of them affects Edward V's right of succession and is there for legal reasons, so the wording has to be right.

Hi Hilary,

Could you possibly give me a page reference for Buckingham's debts? That would be great. But fear for one's life based on having just survived two assassination attempts, and wanting to get out of debt are scarcely comparable anyway.

Proof of the precontract is another subject than the one you were asking about in the post I answered. I think we're all agreed we don't have it.

Moving back to what was under discussion, ie the wording of TR, I take it you're referring specifically to the preamble. Bear in mind that this is not Richard's writing no matter how much it may have represented his feelings. There were different types of parliamentary Bills back then. They could be initiated by the King, the Lords, the Commons or by a private petitioner. TR was not a royal bill, it was presented to Richard, apparently by the lords (" Be it remembered that a bill was presented before our lord king in the aforesaid parliament, in these words....") - and after that it was taken down to the Commons. Henry VII's people told him it had been 'fait' by Stillington.

The address to the King in TR reminds him of how the Bill had "Recently, that is to say before the consecration, coronation and enthronement of our sovereign lord King Richard III, a roll of parchment, containing in writing certain articles of the tenor written below, was presented and actually delivered to our said sovereign lord the king on behalf and in the name of the three estates of this realm of England, that is, the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons, by numerous lords spiritual and temporal and a great multitude of other nobles and notable people of the commons. . . ." So that was where it had come from first time round, in 1483.

To return to loyalty again, I refer to my last post on the subject in which I quoted the OED definition of the only usage current in Richard's time. It simply meant keeping one's oaths or vows. That's all. So not the House of York. Not God (since Richard hadn't taken holy orders). His oaths to his liege lord the king, and his marital vows.

Yes, I think Richard was a bit puritanical, but we are talking about Edward IV (if one believes TR) having foisted a false queen and false royal heirs on to the kingdom. And that queen and her family, to cap it all, were a present threat to Richard's life. People are not robots, and we all have our breaking points, particularly those of us with our own immediate family to protect. I don't think that anyone who accepts TR and the reality of the Woodville plots would blame Richard for doing what he did. Those who don't believe there was any threat will evidently find him a calculating disloyal hypocrite.

The principal reason is that they have boxed themselves into a corner. Were the Hicksosaurus or Starkeyraptor to suddenly admit that Barrie Williams’ Portuguese research has proven Richard’s real remarriage plans, that JA-H has proven the “pre-contract” or, with others, conclusively identified Richard’s remains, they would be consigning thirty or forty years of their own writings to the shredder and admitting that a group of relative amateurs have achieved what they could not. This is why Hicks still says that “we may never know who Lady Eleanor Talbot was” and denies the identity of the bones in Leicester . Many younger “historians” such as Dan Jones are the protégés of one or other relic from the set of Jurassic Park and cleave to their mentor’s notes.

In the end, fewer and fewer people believe them and the denialists fool only themselves.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 12 November 2016 12:25
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Catesby

Carol: How historians can interpret the closest thing to an elected king in English history as a usurpation without totally disregarding or misinterpreting TR is beyond my comprehension.

Eileen: You and me both..!

Carol: '..what choice did he have?'..you can ask that question until you are blue in the face and you will not get any answers from Richard's detractors..what can you expect from a set people who are so blinkered they can't see their noses in front of their faces...?

Eileen

I suspect it's a distinction that doesn't matter. I would need to check, but I think the original is in French. The entries in the Yearbooks are rather condensed. I don't think that disclosing the precontract would count as making the Bill. Stillington might just have provided a list of contents, but he would have had to check the final wording carefully because none of the statements in TR are mere whingeing or mud slinging about Edward and his lady. Each and every one of them affects Edward V's right of succession and is there for legal reasons, so the wording has to be right.

Doug here:

Thank you, Marie. I was thinking along the lines of our Declaration of Independence, which was composed by one person, Thomas Jefferson, but then was subjected to a committee's review and was wondering if such a review of Titulus Regius would have occurred and, if it had, how much such a review might have affected the final result.

