Bishop Morton

Did the good Bishop go back to his job b after his arrest and release? I've been reading that Richard was not the firmly in control King we might imagine him to be. That he was a figurehead and the church was.in control.
    The more you obeyed the people behind the scenes the longer you stayed on the throne. He feared for his life and his family's. Richard was naive and signed a document about the boys that was not a death warrant. Yet was used to put them to death. He trusted people who were nice to him, and shouldn't have.
This was all done through a Bishop, the Church, and the people behind the scenes.
The book was written by a Medium, and don't scoff It was interesting.

Did the good Bishop go back to his job b after his arrest and release? I've been reading that Richard was not the firmly in control King we might imagine him to be. That he was a figurehead and the church was.in control.
    The more you obeyed the people behind the scenes the longer you stayed on the throne. He feared for his life and his family's. Richard was naive and signed a document about the boys that was not a death warrant. Yet was used to put them to death. He trusted people who were nice to him, and shouldn't have.
This was all done through a Bishop, the Church, and the people behind the scenes.
The book was written by a Medium, and don't scoff It was interesting.

Yes it's the Collins book. Very interesting. I did mean The Reverend Morton. He did go on to be Archbishop right? In the session s Richard keeps blaming churchmen for the boys murder, not himself, although he "let it happen" out of naivete. He says he was talked into signing a seemingly benign document and was later trapped.
He said he was a figurehead only. He hated being King, and it was rather forced on him.
These were seances btw. I only scanned the book as it arrived today.

I think that if it is the Collins book that Karen is talking about then seance is in the first part of the book, written by Rev John Denham. Collins was the second part. 
Doing a bit more research into the people who controlled the castles along the coast of Glamorgan during the 1480s.( blame Stephen). The Stradlings of St Donats castle had connections with the Berkerolles  and when Thomas Stradling died in 1480 his widow Jane, nee Matthew, married one Sir Rhys ap Thomas who then became guardian of her son Edward. Jane died in 1485, so guess who was in control in 1485? 
Mary

The motive for killing the boys was "they are a threat to everyone".  Richard implies that he "removed them from the monarchy" by these papers. I thought he'd already done that. He claims he completely trusted these people. Evidently Morton's involvement was hidden until it was too late. "A powerful Bishop named John"
Richard was told they were dead and buried in Epping Forest. Who knows? EW surely knew Richard was a figurehead. Edward was also.

I also found the Collins/Denham book fascinating, though it has been a few years since I read it.  There has been some criticism of it because of the physical description of the priest involved being a larger man than Morton was known to have been.  However, perhaps it wasn't Morton -  but if not, which bishop/senior churchman could have had the motive to murder two young boys, who had been declared illegitimate and ineligible to be King?  Also, the murder wouldn't have been committed until a few months after Edward V had been dethroned, so how would his death benefit the church - or any particular cleric - at that stage?  If there was any chance of restoring Edward V, then a rival of Lionel Woodville might have been a possibility, as he would have no doubt been promoted very generously, gaining a lot of power.  Beyond that, I'm at a loss.
As for the woman associated with the cleric, Margaret Beaufort was Denham's choice, but if it wasn't Morton, then that is less likely.  Cecily, I can't see murdering her grandchildren, but Anne Neville (not with Richard's collusion), not really likely, but we don't know much about her or how she actually felt about the Woodvilles.  Also, the woman may just have been in the background, involved with the guilty priest, but not the murder itself.

As far as I know, this is one of only two books written by psychics about the Princes in the Tower.  The other one is the rather far fetched theory that turns Edward V into Erasmus and Richard into Perkin, but who knows.
As for the question about Jasper Tudor's daughters by Myfanwy ferch Dafydd, Helen and Joan, some historians are skeptical including his most recent biographer, Debra Bayani.   He didn't formally recognize them or mention them in his will, but they had both made good marriages and it is unclear when they died.  Joan is certainly presumed to have died before him.  There isn't any proof as to whether the story is true, but there isn't anything to discount it either, and he is still listed in online family trees (not necessarily reliable though).  Being descended from Joan's son Morgan Williams, I would be interested in finding if the story is true or not.

Guest Post by Debra Bayani: The Supposed Daughters of an Earl | History Refreshed by Susan Higginbotham
Guest Post by Debra Bayani: The Supposed Daughters of an Earl | History Ref...