Seemingly, then, not much.

Doug

Doug wrote:

Thank you, Marie. I was thinking along the lines of our Declaration of Independence, which was composed by one person, Thomas Jefferson, but then was subjected to a committee's review and was wondering if such a review of Titulus Regius would have occurred and, if it had, how much such a review might have affected the final result.

Marie:

How can we know? That quasi-parliamentary delegation had to have approved the wording, I suppose, but people who knew about the law also had to be sure it did its job. Both canon law and common law were involved. There must have been an ad-hoc committee of some sort, therefore, but we don't have a record of it and the finger wasn't pointed at anyone other than Stillington after Bosworth. Perhaps Catesby had been the main common law adviser.

To return to Eileen's point, that parliament's acceptance of TR is evidence that proof was provided - the problem is that traditionalists have their own answers to this, viz:-

1) Parliament was not independent in those days but was under the monarch's control, and

2) after Friday 13th everybody was terrified of Richard and did whatever he wanted.

You see, there's always another way of looking at anything. Point (1) has a measure of truth but is exaggerated because there are plenty of examples of parliament putting its foot down. For instance, Parliament wouldn't rubber stamp Henry V's wishes for the government during his son's minority, and parliament was getting very difficult for Edward IV to control after the waste of the taxes raised for the French war. Henry VII's first parliament forced him to marry Elizabeth of York against his own wishes.

Point (2) only holds if you believe that Richard had just been getting rid of people who had stood up against his planned seizure of the throne - which is of course what traditionalists do think.

The principal reason is that they have boxed themselves into a corner. Were the Hicksosaurus or Starkeyraptor to suddenly admit that Barrie Williams' Portuguese research has proven Richard's real remarriage plans, that JA-H has proven the pre-contract or, with others, conclusively identified Richard's remains, they would be consigning thirty or forty years of their own writings to the shredder and admitting that a group of relative amateurs have achieved what they could not. This is why Hicks still says that we may never know who Lady Eleanor Talbot was and denies the identity of the bones in Leicester . Many younger historians such as Dan Jones are the protégés of one or other relic from the set of Jurassic Park and cleave to their mentor's notes.

In the end, fewer and fewer people believe them and the denialists fool only themselves.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 12 November 2016 12:25
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Catesby

Carol: How historians can interpret the closest thing to an elected king in English history as a usurpation without totally disregarding or misinterpreting TR is beyond my comprehension.

Eileen: You and me both..!

Carol: '..what choice did he have?'..you can ask that question until you are blue in the face and you will not get any answers from Richard's detractors..what can you expect from a set people who are so blinkered they can't see their noses in front of their faces...?

Eileen

The principal reason is that they have boxed themselves into a corner. Were the Hicksosaurus or Starkeyraptor to suddenly admit that Barrie Williams' Portuguese research has proven Richard's real remarriage plans, that JA-H has proven the pre-contract or, with others, conclusively identified Richard's remains, they would be consigning thirty or forty years of their own writings to the shredder and admitting that a group of relative amateurs have achieved what they could not. This is why Hicks still says that we may never know who Lady Eleanor Talbot was and denies the identity of the bones in Leicester . Many younger historians such as Dan Jones are the protégés of one or other relic from the set of Jurassic Park and cleave to their mentor's notes.

In the end, fewer and fewer people believe them and the denialists fool only themselves.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 12 November 2016 12:25
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Catesby

Carol: How historians can interpret the closest thing to an elected king in English history as a usurpation without totally disregarding or misinterpreting TR is beyond my comprehension.

Eileen: You and me both..!

Carol: '..what choice did he have?'..you can ask that question until you are blue in the face and you will not get any answers from Richard's detractors..what can you expect from a set people who are so blinkered they can't see their noses in front of their faces...?

Eileen

Oh, I forgot that Gairdner (Richard's accession was almost a constitutional election) was such a keen Society member, having died twelve years before it was first formed.