On Thursday, 2 March 2017, 22:57, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:


  Firstly, I really have to apologise. I was halfway through my original reply when some visitors arrived. Motto - never continue writing an email when greeting visitors :) :)
Sorry also I ignored Bishop Morton's incarceration in with Buckingham 1483 when he supposedly did his famous conversion - I was thinking more of Stillington in 1476.
The Church - yes I do think there's more to learn about what they were up to, although not exactly in the way that Collins recited. Having looked at participants in both the 1483 rebellions and Bosworth you keep being led in a circle back to the three bishoprics in the South West - Exeter, Winchester and Bath & Wells. Exeter is straightforward, 'Lancastrian' Peter Courtenay is Bishop there, Winchester is 'fundraiser' Wykeham, on whom, according to Baldwin, Richard was not over-keen, and then we have Bath and Wells, bang in the middle of rebel territory.Clarence must have been sitting in the middle of a whirlwind there. All of Stillington's extended family have contacts with old Lancaster, Morton, the 1483 rebels and of course the Lords of Cardigan and Coity Glamorgan. For a very intelligent man Stillington must have been both blind and deaf if he didn't realise that, or perhaps he was under some sort of duress?
The problem with all this is that not only are we dealing with Shakespeare, More, Rous, etc, but we're dealing with the air-brushing of the Victorians and the smoke and mirrors of a scared Tudor dynasty. The Victorians with their robust Anglican morality would have us believe that the bishops were humble men from humble backgrounds - not on your life!  And it's so difficult to wade through the treacle of Welsh genealogy and its multiple surnames which mean that it's relatively easy to claim that HT and the Welsh who fought for him were from some historically superior race. All no doubt adjusted by HT after he gained the throne?
I'll report on Bosworth in a bit, but can anyone tell me if Jasper Tudor really did have twins by a mistress (one being the John Williams who fought at Bosworth and his twin the ancestor of the Cromwells) - or is it another 'Martha Woodville'. The timeline is very tight if he did.  And then we have David ap Owen who is supposed to be Owen Tudor's son .....   Is it a bit more of the Tudor smoke and mirrors? H


From: "maryfriend@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 1 March 2017, 11:33
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Bishop Morton

  So could Hilary's two women be Cecily and Anne Beauchamp  Countess of Warwick? 

The motive according to Richard, (We can call him Richard now = )was that the accusation of bastardy made them much less viable. They would create instability and so had to be removed.
Edward IV also made his presence known,. Stating that his death was "helped.' Richard may have suspected this. What more motive did he need to kill Rivers and the others? See his motive becomes more human. No further details on that.
The Bishop named John was said to have become a Cardinal.
Another Richelieu. That can be only Morton.
See Richard's name was on the paperwork, but he insisted over and over he did not order or desire the boys deaths. He said 'The were to be removed from the monarchy', but not killed. That was Richard's understanding, but he was fooled. I never did understand what exact legal 'thing" these papers accomplished. That was fuzzy.

Hi, I forgot that he named the bishop as John.  That does narrow it down.  There was also a John Alcock, Bishop of Ely, who had been tutor to Edward V.  Could he have had any motive?
Nico



On Friday, 3 March 2017, 14:46, "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:


  The motive for killing the boys was "they are a threat to everyone".  Richard implies that he "removed them from the monarchy" by these papers. I thought he'd already done that. He claims he completely trusted these people. Evidently Morton's involvement was hidden until it was too late. "A powerful Bishop named John"
Richard was told they were dead and buried in Epping Forest. Who knows? EW surely knew Richard was a figurehead. Edward was also.
On Mar 3, 2017 8:39 AM, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
  I also found the Collins/Denham book fascinating, though it has been a few years since I read it.  There has been some criticism of it because of the physical description of the priest involved being a larger man than Morton was known to have been.  However, perhaps it wasn't Morton -  but if not, which bishop/senior churchman could have had the motive to murder two young boys, who had been declared illegitimate and ineligible to be King?  Also, the murder wouldn't have been committed until a few months after Edward V had been dethroned, so how would his death benefit the church - or any particular cleric - at that stage?  If there was any chance of restoring Edward V, then a rival of Lionel Woodville might have been a possibility, as he would have no doubt been promoted very generously, gaining a lot of power.  Beyond that, I'm at a loss.
As for the woman associated with the cleric, Margaret Beaufort was Denham's choice, but if it wasn't Morton, then that is less likely.  Cecily, I can't see murdering her grandchildren, but Anne Neville (not with Richard's collusion), not really likely, but we don't know much about her or how she actually felt about the Woodvilles.  Also, the woman may just have been in the background, involved with the guilty priest, but not the murder itself.

As far as I know, this is one of only two books written by psychics about the Princes in the Tower.  The other one is the rather far fetched theory that turns Edward V into Erasmus and Richard into Perkin, but who knows.
As for the question about Jasper Tudor's daughters by Myfanwy ferch Dafydd, Helen and Joan, some historians are skeptical including his most recent biographer, Debra Bayani.   He didn't formally recognize them or mention them in his will, but they had both made good marriages and it is unclear when they died.  Joan is certainly presumed to have died before him.  There isn't any proof as to whether the story is true, but there isn't anything to discount it either, and he is still listed in online family trees (not necessarily reliable though).  Being descended from Joan's son Morgan Williams, I would be interested in finding if the story is true or not.

Guest Post by Debra Bayani: The Supposed Daughters of an Earl | History Refreshed by Susan Higginbotham
Guest Post by Debra Bayani: The Supposed Daughters of an Earl | History Ref...


On Thursday, 2 March 2017, 22:57, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:


  Firstly, I really have to apologise. I was halfway through my original reply when some visitors arrived. Motto - never continue writing an email when greeting visitors :) :)
Sorry also I ignored Bishop Morton's incarceration in with Buckingham 1483 when he supposedly did his famous conversion - I was thinking more of Stillington in 1476.
The Church - yes I do think there's more to learn about what they were up to, although not exactly in the way that Collins recited. Having looked at participants in both the 1483 rebellions and Bosworth you keep being led in a circle back to the three bishoprics in the South West - Exeter, Winchester and Bath & Wells. Exeter is straightforward, 'Lancastrian' Peter Courtenay is Bishop there, Winchester is 'fundraiser' Wykeham, on whom, according to Baldwin, Richard was not over-keen, and then we have Bath and Wells, bang in the middle of rebel territory.Clarence must have been sitting in the middle of a whirlwind there. All of Stillington's extended family have contacts with old Lancaster, Morton, the 1483 rebels and of course the Lords of Cardigan and Coity Glamorgan. For a very intelligent man Stillington must have been both blind and deaf if he didn't realise that, or perhaps he was under some sort of duress?
The problem with all this is that not only are we dealing with Shakespeare, More, Rous, etc, but we're dealing with the air-brushing of the Victorians and the smoke and mirrors of a scared Tudor dynasty. The Victorians with their robust Anglican morality would have us believe that the bishops were humble men from humble backgrounds - not on your life!  And it's so difficult to wade through the treacle of Welsh genealogy and its multiple surnames which mean that it's relatively easy to claim that HT and the Welsh who fought for him were from some historically superior race. All no doubt adjusted by HT after he gained the throne?
I'll report on Bosworth in a bit, but can anyone tell me if Jasper Tudor really did have twins by a mistress (one being the John Williams who fought at Bosworth and his twin the ancestor of the Cromwells) - or is it another 'Martha Woodville'. The timeline is very tight if he did.  And then we have David ap Owen who is supposed to be Owen Tudor's son .....   Is it a bit more of the Tudor smoke and mirrors? H


From: "maryfriend@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 1 March 2017, 11:33
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Bishop Morton

  So could Hilary's two women be Cecily and Anne Beauchamp  Countess of Warwick? 

It was stated. A Bishop named John who became a Cardinal. Buck also directly accuses Morton and Beaufort of the poisoning.

John Russell, wasn't he one of the suspects for being the Croyland author?  Also, I realized that Alcock was made Bishop of Ely in the by Henry VII.  In the 1470s, he was Bishop of Worcester, which was Clarence territory.  Stillington was Bishop of Bath and Wells, so are there any known links between the two that could be significant - and with Russell and Morton?
One question about the book.  Wasn't the promotion of the Bishop named John to Cardinal an assumption of the author or was it actually stated?  I recall something about a vision of him putting on hats - one larger than the other, indicating a promotion.  Could this be a more important bishopric?
Nico



On Saturday, 4 March 2017, 16:14, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:


  And John Russell - another man of mystery.
I honestly don't dismiss the Collins book. I remember watching the unveiling of the results on the Leicester find and noticing how uncanny it was that Richard's battle wounds so uncannily matched the séance.  H


From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: "@ yahoogroups.com" <@ yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 4 March 2017, 12:26
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Bishop Morton

  Hi, I forgot that he named the bishop as John.  That does narrow it down.  There was also a John Alcock, Bishop of Ely, who had been tutor to Edward V.  Could he have had any motive?
Nico



On Friday, 3 March 2017, 14:46, "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:


  The motive for killing the boys was "they are a threat to everyone".  Richard implies that he "removed them from the monarchy" by these papers. I thought he'd already done that. He claims he completely trusted these people. Evidently Morton's involvement was hidden until it was too late. "A powerful Bishop named John"
Richard was told they were dead and buried in Epping Forest. Who knows? EW surely knew Richard was a figurehead. Edward was also.
On Mar 3, 2017 8:39 AM, "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
  I also found the Collins/Denham book fascinating, though it has been a few years since I read it.  There has been some criticism of it because of the physical description of the priest involved being a larger man than Morton was known to have been.  However, perhaps it wasn't Morton -  but if not, which bishop/senior churchman could have had the motive to murder two young boys, who had been declared illegitimate and ineligible to be King?  Also, the murder wouldn't have been committed until a few months after Edward V had been dethroned, so how would his death benefit the church - or any particular cleric - at that stage?  If there was any chance of restoring Edward V, then a rival of Lionel Woodville might have been a possibility, as he would have no doubt been promoted very generously, gaining a lot of power.  Beyond that, I'm at a loss.
As for the woman associated with the cleric, Margaret Beaufort was Denham's choice, but if it wasn't Morton, then that is less likely.  Cecily, I can't see murdering her grandchildren, but Anne Neville (not with Richard's collusion), not really likely, but we don't know much about her or how she actually felt about the Woodvilles.  Also, the woman may just have been in the background, involved with the guilty priest, but not the murder itself.

As far as I know, this is one of only two books written by psychics about the Princes in the Tower.  The other one is the rather far fetched theory that turns Edward V into Erasmus and Richard into Perkin, but who knows.
As for the question about Jasper Tudor's daughters by Myfanwy ferch Dafydd, Helen and Joan, some historians are skeptical including his most recent biographer, Debra Bayani.   He didn't formally recognize them or mention them in his will, but they had both made good marriages and it is unclear when they died.  Joan is certainly presumed to have died before him.  There isn't any proof as to whether the story is true, but there isn't anything to discount it either, and he is still listed in online family trees (not necessarily reliable though).  Being descended from Joan's son Morgan Williams, I would be interested in finding if the story is true or not.

Guest Post by Debra Bayani: The Supposed Daughters of an Earl | History Refreshed by Susan Higginbotham
Guest Post by Debra Bayani: The Supposed Daughters of an Earl | History Ref...


On Thursday, 2 March 2017, 22:57, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:


  Firstly, I really have to apologise. I was halfway through my original reply when some visitors arrived. Motto - never continue writing an email when greeting visitors :) :)
Sorry also I ignored Bishop Morton's incarceration in with Buckingham 1483 when he supposedly did his famous conversion - I was thinking more of Stillington in 1476.
The Church - yes I do think there's more to learn about what they were up to, although not exactly in the way that Collins recited. Having looked at participants in both the 1483 rebellions and Bosworth you keep being led in a circle back to the three bishoprics in the South West - Exeter, Winchester and Bath & Wells. Exeter is straightforward, 'Lancastrian' Peter Courtenay is Bishop there, Winchester is 'fundraiser' Wykeham, on whom, according to Baldwin, Richard was not over-keen, and then we have Bath and Wells, bang in the middle of rebel territory.Clarence must have been sitting in the middle of a whirlwind there. All of Stillington's extended family have contacts with old Lancaster, Morton, the 1483 rebels and of course the Lords of Cardigan and Coity Glamorgan. For a very intelligent man Stillington must have been both blind and deaf if he didn't realise that, or perhaps he was under some sort of duress?
The problem with all this is that not only are we dealing with Shakespeare, More, Rous, etc, but we're dealing with the air-brushing of the Victorians and the smoke and mirrors of a scared Tudor dynasty. The Victorians with their robust Anglican morality would have us believe that the bishops were humble men from humble backgrounds - not on your life!  And it's so difficult to wade through the treacle of Welsh genealogy and its multiple surnames which mean that it's relatively easy to claim that HT and the Welsh who fought for him were from some historically superior race. All no doubt adjusted by HT after he gained the throne?
I'll report on Bosworth in a bit, but can anyone tell me if Jasper Tudor really did have twins by a mistress (one being the John Williams who fought at Bosworth and his twin the ancestor of the Cromwells) - or is it another 'Martha Woodville'. The timeline is very tight if he did.  And then we have David ap Owen who is supposed to be Owen Tudor's son .....   Is it a bit more of the Tudor smoke and mirrors? H


From: "maryfriend@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 1 March 2017, 11:33
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Bishop Morton

  So could Hilary's two women be Cecily and Anne Beauchamp  Countess of Warwick? 

Hi,

I'm afraid I wasn't impressed with Dening's book.The whole séance transcript is suspiciously vague, with the partial exception of what happened to the Princes, and that doesn't sound plausible. The gist is that Richard ordered a document drawn up excluding them from the succession, his instructions got accidentally or deliberately misunderstood and the document ordered their deaths instead, but Richard didn't read it over before he signed it. The bodies were buried in "the forest" (Epping is Dening's own suggestion) and that is where they remain. Very handy because it's too big an area to search.