The others you named are lazy second-handers, copying the Jurassic Historians, who probably don't believe it either. Blanche was never of Gaunt until 700 years after she died  poetic Licence, I assume.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 14 November 2016 14:53
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Catesby

Marie. Thanks for your reply, I'm away and struggling to communicate but will give you the reference mid next week.

Re the rest the problem is that it isn't just the Jurassic Historians who say Richard seized the throne, it's the assorted new bunch of Horspool, Skidmore and Licence who are big sellers to those who are just curious about Richard. JAH has not 'proved' the precontract so it is ignored by all. I was only yesterday reading the very good account of the Leicester dig and the resume on Richard never even mentions it. These folk all say that for one reason or another Richard basically carried out a coup. Unfortunately it is these works that will be widely read because they are popular historical works which are easy to digest

It is deeply worrying. I pray that Thomas Penn will not discard it lightly but as has been said earlier the Woodville antipathy gave Richard a motive. Had all been sweetness and light until the revelation was made it would have been a different story. H

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Nov 2016, at 19:37, Jessie Skinner janjovian@... [] <> wrote:

They don't exactly encourage proper historical research or promote its value, do they?

Jess

From: 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []
Sent: 12/11/2016 13:34
To:
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Catesby

The principal reason is that they have boxed themselves into a corner. Were the Hicksosaurus or Starkeyraptor to suddenly admit that Barrie Williams' Portuguese research has proven Richard's real remarriage plans, that JA-H has proven the pre-contract or, with others, conclusively identified Richard's remains, they would be consigning thirty or forty years of their own writings to the shredder and admitting that a group of relative amateurs have achieved what they could not. This is why Hicks still says that we may never know who Lady Eleanor Talbot was and denies the identity of the bones in Leicester . Many younger historians such as Dan Jones are the protégés of one or other relic from the set of Jurassic Park and cleave to their mentor's notes.

In the end, fewer and fewer people believe them and the denialists fool only themselves.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 12 November 2016 12:25
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Catesby

Carol: How historians can interpret the closest thing to an elected king in English history as a usurpation without totally disregarding or misinterpreting TR is beyond my comprehension.

Eileen: You and me both..!

Carol: '..what choice did he have?'..you can ask that question until you are blue in the face and you will not get any answers from Richard's detractors..what can you expect from a set people who are so blinkered they can't see their noses in front of their faces...?

Eileen

Oh, I forgot that Gairdner (Richard's accession was almost a constitutional election) was such a keen Society member, having died twelve years before it was first formed.

The others you named are lazy second-handers, copying the Jurassic Historians, who probably don't believe it either. Blanche was never of Gaunt until 700 years after she died  poetic Licence, I assume.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 14 November 2016 14:53
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Catesby

Marie. Thanks for your reply, I'm away and struggling to communicate but will give you the reference mid next week.

Re the rest the problem is that it isn't just the Jurassic Historians who say Richard seized the throne, it's the assorted new bunch of Horspool, Skidmore and Licence who are big sellers to those who are just curious about Richard. JAH has not 'proved' the precontract so it is ignored by all. I was only yesterday reading the very good account of the Leicester dig and the resume on Richard never even mentions it. These folk all say that for one reason or another Richard basically carried out a coup. Unfortunately it is these works that will be widely read because they are popular historical works which are easy to digest

It is deeply worrying. I pray that Thomas Penn will not discard it lightly but as has been said earlier the Woodville antipathy gave Richard a motive. Had all been sweetness and light until the revelation was made it would have been a different story. H

Sent from my iPhone

They don't exactly encourage proper historical research or promote its value, do they?

Jess

From: 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []
Sent: 12/11/2016 13:34
To:
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Catesby

The principal reason is that they have boxed themselves into a corner. Were the Hicksosaurus or Starkeyraptor to suddenly admit that Barrie Williams' Portuguese research has proven Richard's real remarriage plans, that JA-H has proven the pre-contract or, with others, conclusively identified Richard's remains, they would be consigning thirty or forty years of their own writings to the shredder and admitting that a group of relative amateurs have achieved what they could not. This is why Hicks still says that we may never know who Lady Eleanor Talbot was and denies the identity of the bones in Leicester . Many younger historians such as Dan Jones are the protégés of one or other relic from the set of Jurassic Park and cleave to their mentor's notes.

In the end, fewer and fewer people believe them and the denialists fool only themselves.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 12 November 2016 12:25
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Catesby

Carol: How historians can interpret the closest thing to an elected king in English history as a usurpation without totally disregarding or misinterpreting TR is beyond my comprehension.

Eileen: You and me both..!

Carol: '..what choice did he have?'..you can ask that question until you are blue in the face and you will not get any answers from Richard's detractors..what can you expect from a set people who are so blinkered they can't see their noses in front of their faces...?

Eileen

Oh, I forgot that Gairdner (Richard's accession was almost a constitutional election) was such a keen Society member, having died twelve years before it was first formed.

The others you named are lazy second-handers, copying the Jurassic Historians, who probably don't believe it either. Blanche was never of Gaunt until 700 years after she died  poetic Licence, I assume.

Doug here:

Just as it wasn't the War of the Roses until well into the 17th century (or later).

Hilary wrote:

". . . some of his [Horspool's] suggestions re Richard not being particularly attached to the North are interesting and feasible. He did have some spats with the City of York. I don't think it was a total love affair; it could easily be the toleration of an imposition."

Marie:

Couldn't agree less, I'm afraid. Richard really did spent nearly all his time in the North except when there was a parliament or a Great Council, with just one or two visits to his Welsh holdings.

Could you give us an example of one of Richard's 'spats' with the City of York, because I can't think of one? Nothing that Hicks or Pollard can come up with amounts to a quarrel between Richard and the people of York; there are, conversely, plenty of examples of the high regard in which he was held in the city.

I think Horspool was blindly copying:-

1) Hicks and Pollard's inference that there was a group amongst the York oligarchy who were anti Richard - i.e. the people who were mayors during Henry VII's reign and wouldn't risk the city opening up to the rebels. This seems to me to be pushing the evidence considerably further than it will go. Just because city leaders decided to take a cautious view faced with rebellion after the deaths of Richard and his son, it doesn't mean they had disliked Richard.

2) Leicester's propaganda against Richard's ties with York during the period of the reburial-place squabble. I've recently been piecing together all the primary evidence I can find in order to trace Richard's movements 1471-82, and it really doesn't look good for anyone who claims he was not attached to the North.

It must be easy to be so confused if Dan (Starkey acolyte) Jones can have a whole hour on York without mentioning Richard, his father, brother and uncle, as well as an hour on Cardiff Castle that didn’t mention the Richard and Anne window.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 18 November 2016 12:41
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Catesby

Hilary wrote:

". . . some of his [Horspool's] suggestions re Richard not being particularly attached to the North are interesting and feasible. He did have some spats with the City of York . I don't think it was a total love affair; it could easily be the toleration of an imposition."

Marie:

Couldn't agree less, I'm afraid. Richard really did spent nearly all his time in the North except when there was a parliament or a Great Council, with just one or two visits to his Welsh holdings.

Could you give us an example of one of Richard's 'spats' with the City of York , because I can't think of one? Nothing that Hicks or Pollard can come up with amounts to a quarrel between Richard and the people of York ; there are, conversely, plenty of examples of the high regard in which he was held in the city.

I think Horspool was blindly copying:-

1) Hicks and Pollard's inference th at there was a group amongst the York oligarchy who were anti Richard - i.e. the people who were mayors during Henry VII's reign and wouldn't risk the city opening up to the rebels. This seems to me to be pushing the evidence considerably further than it will go. Just because city leaders decided to take a cautious view faced with rebellion after the deaths of Richard and his son, it doesn't mean they had disliked Richard.