No. A document was given to Richard to sign. He claims he did not do diligence In fact checking. He feared the cadre in the  Church with power. Legal Latin I'm sure was not his specialty. I agree it was too vague.

Hi,

I'm afraid I wasn't impressed with Dening's book.The whole séance transcript is suspiciously vague, with the partial exception of what happened to the Princes, and that doesn't sound plausible. The gist is that Richard ordered a document drawn up excluding them from the succession, his instructions got accidentally or deliberately misunderstood and the document ordered their deaths instead, but Richard didn't read it over before he signed it. The bodies were buried in "the forest" (Epping is Dening's own suggestion) and that is where they remain. Very handy because it's too big an area to search.

No. A document was given to Richard to sign. He claims he did not do diligence In fact checking. He feared the cadre in the  Church with power. Legal Latin I'm sure was not his specialty. I agree it was too vague.

Hi,

I'm afraid I wasn't impressed with Dening's book.The whole séance transcript is suspiciously vague, with the partial exception of what happened to the Princes, and that doesn't sound plausible. The gist is that Richard ordered a document drawn up excluding them from the succession, his instructions got accidentally or deliberately misunderstood and the document ordered their deaths instead, but Richard didn't read it over before he signed it. The bodies were buried in "the forest" (Epping is Dening's own suggestion) and that is where they remain. Very handy because it's too big an area to search.

Hi Nicholas,

Agree with you and Mary on what is wrong about the séance - it was fairly clear that the medium was more able to talk about the better known bits of Richard's life than some other things that were less well known but would have been every bit as important to Richard. I don't have a problem with the existence of psychic experiences per se, but I do suspect that once people - even f they have genuine psychic ability - start offering it to clients to order as if it were a controllable faculty, then hey find themselves trapped, whether consciously or not, into falling back on other means of accessing coming up with the goods.

Could you give us details or a page ref for the death wounds bit in Dening's book, though? I'm afraid I can't find it now.

Marie

Yes, but the medium suggested the document was drafted as a result of Richard's instructions regarding the removal of the Princes from the monarchy, and that he didn't read it because he thought he knew what it would say.

The Latin in English 15th-century legal documents is actually very formulaic and normally quite simple. It's the more free-range pseudo-classical literary stuff, with its pages of unpunctuated interwoven clauses, that requires a lot of knowledge. Vatican documents are a lot harder than English government docs.

My other point is that such a document would have been senseless anyway. Richard had been offered and accepted the crown. In order to make that public acceptance watertight he had to wait for parliament. As the person who had taken Edward V's throne, I can't see how he could have tied up the legalities just by ratifying the boys' deposition himself.

Marie wrote:

That doesn't sound right: Richard had been involved with legal matters for a long time, both for Edward and in his capacity as a power in the North. It seems to me that, especially if he fearful (which also sounds a little iffy), he would be sure to understand what he was signing.

Marie:

I agree. that story doesn't sounds plausible on a human level either. Richard seems to have been rather hands-on as an administrator - not the sort of person who signed documents without reading them. He didn't come to the throne as a callow teenager like Edward IV, but with years of administrative experience in the North, and he had his own ideas about the running of government.

I don't think the sense is that he dictated it. Prime Ministers and Presidents rely on their legal staff today. Why would it be different then?
    The value I saw in the book was that it might provide clues to investigate.The vagueness seems to be coming from the spirits. The Medium also has trouble occasionally.  That doesn't necessarily mean it's a hash.

Yes, but the medium suggested the document was drafted as a result of Richard's instructions regarding the removal of the Princes from the monarchy, and that he didn't read it because he thought he knew what it would say.

The Latin in English 15th-century legal documents is actually very formulaic and normally quite simple. It's the more free-range pseudo-classical literary stuff, with its pages of unpunctuated interwoven clauses, that requires a lot of knowledge. Vatican documents are a lot harder than English government docs.

My other point is that such a document would have been senseless anyway. Richard had been offered and accepted the crown. In order to make that public acceptance watertight he had to wait for parliament. As the person who had taken Edward V's throne, I can't see how he could have tied up the legalities just by ratifying the boys' deposition himself.

Do you understand terms of service contracts completely or do you just sign them on faith? He says he signed it on faith. I.think they were some sort of custody papers in a stack of others otherwise wouldn't the boys legally go to their mother? I think we are attributing absolute rule to Richard and it is the privy council and the churchmen in the background manipulating things. This is plausible to me. He says he was.persuaded this was the best thing to do and then they knifed him in the back.