2) Leicester's propaganda against Richard's ties with York during the period of the reburial-place squabble. I've recently been piecing together all the primary evidence I can find in order to trace Richard's movements 1471-82, and it really doesn't look good for anyone who claims he was not attached to the North.

Hilary, this is rather a different argument. You were questioning York's feelings about Richard. Now you're talking about Stanley country. "The North" in these contexts is shorthand for the area under Richard's sway - I think that's implicitly understood. And, indeed, when you talk about "the North-West" you are yourself using this as shorthand for the Stanley areas of Lancashire, Cheshire and North-East Wales (as Warden of the West Marches, Richard's influence in the extreme north-west, Cumbria, was very strong). And yet Richard owned many Duchy properties in this area, so his influence was not absent.

Evidently the Stanleys succeeded in getting their men to attack Richard at Bosworth, but only when he was already mincemeat. Some sympathy for Richard shows through at many points in the various Stanley ballads, even though - to judge by the different extant versions of Lady Bessy - most of these had continued to be amended throughout the Tudor period, becoming more hostile to Richard as time went on. In his article 'Richard III and his Overmighty Subjects', Daniel Williams quotes this from an obscure Stanley ballad named Scottish Field:-

'Richard that rich lord: in his bright armour.

He held himself no coward: for he was a noble king.

He fought right royally and vigorously his foemen amongst

till all his bright armour was all besmirched

with blood

Then he was done to death with many cruel strokes.'

Richard had also promised not to interfere in the North East, Northumberland's territory - yet that very promise shows that many men from that area were more inclined, given the choice, to sign up with Richard than with Percy. If they hadn't been, then Northumberland would not have been complaining. Richard also seems to have maintained close relations with the prince bishops of Durham, and Lady Bessy has the Bishop fighting on Richard's side at Bosworth. Brackenbury was a County Durham man. The Harringtons were enemies of the Stanleys in Lancashire, and their neighbours the Talbots of Bashall were also Richard's men.

Clearly with a large area like this with a complex history of lordship the picture is bound to be complex, but I think that's generally understood.

Hi Hilary,

If I've been misunderstanding you, apologies too.

It just seems to me that, firstly, Horspool is not being original in this. Ricardians have always emphasised Richard's connections to the North and traditionalists have played them down. I was only looking at Raine's edition of the York records yesterday, and in his preface he is very busy trying to make the evidence fit his belief that the people of York couldn't possibly have liked wicked Richard. More recently we've had Michael Hicks, and the Leicester arguments to the effect that his strong connection with York is fantasy.

Of course it's a complicated picture, and it's one I'm trying to get more of a handle on. It just seems to me that Horspool and Hicks have merely set up a straw man - i.e. the claim that Ricardians believe that every single person in the North of England loved Richard; they knock the man down, shout 'Goal!' and then pronounce that the northerners all just tolerated him because they had to, QED.

The uselessness of this sort of 'history' is that even the two of us don't really know what we're arguing about. What we need is calm, dispassionate analysis, not big ideas with nothing to back them up. I'd be very interested in the views of an historian who'd made a deep study of the north of England during this period, but my impression is that Horspool was having to take a lot of his views on trust because he hadn't got the depth of knowledge of the period himself.

Marie

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016, 10:56, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