That doesn't sound right: Richard had been involved with legal matters for a long time, both for Edward and in his capacity as a power in the North.  It seems to me that, especially if he fearful (which also sounds a little iffy), he would be sure to understand what he was signing.
Mariaejbronte@...
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

No. A document was given to Richard to sign. He claims he did not do diligence In fact checking. He feared the cadre in the  Church with power. Legal Latin I'm sure was not his specialty. I agree it was too vague.

Hi,

I'm afraid I wasn't impressed with Dening's book.The whole séance transcript is suspiciously vague, with the partial exception of what happened to the Princes, and that doesn't sound plausible. The gist is that Richard ordered a document drawn up excluding them from the succession, his instructions got accidentally or deliberately misunderstood and the document ordered their deaths instead, but Richard didn't read it over before he signed it. The bodies were buried in "the forest" (Epping is Dening's own suggestion) and that is where they remain. Very handy because it's too big an area to search.

Agreed. A clear channel is difficult. That's why some see it as fraud. Also the spirits may not want to talk about certain issues. You can't compel their testimony.

The problem with mediums, and I have had plenty of readings throughout the years, is that they can pick up on your psychic 'energy' which can lead you down the garden path.     They can be uncannily accurate, oh yes, but never 100%.  I would have thought it extremely difficult to get in touch with spirits that had passed over 500 years ago.  

Also he says it was a paid assassin. Richard basically says he was assassinated by one in his group.

I agree Karen.  However having said that the part covering Richard's actual death rings true.  Marie it's page 79.  For those that don't have a copy of the book here it is:. "Because  I'm aware of things at the back of me.  His death was very quick by the way.  I feel I was surprised from the back, not so much from the front.  Its as if his memory is very limited about this but I feel he was retreating - he says "retreating".  I feel they were on the point of reforming...Richard is saying to me, because there were only a few of them left.  There was talk of them retreating so that they could actually regroup.  But in the process I feel I have been felled,  so what they planned to do they didn't actually achieve because I feel they were outnumbered (me/ Eileen Stanley?).  The idea as Richard says was to gather everybody together and fight as a unit because they were spread out a bit.  I know he wasn't going to give up- Richard wouldn't give up the battle - he would never run away but he was trying another tactic and in the process of doing that I felt I was felled from behind.  It wasn't as if someone had charged up at me and struck me - it was a blow from the back, so he was taken unawares - that's his version of it".

It is fascinating, and I've not called this medium a fraud, simply pointed out that the stuff he relayed was vague and had some damning holes in it. As I suggested, as well as frauds there are people with a genuine gift who simply commit things they should not have committed to. This faculty isn't one that can be turned on and off like a tap and I suspect that is the largest reason professional mediums and psychics can be so inaccurate. And them of course, in a situation like this, they would need to avoid picking things up from the client (whether through mindreading or verbal clues).

Yes, he got it right about Ricard being struck from behind, but of course as we know that didn't come totally out of the blue - they had had to get his helm off him first. The description of what was going on in terms of the battle at the time (talk of retreating because their to regroup because of low numbers) could have been gleaned from any existing account of the battle. And has the medium missed the important point that Richard's horse had gone down in the marsh, and that was why he was on foot?

In the reading, Richard says someone near him was.paid to kill him.

sorry Karen..who was assassinated?  I think I've lost the plot!? 

One more thing about spirits. In the book it was stated that all the requiems and prayer services and ceremonies for Richard and the house of York are keeping them attached to the earth plane. They come to them.

That's true...whether it be William Stanley or the person/s who struck the blows..

The question asked through the medium related to Richard's death specifically. The cannon would have been long over by then I think.

I've been immersed in Bosworth participants in the past few weeks, which is why I'm always behind with emails. I wanted to both finish off my 1483 rebels project but also examine who the 'newcomers' were. I have to say I'm more than a bit short of new unhappy people who flocked to HT but I'll let you have the result when I've finished off the last half dozen.
I'm absolutely no military historian but the thing which really strikes you is that Richard's army, whilst being a very normal army of supporters compared with that of HT, is an old army. That could well be of course because they were people who had traditionally supported the HOY for the past twenty years and also done recent service in Scotland. So the average age is 45 and the median age is also 45. HT's in comparison has an average age of 38 and a median age of 35. In fact Richard's army contains a number of people in their fifties and sixties some of whom make John Howard look quite youthful.
Given that they were up against well-trained mercenaries armed with cannon (which incidentally the medium doesn't mention) how well would they have withstood this modern form of warfare, let alone the hand to hand jostling to which most battles seemed to descend? I realise that the majority of fighting would be done by those who always have no name, but I do wonder how much stamina they might have had when faced with what we'd now call a semi-professional army. H 
(for info I've taken those on a selection of lists but dismissed them when they seemed improbable - some are even on the wrong side. In doing my other stuff I've also found one or two not on lists but who died on that day or within a day or two. Their families also proclaim proudly (yes proudly) that they died fighting for King Richard at Bosworth)
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 7 March 2017, 21:51
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Bishop Morton

  It is fascinating, and I've not called this medium a fraud, simply pointed out that the stuff he relayed was vague and had some damning holes in it. As I suggested, as well as frauds there are people with a genuine gift who simply commit things they should not have committed to. This faculty isn't one that can be turned on and off like a tap and I suspect that is the largest reason professional mediums and psychics can be so inaccurate. And them of course, in a situation like this, they would need to avoid picking things up from the client (whether through mindreading or verbal clues).
Yes, he got it right about Ricard being struck from behind, but of course as we know that didn't come totally out of the blue - they had had to get his helm off him first. The description of what was going on in terms of the battle at the time (talk of retreating because their to regroup because of low numbers) could have been gleaned from any existing account of the battle. And has the medium missed the important point that Richard's horse had gone down in the marsh, and that was why he was on foot?

Hilary
I was interested in your comments regarding a list showing Roland as a participant at Bosworth. I believe this is almost certainly true, and would take it as further evidence against his being Henry's son. It seems a little odd to me that you assume that the much later rumours are true and therefore the list must form part of a fabrication.

I would like to know which list features Roland as would Joann Ricca of the R3 foundation who is compiling a list of participants and probables.

I think Marie was a little hasty in her conclusion, since she had not seen the whole evidence and had misread the bardic references.

I will conclude the summary of Roland's ancestry in a separate post.

Kind regards
David

In her own right: “in suo jure”

Her husband: “in jure uxoris”.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 10 March 2017 10:29
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Bishop Morton

Thanks Nico - it's very Michael Hicks but one expects that from SH!

Strangely enough it still doesn't say where she went after Bosworth does it?

I'm interested in her for two reasons;

Firstly, yes, as the last ancestress of the Warwick Beauchamps, her final gesture could be to secure the throne for one of her grandchildren. She was at least as grand as Cis and she should have been De Jure Baroness Warwick (am I right Stephen?) had not Edward (not Richard) robbed her of her lands whilst she still lived. I don't think she ever rightly got over that grudge. But she did also get on with Cis, they seem to have been in a circle, including Richard's Anne, which exchanged religious texts. I'm not going into the Middleham Jewel :) :)

The other reason concerns John Rous and why he altered his original text. Lucy Worsley has it as just to please HT but I think it was more than that. Rous was a Beauchamp man through and through, he was after all their historian and was buried in the Beauchamp chapel. I think he altered it for Anne to get her lands back - notice she did in the late 1480s. The reason I think this is that you come across Rous in economic history textbooks where he goes to great lengths to criticise enclosures. That shows he was no HT lover and certainly extremely brave - the people most involved in nearby enclosures (mainly in the Burton Dassett hills) were Reggie Bray, Empson and MB. Therefore it was a direct criticism of the king. It's a wonder he didn't end up in the Tower! So no he obviously didn't alter his text because he loved Henry. Although one does wonder whether he was encouraged to do so in exchange for the Countess's lands! H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" < >
To: " " < >
Sent: Thursday, 9 March 2017, 15:43
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Bishop Morton

Hi Hilary,

The Anne Beauchamp post was mine. I'll repost it for you, as I was think you might be the most likely to know.

Mary mentioned Anne Beauchamp in an earlier post in the Dening discussion. I had completely overlooked her, even forgetting that she was still alive at the time. Could she have had anything to do with the pre-contract revelation? She was Eleanor Talbot's aunt, so she may well have known about what happened. Does anyone know what kind of relationship she had with her half sisters? I know there was a dispute about the Warwick inheritance in the 1440s, but were they reconciled after the situation was resolved? Also, with her connections in the West Country, did she have any links to Stillington, Morton, Margaret Beaufort or anyone else that could be significant?

She may have had the most to gain from a regime change that sidelined Edward V and his brother. What happened in the 1460s may not have meant much at the time, but she may have had a lot of resentment building up over the years, especially towards Edward and the Woodvilles. If Edward hadn't married EW, then Warwick may not have rebelled. Then, after he was killed, she lost her lands. The final straw may have been the mystery surrounding Isabel's death with the rumours of Ankarette Twyhno poisoning her on EW's instructions. Even if it wasn't true, she still may have believed them - grief often encourages people to look for blame. Of course, once EW's children were declared illegitimate, her daughter becomes queen and her grandchildren became the ultimate heirs to the throne. Could she have arranged the murder? Revenge for Isabel could have given her a more understandable motivation than the other suspects.