At last to pick up on the Horspool/North thing (i.e. this is not a direct reply to Stephen) I find myself in the rather unusual position of defending Horspool, though not necessarily for the reasons he gives. Doug gave us that marvellous statement about sources a few days' ago and to add to that I would say that, as we have so few 'direct' sources we perhaps need to start challenging everything we think we know about Richard and that includes, dare I say, the positive as well as the negative. If we don't then someone else will and turn it to their advantage.So Richard's affinity to 'the North'. Firstly the City of York is not the North. His 'North' stretches from Sheffield/Hull (Holderness) in the South of Yorkshire right up to the Scottish border. It of course nudges the North West - Stanley, Corbet and Tuchet territory. It's a very difficult area to analyse when it comes to affinities. Even eighty years' on there's a lingering remembrance of the Hotspur and Scrope rebellions and with them a continuing Percy/Welsh affinity. There's a sort of pride in defiance against the Crown - LCJ Gascoigne is a local hero because he refused to condemn Scrope and supposedly told off Prince Hal (or so Shakespeare says). Having rebelled against a Lancastrian king you'd have thought they'd have welcomed a Yorkist one, but no, not one who was half-Neville. I don't just mean the Percies here but also some on the fringe in their area - the Constables, the Bigods, quite a few of the 'Stillington connection'. And of course there are disputes amongst the Nevilles themselves, particularly as Warwick was not the Neville heir.One can understand why Edward put Richard there. The whole area needed keeping an eye on and you only have to project forward to 50 years after Bosworth to see it get embroiled and suffer terribly again. I think one can say that on the whole Richard was pretty successful in the time he had and, having virtually grown up there, he does seem able to have harnessed Richard Neville's supporters. Just how successful he was with the rest is truly difficult to judge and dare I say also affects how I assess Stillington (was he a Percy man, a Stafford man, or just his own man). Certainly Richard tried. He made Percy his deputy in Scotland and it seems to have worked. His real failure might have been in not handing the North back to Percy when he became king?Was he as close to the areas he owned in the rest of the country? Well that insignia in an East Anglian supposedly Lancastrian church should perhaps make us look again at affinities there. Whoever left that there before the chapel was opened in 1496 was taking a terrible risk. It could so easily have been turned into a tree or a flower but there it sits with the white rose, not the Tudor rose, in the window.So although I don't agree with Horspool's sweeping statements I welcome anything which makes us examine and rigorously defend our claims and perhaps look again at some of the 'facts' we have taken for granted. As Doug said (I think) so much is swathed in myth we don't know where the truth begins. H
(sorry this is so long and Eileen you challenged and won!!!)


From: "'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 20 November 2016, 16:04
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Catesby

It must be easy to be so confused if Dan (Starkey acolyte) Jones can have a whole hour on York without mentioning Richard, his father, brother and uncle, as well as an hour on Cardiff Castle that didn't mention the Richard and Anne window. From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 18 November 2016 12:41
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Catesby Hilary wrote: ". . . some of his [Horspool's] suggestions re Richard not being particularly attached to the North are interesting and feasible. He did have some spats with the City of York . I don't think it was a total love affair; it could easily be the toleration of an imposition." Marie: Couldn't agree less, I'm afraid. Richard really did spent nearly all his time in the North except when there was a parliament or a Great Council, with just one or two visits to his Welsh holdings. Could you give us an example of one of Richard's 'spats' with the City of York , because I can't think of one? Nothing that Hicks or Pollard can come up with amounts to a quarrel between Richard and the people of York ; there are, conversely, plenty of examples of the high regard in which he was held in the city. I think Horspool was blindly copying:- 1) Hicks and Pollard's inference th at there was a group amongst the York oligarchy who were anti Richard - i.e. the people who were mayors during Henry VII's reign and wouldn't risk the city opening up to the rebels. This seems to me to be pushing the evidence considerably further than it will go. Just because city leaders decided to take a cautious view faced with rebellion after the deaths of Richard and his son, it doesn't mean they had disliked Richard. 2) Leicester's propaganda against Richard's ties with York during the period of the reburial-place squabble. I've recently been piecing together all the primary evidence I can find in order to trace Richard's movements 1471-82, and it really doesn't look good for anyone who claims he was not attached to the North.

Of course Henry's queen was a York, so white roses were still allowable on her account.

Also missed the identity of the chapel. Might it have been dedicated to Our Lady?

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016, 10:38 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Of course Henry's queen was a York, so white roses were still allowable on her account.

Also missed the identity of the chapel. Might it have been dedicated to Our Lady?

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016, 22:38, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Of course Henry's queen was a York, so white roses were still allowable on her account.

Also missed the identity of the chapel. Might it have been dedicated to Our Lady?