This post by Susan Higginbotham was quite helpful about her later life, where she died in obscurity in reduced circumstances. I was surprised that she didn't attend Richard and Anne's coronation. I wonder if she was regarded as rather difficult person. I haven't been able to find anything about what relationship she may have had with Eleanor Talbot and her mother, but the inheritance contest does not appear to have been as bitter or long lasting as the Berkeley one. Even if she and her half sisters were not that close, I still think that it is likely that she would have found out about the pre-contract through some sort of inter-family gossip.

Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick

Nico

On Thursday, 9 March 2017, 11:09, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" < > wrote:

So sorry Doug I've just found this - told you I was in a mess with emails.

I like your idea about young Edward. Again, everyone assumes someone wants to be king - just like that song from the Lion King :) But suppose they don't. Every time I go to York , which is now quite often, I can fully understand why Richard would be reluctant to take the job. Why go south to a load of backbiting folk when you're already king in your own lovely area? No doubt he took the Crown more out of religious duty than gusto. The same could well apply to young Edward being tossed from the relative boredom but peace of Ludlow into the midst of squabbling bishops, ministers, relatives and pretentious courtiers. We know that they certainly got on the nerves of HT. Perhaps he really did want to opt out, after all there's nothing to indicate he had Richard's religious duty?

As for Cis, the mystery continues. Certainly I think she would find Richard a more dutiful (though not necessarily biddable) son who would seek to enhance the reputation of his father's House. I missed an email which asked what happened to Anne Beauchamp after Bosworth. Did anyone reply? Did she go into a religious house or wonder round an empty Middleham like a wraith? H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" < >
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 7 March 2017, 15:48
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Bishop Morton

Hilary wrote:

“Richard (and Buckingham) did play a big role in the Mowbray wedding, so he could have been on 'top table' with young Edward :) No I don't think you'd get EW down on the grass whilst Edward cooked sausages on the barbie like the Duke of Edinburgh but it does conjure up an amusing picture.”

Doug here:

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of a ritzy, rather ostentatious cock-tail party, but I really like your idea!

Hilary continued:

“I agree, I can't see Edward undertaking anything at that point, but he could have made it quite clear if he felt he needed help. He could hardly have entered London with a knife in his back. I can't remember, was there the usual reception with greeting by the Mayor etc? And on the day Hastings was arrested wasn't there another meeting at Westminster about his coronation whilst the others were at the Tower - so was he in on that? He just vanishes from record, doesn't he? He was the King in all but being crowned. Surely he was doing something other than practising his archery. Think how well-versed Edward VI was at the age of nine. Has the Morton shredding machine been at work?”

Doug here:

If my memory is accurate (!), the group was met by crowds when they entered London and, while I’ve always presumed that included the Mayor and other notables, I can’t say for certain. Again going by memory, I believe Edward stayed briefly in the residence of one of the Bishops before being ensconced in the Royal Apartments in the Tower.

I’m not that up on protocol for 15th monarchs, but wouldn’t any trips made by Edward to someplace outside the Tower have been on the order of a “procession”? Arrangements would have to be made to clear the way before his passage and, or so I presume, those efforts would have attracted attention with the result that if Edward was going abut from the Tower to other sites in London, there’d have been more record of those activities; even if only verbal ones passed down and later included in those (in)famous “Chronicles”. Something along the lines of how Edward was often seen moving about London until...(fill in the blank).

I also have the impression that the actual day-to-day running of the kingdom was being conducted from the Council chambers at the Tower, while the meetings at Westminster were concentrated on the plans for Edward’s coronation. I certainly could be in error, but it makes sense, to me anyway, that even if there’s a Protector actually in charge and running the country, to have the king nearby – just in case. Edward’s proximity would also allow for him to have “learning experiences” in how the government actually operated.

FWIW, and if that last is true, perhaps it was those “experiences” in what was expected of a king, that explains why, after the boys disappeared from sight, Edward remained in obscurity: it wasn’t that he was dead, it was that he’d been there and didn’t want to go back?

Hilary concluded:

“Yes I agree with you entirely about Cis. Yes, she was suspected of conspiring in the 1490s, but then finding the boys, illegitimate or not, would have been the last hope for her House.”

Doug here:

I sometimes wonder what Cis actually felt about the marriage between her grand-daughter and Henry Tudor? Especially if her comments about Edward’s marriage to EW have been accurately related...

Doug

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

On Monday, March 13, 2017, 6:02 pm, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Yes I agree Carol. You're right they were 17. My head's full of Bosworth ages. 65, 72? I'm not saying people didn't fight at that age but when you note that the optimum age for service in WW1 was 35 then were they fit?

On Monday, March 13, 2017, 6:02 pm, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: