Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Home Archive Images Groups

Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-10 19:19:37

b.eileen25

Can we deduce anything from Richard's intinery as to where Edward made have been laid to rest. Ive taken this from Rhoda Edward's The Itinerary of King Richard lll 1483-1485.

APRIL 1484

Sunday 4th to tuesday 27th Nottingham

tues 27 to wed 28th Doncaster

Thursday 29th Pontefract

Friday 30th -

MAY 1484

Saturday 1st to Monday 3rd York

Tuesday 4th Nappa

Wednesday 5th -

Thursday 6th to Saturday 8th Middleham

Sunday 9th to Monday 10th - Baynard Castle

Tuesday 11th to Wednesday 12th -

Thursday 13th to Friday 14th Newcastle

Friday 14th to Monday 17th Durham

Tuesday 18th to Wednesday 19th -

Thursday 20th Rievaulx

Friday 2lst -

Saturday 22nd Scarborough

Sunday 23rd -

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-11 12:43:24

Sandra Wilson

Just a thought, but is it possible that Richard knew his child had been poisoned, and that maybe even the boy's remains were at risk, so he deliberately had Edward buried secretly? Maybe his intention was to wait until the realm was fully at peace, before planning his own and Anne's resting place. Then he would move the child's remains to the fitting place he himself had chosen, but Bosworth got in the way. Intentional secrecy would explain the complete silence and absence of any details of the boy's whereabouts.
.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-11 12:56:33

Nicholas Brown

I couldn't find the Annette Carson article, but the RIII Society's webpage gives April 16 as the estimated date for when Edward of Middleham died. .Richard III Society | WHAT'S NEW.

Richard III Society | WHAT'S NEW
However, that does seem early, as Richard and Anne don't leave Nottingham until the 27th. It could be that they were incapacitated with grief, but wouldn't most parents would want to go to where their son was as soon as possible. It is difficult to judge though, because reactions to tragic events are so varied and personal. Was there a mourning custom for royalty that could explain this? I heard or read somewhere that Kings and Queens didn't go to funerals, and paid their respects privately, but I'm not sure if that is true.
Is it known for certain where Edward of Middleham died? Looking at the itinerary, the detour West to Nappa seems unusual, as the rest of the journey seems like a straightforward progress North. Nappa Hall was a stately home then held by James Metcalfe. Could Edward have been there when he died, and buried nearby, perhaps somewhere like Bolton Abbey. Alternatively, could Edward have died in London and been buried in Westminster Abbey like Anne?

Nico

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017, 10:57, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:

Re the effigy on the York tomb being that of a 'teenager'..often the effigies of young children were dressed as adults..examples of such are William of Windsor and Blanche, Edward lll's children in Westminster Abbey. So, yes, this could be the case with EoM perhaps.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-11 15:52:32

Hilary Jones

Sorry just caught up with this.
If Edward died in Yorkshire (and he never seems to have come south but who knows) then there is a great deal of logic in burying him at the Minster. It's the biggest church in Northern Europe, so as fitting a place for a Prince as some of the other cathedrals used, such as Worcester. It was where he was inaugurated as Prince of Wales less than a year before and it was 'capital' of his home region. I know some of the nobility had private burial chapels, like the Beauchamps and the Nevilles but I can't recall ever having come across an heir to the throne buried in a village church, even if it was temporary. We are more than a year before HT's proposed invasion, so I don't buy the story that Richard had to hide his burial place, and why? No-one would desecrate the tomb of a child.
Finally there seems to be consensus that William of Hatfield died as a baby of a few months' old, yet he seems to have an adult sized tomb (which as you say was the custom). Could this have been a convenient resting place whilst Edward's own tomb was constructed - it was after all, in the family so to speak? That certainly seems to happen nowadays when monarchs are buried at Windsor but 'wait in the corridor' like George VI until their tomb has been designed. In fact of course, Edward IV's own tomb was never finally built to his specification. H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 April 2017, 12:56
Subject: Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

I couldn't find the Annette Carson article, but the RIII Society's webpage gives April 16 as the estimated date for when Edward of Middleham died. .Richard III Society | WHAT'S NEW.

Richard III Society | WHAT'S NEW
However, that does seem early, as Richard and Anne don't leave Nottingham until the 27th. It could be that they were incapacitated with grief, but wouldn't most parents would want to go to where their son was as soon as possible. It is difficult to judge though, because reactions to tragic events are so varied and personal. Was there a mourning custom for royalty that could explain this? I heard or read somewhere that Kings and Queens didn't go to funerals, and paid their respects privately, but I'm not sure if that is true.
Is it known for certain where Edward of Middleham died? Looking at the itinerary, the detour West to Nappa seems unusual, as the rest of the journey seems like a straightforward progress North. Nappa Hall was a stately home then held by James Metcalfe. Could Edward have been there when he died, and buried nearby, perhaps somewhere like Bolton Abbey. Alternatively, could Edward have died in London and been buried in Westminster Abbey like Anne?

Nico

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017, 10:57, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:

Re the effigy on the York tomb being that of a 'teenager'..often the effigies of young children were dressed as adults..examples of such are William of Windsor and Blanche, Edward lll's children in Westminster Abbey. So, yes, this could be the case with EoM perhaps.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-11 16:45:56

Sandra Wilson

If...and I emphasise if...little Edward had been poisoned, then I feel Richard would have every reason to protect his remains. Someone who would poison (or otherwise kill) a child would surely have no compunction about desecrating that child's tomb. The purpose would be to cause Richard and Anne even more grief, which the removal of their son from his tomb would certainly do. Undermining Richard's strength of mind and purpose would be of prime consideration for whoever might set themselves against him in this way. Step forward the usual suspects. I'm not saying this DID happen, just that it could have. And no, it's not from the realms of historical novels, it's a perfectly plausible reason for Richard to hide his child's body until he felt it was safe to finally lay him to rest fittingly as Prince of Wales. Well, that's how I view it, anyway. From: mailto: Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 3:52 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-11 17:46:33

b.eileen25

I have to say I do believe there is a chance that EoM was poisoned. Think how catastrophic it was..it had probably been noticed that Anne was either not fertile or had problems carrying babies the full term.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-11 17:54:02

ricard1an

It was quite recently maybe on Blanc Sanglier. I will see if I can find it.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-11 18:06:37

ricard1an

Jenny Powys Lybbe gave a talk at the Triennial Conference a few years ago, she put forward the theory that Edward could have been murdered by Ann Idley, who was in charge of his nursery, apparently Ann Idley had close links to MB through her late husband, Peter Idley. The original report of the talk was in the Bulletin. Though I think that since then I have read somewhere that Richard rewarded Ann Idley for her services.
Mary

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-11 18:18:32

Pamela Bain

Sandra, I think it is plausible. With all the turmoil surrounding Richard, it might certainly have been a consideration by all those who HT's backers, or just upset period that Richard was king.
On Apr 11, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... [] <> wrote:

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-11 18:34:17

ricard1an

Just checked Blanc Sanglier, Ricardian and Murray and Blue but can't find anything. It was a comment Annette made on someones post. I am pretty sure that she said it was possible that Edward died later than 9/4 and she commented on her article written by her and Marie in the Bulletin a few months ago about the year of Edward's birth. I think she said she was doing more research on the date of his death.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-11 18:36:46

b.eileen25

wonder if its on Annette's blog?

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-11 19:18:24

ricard1an

I have just looked on her blog and there is a piece on her articles with Marie. In it she says that she and Marie had written a series of articles on the date Richard and Anne's marriage and the date of the birth and the death of their son. Annette says that the first two were published in the Bulletin so that probably means that there is the article to come about Edward's death. Hopefully it will be soon.
Mary

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-11 19:29:12

b.eileen25

Thanks Mary.. You know the present dates make no sense. YEt they have been blindly followed all these years. I,e. The supposed date of death and the date Richard left Nottingham. I can't see him tarrying so long in Nottingham unless, as Nico has suggested, the parents, or one of the parents was absolutely laid low. But really life is not like that is it? people do somehow manage to carry on.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-11 23:40:27

Hilary Jones

To me the problem is that in spring 1484 HT didn't have that many backers - we know that from the analysis of the 1483 rebellions. Edward's death would certainly have provided an opportunity to regroup and that's what we see at Bosworth. But apart from those with a Ph.D in hindsight, who would ever imagined that by autumn 1485 the dynasty would be dead? Was Richard really running scared in 1484? I doubt it. If he was why on earth didn't he call on Maximilian to help him? H

From: "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 April 2017, 18:18
Subject: Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Sandra, I think it is plausible. With all the turmoil surrounding Richard, it might certainly have been a consideration by all those who HT's backers, or just upset period that Richard was king.
On Apr 11, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... [] <> wrote:

If...and I emphasise if...little Edward had been poisoned, then I feel Richard would have every reason to protect his remains. Someone who would poison (or otherwise kill) a child would surely have no compunction about desecrating that child's tomb. The purpose would be to cause Richard and Anne even more grief, which the removal of their son from his tomb would certainly do. Undermining Richard's strength of mind and purpose would be of prime consideration for whoever might set themselves against him in this way. Step forward the usual suspects. I'm not saying this DID happen, just that it could have. And no, it's not from the realms of historical novels, it's a perfectly plausible reason for Richard to hide his child's body until he felt it was safe to finally lay him to rest fittingly as Prince of Wales. Well, that's how I view it, anyway. From: mailto: Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 3:52 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place Sorry just caught up with this. If Edward died in Yorkshire (and he never seems to have come south but who knows) then there is a great deal of logic in burying him at the Minster. It's the biggest church in Northern Europe, so as fitting a place for a Prince as some of the other cathedrals used, such as Worcester. It was where he was inaugurated as Prince of Wales less than a year before and it was 'capital' of his home region. I know some of the nobility had private burial chapels, like the Beauchamps and the Nevilles but I can't recall ever having come across an heir to the throne buried in a village church, even if it was temporary. We are more than a year before HT's proposed invasion, so I don't buy the story that Richard had to hide his burial place, and why? No-one would desecrate the tomb of a child. Finally there seems to be consensus that William of Hatfield died as a baby of a few months' old, yet he seems to have an adult sized tomb (which as you say was the custom). Could this have been a convenient resting place whilst Edward's own tomb was constructed - it was after all, in the family so to speak? That certainly seems to happen nowadays when monarchs are buried at Windsor but 'wait in the corridor' like George VI until their tomb has been designed. In fact of course, Edward IV's own tomb was never finally built to his specification. H

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-12 10:01:25

Sandra Wilson

Running scared is far too strong, and isn't at all what I mean. Just an attempt by Richard to conceal his son's whereabouts until---perhaps---those who saw to the boy's death had been rounded up. Or until the realm was finally settled and peaceful, with no danger of Lancastrian uprisings and so on. Maybe he envisaged a truly splendid funeral and laying to rest when the family tomb was ready. I don't know when rumours of poisoning started, but if they began almost straight away (poison whispers usually did), then Richard's first thought would surely be to protect his boy's remains? Mine would be. The killers might have taken Edward's little life, but they wouldn't destroy his earthly remains as well. And HT didn't need many backers at that point. All that was required was a few really rabidly dedicated, unscrupulous Lancastrians who may not even have had HT in mind. Get rid of Richard's direct blood heir, and then maybe work through any other likely heirs. For instance, the Earl of Lincoln had no children of his own, and was certainly close to Richard. He would surely be an obvious target. The cause then became Lancastrian-Tudor, and finally just plain Tudor, for whom the norm was to steadily rid the world of anyone with a Yorkist/Plantagenet claim of any legitimate description. Were the re-legitimised boys in the Tower the victims of Tudor agents? The Tudors even started on women. Finer feelings about respecting a little boy's resting place simply would not come into it. There was to be very little respect shown to the remains of Richard himself, let alone his child. Yes, a conspiracy theory.... From: mailto: Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:40 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-12 11:40:09

b.eileen25

I dont want to sound dramatic but still believe there is a fair to middling chance EoM was murdered. It would only take a very small group of people..no names, no packdrill, but we know who they are dont we..to dream this one up and carry it out. Mary has mentioned someone in the Middleham household had connections to someone in MB's. As early as the coronation, when it was noted Buckingham was getting fractious..like a pimple about to pop..hahahaha sorry made myself laugh there..swivling his head away, hating the sight of Richard getting crowned (Croyland?)..what was that song by the Three Degrees? It Should Have Been Me..We know that MB was in touch with EW about that time. So yes, the time was ripe for plots, counter plots and counter counter plots. Im not saying this is what happened..obviously..but Im saying that it should be taken into consideration. It could well have happened. One by one, they went down...like skittles..how very, very convenient. Lets face it if Eom had not popped his clogs at that time what do you think would have happened to him once Tudor took the throne. A quick(ish) death by poisoning or a slow one by long term imprisonment and the trouble of working out a trumped up charge to get him executed when he reached a more suitable age and the chances that he would be a figurehead for rebellion.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-12 12:46:54

Nicholas Brown

Croyland does say that EofM died at Middleham, and that Richard and Anne were at Nottingham Castle, so that narrows down my speculation from my last post, although I still think the date would have been closer to the end of their stay. Looking at the itinerary, York does looks more likely, as they made their way directly there with brief stopovers at Doncaster and Pontefract, remaining there for several days. Afterwards, they go to Nappa before Middleham. If their son was lying in state at Middleham or even already buried there, surely they would have gone their first. Also, York would make sense, since EofM's investiture as Prince of Wales took place there only a few months before and York Minster was a more fitting location for the burial of a Prince of Wales. Given that Anne was buried at Westminster Abbey in an unremarkable grave, it would suggest that Richard was planning a grander family tomb. I don't think it would have been his intention for all three of them to be have been buried in separate places, so if EofM was buried there and he and Anne were so closely connected to Yorkshire, it is most likely that York Minster would have been Richard's choice after all.

Would it be possible to search the rumoured tomb at the Minster for Edward and the relevant area in Westminster Abbey for Anne? If they were found, they should be reunited with Richard in Leicester. Also, the bodies could be tested for poison, there could still be traces even after five centuries.
Nico

On Wednesday, 12 April 2017, 11:40, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:

I dont want to sound dramatic but still believe there is a fair to middling chance EoM was murdered. It would only take a very small group of people..no names, no packdrill, but we know who they are dont we..to dream this one up and carry it out. Mary has mentioned someone in the Middleham household had connections to someone in MB's. As early as the coronation, when it was noted Buckingham was getting fractious..like a pimple about to pop..hahahaha sorry made myself laugh there..swivling his head away, hating the sight of Richard getting crowned (Croyland?)..what was that song by the Three Degrees? It Should Have Been Me..We know that MB was in touch with EW about that time. So yes, the time was ripe for plots, counter plots and counter counter plots. Im not saying this is what happened..obviously..but Im saying that it should be taken into consideration. It could well have happened. One by one, they went down...like skittles..how very, very convenient. Lets face it if Eom had not popped his clogs at that time what do you think would have happened to him once Tudor took the throne. A quick(ish) death by poisoning or a slow one by long term imprisonment and the trouble of working out a trumped up charge to get him executed when he reached a more suitable age and the chances that he would be a figurehead for rebellion.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-12 13:10:53

ricard1an

It would be great if it was possible to search the William of Hatfield's grave in York Minster but I would imagine that permission would have to be sought from the Church authorities.
On the branch visit to York years ago we went to York Minster with Dorothy and she told us the theory about the grave of W of H. I can remember thinking that the costume on the effigy was very 15th century. The next day we went to Sheriff Hutton and I remarked to one of the group that the costume on the effigy that was purported to be E of M was of a much earlier period. She agreed but said that it was possible that the sculptor who had produced the effigy may not have been up to speed with producing an effigy in a more modern dress. At the time that seemed possible but now that we know that it isn't likely to be Eof M then the possibility that it might be W of H tomb moved from York becomes much more likely. I think I have read that it is just a tomb and there aren't any remains in it. Is it is possible that W of H's remains are still in the York tomb with E of M?
Mary

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-12 14:28:52

b.eileen25

Nico said : 'would it be possible to search the relevant area of the Abbey for Anne'.
A lead coffin was found in that area in the 19th century. It was not known whether it was Queen Anne Neville or Queen Anne of Cleaves who was buried in the same area. It was left undisturbed.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-12 14:36:16

b.eileen25

Mary..I think the effigy at Sheriff Hutton is too late to be that of William of Hatfield who died in 1337 but too early to be that of EoM. Its hard to date because its a mismatch and the panels with their heraldic symbols may not even belong to the effigy.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-12 15:20:14

Hilary Jones

The other royal link with the Minster is that Edward III and Philippa of Hainault were married there.
What really puzzles me is the York House Books. There are lots of entries around the supposed date of Edward's death but not a single mention of it; they're muttering about fishgarths et al, as though nothing has happened. Are some bits missing - I have the Attreed version? The last mention we have of 'the Prince' is when they send him some presents to Middleham in July 1483. It's almost as though he never died - no record of a service, no record of mourning. Very odd. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 April 2017, 14:36
Subject: Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Mary..I think the effigy at Sheriff Hutton is too late to be that of William of Hatfield who died in 1337 but too early to be that of EoM. Its hard to date because its a mismatch and the panels with their heraldic symbols may not even belong to the effigy.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-12 15:35:57

Paul Trevor Bale

Yes, there is a plaque on he wall near where they think she is, but don't know for certain. Still she hasn't got the weight of a Torrigiano on top of her!Paul

Richard Liveth Yet

On 12 Apr 2017, at 15:28, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

Nico said : 'would it be possible to search the relevant area of the Abbey for Anne'.

A lead coffin was found in that area in the 19th century. It was not known whether it was Queen Anne Neville or Queen Anne of Cleaves who was buried in the same area. It was left undisturbed.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-12 15:54:40

b.eileen25

Paul..I wrote a blog on Anne's burial place for Murreyandblue. Would you like me to email you it...?

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-12 16:31:15

Eileen wrote: Doug..ill plot it on google map.. Doug here: Hopefully, with a visual display, something will pop out! Eileen continued: Of course its Old Croyland says Edward died in Middleham. He knew enough to say the parents were 'mad with grief' so Ill take his word for it. Doug here: Well, he has been known to get some things wrong, so perhaps he's wrong about where Edward died? With Middleham, rather than being where Edward died, being where he was buried? Eileen concluded: Yes..I do think it adds up that perhaps Anne was too ill/distraught to travel and this would certainly explain the otherwise rather baffling long stay in Nottingham..unless of course the date of his death is wrong. It this were so it is just another example of Richard's caring nature for his wife. He stayed by her side during her fatal illness..and he stayed by her side while she was prostrated with grief over the death of their small son. Not only did they lose their son they also both would have known it was unlikely she would be able to give him another heir. Its all so sad to contemplate. Doug here: And, as I speculated, if Edward died while in the company of his parents, perhaps some childish accident?, that could easily make it worse. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward of Middleh

2017-04-12 18:30:25

Hilary Jones

Absolutely. The Books are full of purchases of outfits for various occasions and of course expenses. Surely the Minster would have held a memorial service. He was one of theirs. H

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017, 6:18 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-12 18:45:09

ricard1an

Yes Hilary I noticed that ( I have the Attreed version) Also I don't think that von Poppelau mentioned young Edward either and apparently he was at Middleham quite soon after Anne and Richard returned from Nottingham. Extremely odd.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward

2017-04-12 19:01:33

b.eileen25

Doug..it's possible something may come to light IF Edward were buried in York. But as to where he passed away and how..I'm not too sure we will ever know..Still I like to hear people's speculations..one of them may well be the correct one.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward of Middleh

2017-04-12 19:17:59

Pamela Bain

A man after my heart!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 12:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Couldn't agree more Doug. Everyone "knows" Richard III was the hunchback who killed his baby nephews to get the crown!

Like everyone "knows" Robespierre was the dictator who invented the Terror and sat making lists of people he wanted to get rid of.

Don't get me started on either!

Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad

Le 12 avr. 2017 à 18:54, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Hilary wrote:

Doug here:

I was struck by your phrase But apart from those with a Ph.D in hindsight... because I really think that's what caused so many of the problems Ricardians face. Chroniclers, historians, even Shakespeare, knowing what did happen, then look back and dig out things that they believe support their thesis (I have no idea what the plural of thesis is!) without ever considering that events could just as easily gone differently. Add to that, Henry Tudor's absolute necessity in justifying his actions and, voila!, we end up with what everyone knows about Richard.

Doug

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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward of Middleh

2017-04-12 20:06:29

Paul Trevor Bale

Both Richard and Maxime gaze at me from my walls!Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 12 avr. 2017 à 20:16, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <> a écrit :

A man after my heart!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 12:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Couldn't agree more Doug. Everyone "knows" Richard III was the hunchback who killed his baby nephews to get the crown!

Like everyone "knows" Robespierre was the dictator who invented the Terror and sat making lists of people he wanted to get rid of.

Don't get me started on either!

2017-04-13 20:19:28

[email protected]

Was von Poppelau really at Middleham? I allways thought he met Richard at Pontefract. Does anyone know?
Eva

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-14 13:16:21

Hilary Jones

Sorry these are for the Gregorian Calendar which was not in use. More conversion digging! H

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 14 April 2017, 13:09
Subject: Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

According to Dr Mike's Maths for Kids Easter Day in 1484 was 20 April, so the YHB meeting nearest was on 26 April. That was about the goods of a hanged servant! H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 14 April 2017, 10:14
Subject: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

That narrows it down somewhat. Stupid question but has Easter always fallen on the same dates I.e. Around the third week in April depending on when Friday and Monday fall. That would make more sense of Richard not leaving Nottingham until the 27th. All that about Edward dying on the same day as his uncle is clearly rubbish. Anything to use as a fine piece of mud to throw at Richard even the death of his son grrrrrrrrr!

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-14 13:21:10

Sandra Wilson

The following site is good for dates: http://www.kevinlaughery.com/east4099.html#c15 It takes the change to Gregorian into account. From: mailto: Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 1:16 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Sorry these are for the Gregorian Calendar which was not in use. More conversion digging! H
.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-14 13:48:22

b.eileen25

April 18th then..that would make perfect sense. Time it would take for news to reach Nottingham, time to prepare for the journey etc., this would mean that Richard left Nottingham as soon as possible..rather than hanging around for nearly 3 weeks. Why has this never been questioned before...?

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-14 14:54:05

[email protected]

The date of Easter changes every year. It is on the Sunday after the first full moon in spring. The first possible date is the 22. March and the last possible date is the 25. April. This had been fixed in 325 aD at Nicäa. That
does not make things easier.
Eva

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-14 15:40:56

Hilary Jones

Yes that's right it changed in 1582. If you look at the spaces between the Council meetings in the YHB then it would still point to that middle bit of April. They meet on 17 & 27 March - so not 25 methinks and again on 2 April, 9 April but there is then a gap till 26. They wouldn't meet during Easter unless it was an emergency. H
From: "eva.pitter@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 14 April 2017, 14:54
Subject: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

The date of Easter changes every year. It is on the Sunday after the first full moon in spring. The first possible date is the 22. March and the last possible date is the 25. April. This had been fixed in 325 aD at Nicäa. That
does not make things easier.
Eva

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward of Middleham's

2017-04-14 16:24:28

Doug Stamate

Eileen wrote: I think with these mentions by both Croyland and Rous of Middleham we should maybe stay with that..Edward having died there at least, although the burying 'near or by Middleham' could mean just that which still leaves a mystery. Without a definite date for Edward's death it is also unclear how long it was before the Royal couple left Nottingham. Also there is the human factor to take into account. Was one of the parents not fit for travel. I'm not to sure about this though as most people carry on through the most awful times. Doug here: I'm going to have to disagree with staying with the idea that Edward died at Middleham, although I am inclined to think he was buried at or near there. FWIW, I understood that the Latin phrase et apud Midleham honorifice sepulture traditur referred only to his burial and that the entry had no mention of where he died. Or have I gotten that wrong? Eileen concluded: Still wondering about Nappa..what was there? Or was it just a convenient stopping off point? Doug here: I dragged out my 1988 atlas and compared it with the itinerary you provided. The first thing I saw was that we have Richard in York on 3 May, at Nappa (which is west of York and 10 miles from Skipton) on the 4th and at Middleham on 6 May. How far is Middleham from Nappa? The atlas has 3 miles to the inch and that gave me, roughly (very roughly!): 45 miles from York to Nappa and 27 miles from Nappa to Middleham. Both distances were measured as the crow flies, so I have no idea how far Richard actually had to ride. The major problem I noticed with the atlas was that Nappa isn't on the way to Middleham! It's a jog to the side and isn't even located on a river or valley that leads to Middleham. Bolton Abbey, OTOH, is. It's located on the Wharfe and, if one heads up the valley the Wharfe flows through, one can reach Langstothdale Chase and the Bishopdale Beck which cuts through the Pennines. Otherwise, one would have to follow the Wharfe up to Kettlewell, turn and follow the little stream Kettlewell is on, skirt some hills and then follow the Cover River on to Middleham. The only way for Nappa to serve as some sort of rest stop, would be if Richard's party was going to Middleham and went up the Ribble, turned off at, say, the Cam Beck, connected with the head of the Wharfe and then continued via Langstothdale Chase and the Bishopdale Beck. And even that isn't really a short cut. So, the question still remains: If Richard wanted a stop-over at Middleham, why go via Nappa? Why not just head northwest? He wasn't at Nappa long enough for, say, hunting, Or, anyway, it certainly doesn't seem so. Does anyone know if there were any shrines in the area? Or a well/spring with a reputation for healing? Because it did occur to me that, just perhaps, whatever Edward died from wasn't something relatively quick, and perhaps wasn't even considered (at first) dangerous, and Richard interrupted his official duties to either ask for Divine help or even fetch something for an already ailing son? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-14 16:31:44

Nicholas Brown

I hadn't factored in Holy Week, when administrative duty would have slowed down, or the time taken for a message to reach Nottingham from Middleham - probably at least a couple of days. If EofM died on Good Friday (April 18), the news wouldn't have reached Richard until just after Easter, so Eileen is right; he and Anne wouldn't have been lingering for too long before going onto York for the funeral and burial. If it was held there, I find it astounding that there is no mention of requiem for a Prince of Wales in the records, but there are details about relatively minor things like Fishgarths. If the funeral was at Middleham, then the stop over at Nappa still doesn't make sense, as it is so out of the way.

Does anyone know if any record like the Wardrobe Accounts makes any mention of formal mourning being declared for EofM, with any orders for mourning clothes?

The problem with Rous and Croyland is that one could be copying the other, and how did they find out? Also, both were keen to curry favour with Henry VII after Bosworth, and Croyland's comment sounds particularly nasty - ( in a short time after, it was fully seen how vain are the thoughts of a man who desires to establish his interests without the aid of God. For, in the following month of April, on a day not very far distant from the anniversary of king Edward ...), almost like it was some sort of divine retribution against Richard. If there isn't any formal record of EofM dying, or actual discussion about an heir, can we really be sure that he did die before Bosworth, and if he didn't, what happened to him afterwards? I'm reluctant to get into conspiracy theories, but if these two are all we have to go on, it raises a lot of questions.
Wishing you all a very Happy Easter,
Nico.

On Friday, 14 April 2017, 14:54, "eva.pitter@... []" <> wrote:

The date of Easter changes every year. It is on the Sunday after the first full moon in spring. The first possible date is the 22. March and the last possible date is the 25. April. This had been fixed in 325 aD at Nicäa. That
does not make things easier.
Eva

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-04-14 16:43:32

Doug Stamate

Hilary wrote: Generally there seem to be about 3 entries a month, unless something unusual happens like a request for soldiers, or a riot. There's an entry on 2 April and 9 April about appointment and replacement of Aldermen, just normal business, then one on 26 about the goods of a hanged servant and on 29 about a discussion with the Dean of the Minster about the Ordinance Keeper neglecting his duties. We then return to fishgarths on 19 May and they agree some rewards to Harington and John Kendale for all there good services to the City and the King. We leap on to June and the price of ale. Now I believe the original is held on fiche in York Record Office but something like the death of the Prince would surely have been picked out by Attreed, and others years' ago? I still find it very puzzling. Doug here: Yes, one would think someone would have noticed! I suppose there's a possibility that the page that contained any reference/s to Edward's death was lost. Or even destroyed for some other reason but, as you say, it's puzzling. I presume this failure to mention the death of the Prince of Wales is peculiar to York and there are there references to it in the records of other cities/towns? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward of Middleham's

2017-04-14 16:45:21

b.eileen25

Yes Doug your right on that point. Apologies... The Rous quote doesnt say Edward died at Middleham only that he was buried there or nearby..
Back to the map later...its a real mystery isnt it..?

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-14 16:57:24

A J Hibbard

According to The Coronation of Richard III (Sutton & Hammond, 1983), Marc Bloch, in his The Royal Touch. Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France, English translation, London, 1973, states that the Royal Household accounts for Richard's reign seem to have been lost or destroyed. He says that these accounts give information about Good Friday offerings, and I suppose other ceremonials, such as any observed regarding the interments of Queen Anne and Prince Edward.

The distance Middleham to Nottingham is approximately the same as Bosworth to York; we know that news of Bosworth was recorded in the York records the next day. But this is something of a medieval land speed record for the transmission of news. Do we have any idea if a message of the death of the Prince of Wales would have achieved this level of urgency? If it did, then it's possible that Edward died much closer to the date of Richard's departure from Nottingham about the 27th of April.

A J

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I hadn't factored in Holy Week, when administrative duty would have slowed down, or the time taken for a message to reach Nottingham from Middleham - probably at least a couple of days. If EofM died on Good Friday (April 18), the news wouldn't have reached Richard until just after Easter, so Eileen is right; he and Anne wouldn't have been lingering for too long before going onto York for the funeral and burial. If it was held there, I find it astounding that there is no mention of requiem for a Prince of Wales in the records, but there are details about relatively minor things like Fishgarths. If the funeral was at Middleham, then the stop over at Nappa still doesn't make sense, as it is so out of the way.

Does anyone know if any record like the Wardrobe Accounts makes any mention of formal mourning being declared for EofM, with any orders for mourning clothes?

The problem with Rous and Croyland is that one could be copying the other, and how did they find out? Also, both were keen to curry favour with Henry VII after Bosworth, and Croyland's comment sounds particularly nasty - ( in a short time after, it was fully seen how vain are the thoughts of a man who desires to establish his interests without the aid of God. For, in the following month of April, on a day not very far distant from the anniversary of king Edward ...), almost like it was some sort of divine retribution against Richard. If there isn't any formal record of EofM dying, or actual discussion about an heir, can we really be sure that he did die before Bosworth, and if he didn't, what happened to him afterwards? I'm reluctant to get into conspiracy theories, but if these two are all we have to go on, it raises a lot of questions.
Wishing you all a very Happy Easter,
Nico.

On Friday, 14 April 2017, 14:54, "eva.pitter@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

The date of Easter changes every year. It is on the Sunday after the first full moon in spring. The first possible date is the 22. March and the last possible date is the 25. April. This had been fixed in 325 aD at Nicäa. That
does not make things easier.
Eva

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward of Middleham's

Pamela Bain

And hand wipes.
On Apr 15, 2017, at 7:46 AM, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

I dont know how they coped without coffee..oh.and moisteriser..

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-15 16:27:28

A J Hibbard

According to Rhoda Edwards' Itinerary, Easter in 1484 fell on April 18.

It is also the date given here

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cal/reg18.htm

A J

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 10:10 AM, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward

2017-04-15 16:28:30

Doug Stamate

Eileen wrote: Yes Doug your right on that point. Apologies... The Rous quote doesnt say Edward died at Middleham only that he was buried there or nearby.. Back to the map later...its a real mystery isnt it..? Doug here: No problem! And, yes, the lack of records about Edward's death certainly are strange. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward

2017-04-15 16:43:22

Doug Stamate

AJ wrote: Rhoda Edward points out in her Itinerary that "the Duchy of Lancaster writs dated 4th May at Nappa Hall near Middleham could indicate that the King went there, but more likely show the presence of the Chancellor of the Duchy, Thomas Metcalfe, whose house it was." Doug here: Well, that makes more sense; although I suppose it is still possible Richard did a side-trip. He would have had to make some speed, though. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-15 17:23:23

justcarol67

Eileen wrote:

"Lets face it if Eom had not popped his clogs at that time what do you think would have happened to him once Tudor took the throne."

Carol responds:

I don't think Tudor would have taken the throne if Edward of Middleham had been alive. Richard would have had more support (I think it dwindled when he lost his heir--he would have seemed weaker and less secure on his throne) and Tudor less. Also, Richard probably would not have made the risky move that led to his death had little Edward been alive because he would have known full well that the child's life depended on his. Just my opinion.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward of Middleham's

2017-04-15 17:24:18

Doug Stamate

Carol wrote:
I just found a small portion of the relevant quote from Rous (in Keith Dockray's "Richard III: A Source Book." It says that prince Edward "died a tragic death at Eastertide." As I said earlier, Easter 1484 fell on April 20. The myth that Edward died on April 9 needs to die. Doug here: Just when is Eastertide? Surely it doesn't coincide with Lent? To me, for what <i>that's</i> worth, Eastertide would be the week, possibly even the fortnight, prior to Easter; so that would have Edward's death occurring some time between 6 April, 1484 at the earliest and 20 April, 1484 at the latest. Unless, of course, Eastertide signifies a period that extends past Easter. In which case, Edward's death <i>may</i> have occurred as late as 27 April, 1484. Looking at the reports of Edward IV's death, I see that his death is usually said to have occurred at Easter, even though Easter was on 30 March in 1483 and Edward IV died on 9 April, 1483. Methinks someone was, um, editorializing in regards to Edward of Middleham's death. Doug Who is shocked, shocked I tell you, that such a thing could happen!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-15 17:29:37

justcarol67

Eileen wrote:

"That narrows it down somewhat. Stupid question but has Easter always fallen on the same dates I.e. Around the third week in April depending on when Friday and Monday fall. That would make more sense of Richard not leaving Nottingham until the 27th. All that about Edward dying on the same day as his uncle is clearly rubbish. Anything to use as a fine piece of mud to throw at Richard even the death of his son grrrrrrrrr!"

Carol responds:

In response to your first question, the formula for calculating the date for Easter is "the first Sunday after the first full moon after the 21st of March"--something to do with the calculation for the date of Passover, I think.

If Edward died on Easter Day (not necessarily implied by Eastertide or Easter time--I don't have AJ's quote in front of me so I can't see the original Latin), it would have taken the messenger a few days (I suppose) to get to Nottingham, so if Richard and Anne left Nottingham on the 27th, they left almost as soon as they heard the news. It makes sense that they *didn't* stay at Nottingham as they appear to do if we believe the April 9 myth.

Thank you, AJ, for the quotations from Rous. I knew he was the answer!

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward of Middleham's

2017-04-15 17:34:12

Sandra Wilson

According to PMK: The Great Chronicle...specifies...that after Easter of 1484 much whispering was among the people that the King had put the children...to death'. Why after Easter'? It is possible that, since Richard's little son died less than a week following Easter Sunday, some people saw in the boy's death a judgment of Heaven which proved that the King had killed his nephews. Easter Sunday was 18th April, 1484, which means, if PMK is correct, that the latest date for Edward of Middleham's demise is six days later, i.e. Saturday, 24th April, 1484.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-15 18:01:55

justcarol67

Karen wrote:

"If EoM lived why did Richard name another heir?"

Carol responds:

First, I for one think that Rous is right and that Edward died (presumably at Middleham, where Rous says he was buried) at Eastertime. But Richard never officially named another heir. He appointed his nephew, John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, to the post King's Lieutenant in Ireland, previously held by Edward of Middleham, after the child's death, so he may have been considering appointing him if he (Richard) failed to produce an heir. Sorry--more to say but have to go. Time to leave for Prescott!

Carol

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-15 21:29:35

Hilary Jones

There is a problem though, isn't there? We don't have one contemporary account of the death of EOM.
Croyland, well who is he, certainly not a fan? And Rous, almost certainly writing to get back the lands of his beloved Anne Beauchamp - I rather like Rous for his fights over enclosures
As for Lincoln, well he was about the only Yorkist old enough to deputise for Richard in 1484, as you can see from the approaches made to him in the YOH. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 April 2017, 18:01
Subject: Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Karen wrote:

"If EoM lived why did Richard name another heir?"

Carol responds:

First, I for one think that Rous is right and that Edward died (presumably at Middleham, where Rous says he was buried) at Eastertime. But Richard never officially named another heir. He appointed his nephew, John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, to the post King's Lieutenant in Ireland, previously held by Edward of Middleham, after the child's death, so he may have been considering appointing him if he (Richard) failed to produce an heir. Sorry--more to say but have to go. Time to leave for Prescott!

Carol

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-15 21:36:01

Hilary Jones

Well when I was 17 I wrote an essay defending Robespierre. Horrified them all in those days, the Dark Ages. As for Madame de Pompadour, I'll give that one a miss. Love the envoye de mon iPad! Lucky you. H

From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 April 2017, 15:00
Subject: Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Think you may be right H. Get those Metcalfes and Harrington mixed up a lot at times.And I'd just been thinking of Madame De Pompadour! (Don't ask!)
Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 15 avr. 2017 à 15:56, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

I think you may be thinking of Miles, Thomas's brother, Paul. He died in Feb 1486. Thomas's eldest son was Sir James who lived on till 1539. H

From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 April 2017, 14:44
Subject: Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

If I remember there were two Thomas Metcalfe father and son, the father being very close to Richard, and dying not long after Bosworth.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 15 avr. 2017 à 12:01, Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... [] <> a écrit :

I agree that the Metcalfes should not be underestimated, Hilary. Miles Metcalfe was close to Richard, and after Bosworth Henry VII tried his damnedest to be rid of him and have his own man, Green, installed as Recorder of York. HT didn't succeed, and when Metcalfe died (1486?) York continued to resist and installed their own choice instead. A man called Vavasour. Maybe Thomas Metcalfe did well under HT, but prior to that, had he too been close to Richard? Maybe Nappa is very significant. From: mailto: Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 10:56 AM To: Subject: Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place Bit more info after digging: After Bosworth Thomas Metcalfe sued HT for pardon and became surveyor of Middleham Castle and 'very rich'. The Metcalfes had also founded their own chantry chapel in 1472 at nearby St Oswald's Askrigg. H

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-15 21:37:27

Hilary Jones

Sorry YHB! H

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 15 April 2017, 21:29
Subject: Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

There is a problem though, isn't there? We don't have one contemporary account of the death of EOM.
Croyland, well who is he, certainly not a fan? And Rous, almost certainly writing to get back the lands of his beloved Anne Beauchamp - I rather like Rous for his fights over enclosures
As for Lincoln, well he was about the only Yorkist old enough to deputise for Richard in 1484, as you can see from the approaches made to him in the YOH. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 April 2017, 18:01
Subject: Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Karen wrote:

"If EoM lived why did Richard name another heir?"

Carol responds:

First, I for one think that Rous is right and that Edward died (presumably at Middleham, where Rous says he was buried) at Eastertime. But Richard never officially named another heir. He appointed his nephew, John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, to the post King's Lieutenant in Ireland, previously held by Edward of Middleham, after the child's death, so he may have been considering appointing him if he (Richard) failed to produce an heir. Sorry--more to say but have to go. Time to leave for Prescott!

Carol

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-16 08:10:03

Paul Trevor Bale

In my screenplay he slips down a staircase chasing a ball. Could have been that simple. A tragic accident.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 15 avr. 2017 à 17:10, justcarol67@... [] <> a écrit :

Re: wandering posts

2017-04-16 13:56:34

Paul Trevor Bale

Where's that been? I posted it last evening!Paul
Richard Liveth Yet

On 16 Apr 2017, at 09:10, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

In my screenplay he slips down a staircase chasing a ball. Could have been that simple. A tragic accident.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 15 avr. 2017 à 17:10, justcarol67@... [] <> a écrit :

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward

2017-04-17 01:58:28

Doug Stamate

, Sandra wrote:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward of Middleh

2017-04-17 09:19:11

Paul Trevor Bale

This is the sequel to the ghastly White Queen series you tried watching Doug.I was appalled by not just the historical inaccuracies but also simple things like hairstyles and costumes, and the television aerial clearly visible in one scene shot in Bruges! Bosworth fought in a snow storm? This ghastly writer has no connection with reality. Like those straps at the end of films, " any connection with real people and events is purely coincidental ".Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 17 avr. 2017 à 03:09, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-04-17 09:23:53

Hilary Jones

For my sins I've read the 'White Queen' (I make myself read everything). It actually goes absolutely nowhere - it doesn't even go to her death.
However going back to EOM, we're now saying, I think, that until the Croyland Chronicle was found the only source of information that he was dead was John Rous and he was rather vague? But hang on, Rous's great patroness was Anne Beauchamp and wasn't she at Middleham then? So how could such knowledge be that vague? And even if she'd gone on a trip she'd surely know someone there would did feed her the precise information?
Then we come to Croyland the appropriate section of which again was written after HT took over. Croyland is to me a vindication of HT's seizure of the Crown and there was one person who regularly visited Crowland who would have wanted that vindication and that was MB. Her hand might not have written it but she could have controlled its direction. And being the wife of Richard's top counsellor she would know what would have gone on.
I find MB to be a basically good and intelligent woman who found herself in the wrong place - her flaw was that she was desperate for her son to come home. I can see her justifying all her plotting by saying that she was helping to right a wrong and get him home, but then in the process he killed an anointed king, which would mean almost certain damnation. The very religious MB would have to justify to herself as much as anyone how and why this came to pass and to do this you twist the information about Richard until you begin to believe it. That's how generations would also believe it. There seems to be so little available that we really can believe. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 April 2017, 4:09
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Pamela wrote: Exactly.......well costumed, well acted (I guess), but utterly vapid, and in this case not even close to what we know to be. Doug here: Yep! Basically a waste of good pixels... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward of Middleh

2017-04-17 09:28:16

Paul Trevor Bale

Richard would never have made Warwick his heir, not just because of his age, but also because the boy had been showing signs of his inadequacy and mental issues that were much clearer later on in his life. Another blot on Henry VII's reputation, accusing then executing a mentally retarded youth on charges he would not have even understood.PaulI make no apologies for my bias in any of my postings! :-)

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 17 avr. 2017 à 04:47, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Ed

2017-04-17 09:31:53

It isn't television. The White Princess is the novel about Elizabeth of York, a sequel to the earlier dross! Doug I think got confused. He must have seen a few minutes of ghastly White Queen and mixed up titles.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 17 avr. 2017 à 13:51, nico11238@... [] <> a écrit :

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Ed

2017-04-17 13:31:50

Paul Trevor Bale

Absolutely Eileen. Thing about the RSC costumes is you don't see them close up. The film camera sees the difference. I've been backstage in Stratford and up close they can be like party costumes. From the stalls though they look between fine and great.Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 17 avr. 2017 à 13:33, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> a écrit :

It was cringe making it was so bad. Some of the mens costumes were OK. But I never saw one of the womens that made me think yeah that got that right.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Ed

2017-04-17 13:39:16

Paul Trevor Bale

I have to cancel my last post as I just looked it up and the same people who made the sex and violence Spartacus series have filmed the Philippa Gregory rubbish. Stills show the costumes and casting are as spot on as the White Queen was, which means ladies who don't mind getting their kit off, and anything vaguely early Tudor as the kit they lose - often!If it comes to France, as the made in English Versailles inexplicably has, I won't be watching!Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 17 avr. 2017 à 14:27, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> a écrit :

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Ed

2017-04-17 14:14:52

Pamela Bain

No, I am glad to be enlightened, Paul. So even the costumes were dreadful&&that just about puts the last nail in the coffin!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 3:32 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Envoyé de mon iPad

Le 17 avr. 2017 à 05:02, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <> a écrit :

Exactly.......well costumed, well acted (I guess), but utterly vapid, and in this case not even close to what we know to be.

On Apr 16, 2017, at 9:57 PM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Pamela wrote:

It is something worse than dreck!

Doug here:

Well, it was beautifully costumed and the actors seemed competent enough, but the premise of the little I saw was nothing more than a yet another version of every daytime soap opera Ive seen, while still not being up to the standards (such as they were) of, say, Dynasty.

Doug

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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Ed

2017-04-17 14:28:40

Karen O

Every woman except the extras have their hair uncovered. I suppose the producers found the veiling awkward and unattractive. Women want to see their fantasies. Anne acts like a kitchen maid all through. They give her this ugly green dress with dyed green fur and she wears it constantly. She even has it thirteen years later. Richard must have been really cheap. Then they light her to be sallow. I must say otherwise the casting was great. Edward looks just splendid although I did not find him appealing. Too immature. FYI. For some reason EoY gets into Beaufort's custody so she can attend Bosworth, visit Richard in his tent and lie with him. Thankfully Richard waits til he's widowed, gallantry refusing to bed her until she throws herself at him It's satisfying to think he may have cuckolded HT. This is fantasy land.
On Apr 17, 2017 8:39 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []" <> wrote:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward

2017-04-17 15:04:28

Pamela Bain

So the news has ALWAYS been fake news! I think that sounds entirely plausible.

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 4:41 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-04-17 15:26:32

Doug Stamate

Eileen wrote: Do you think its possible 'people' i.e. the general populace, having to get most of their 'news' while probably drinking in the local tavern, or chatting while selling their chickens at the market, got their Prince Edwards muddled up on hearing about the death of EoM..and presumed it was the Edward in the Tower? Doug here: Well, there are the examples of Dr. Shaa's misunderstood sermon on Edward V's illegitimacy, where some claimed he was trying to say it was Edward IV who was illegitimate. Then there's the example of the overheard argument between Cicely, Duchess of York and Edward IV where the Duchess herself supposedly declared Edward to not be his father's son; when most likely what she actually said was something such as You're no son of your father to have married that woman! The latter is almost certainly closer to what the Duchess said and, more importantly, meant; but the former, being juicier, was what was heard. There are also thing supposedly occurring in Council meetings, or things people supposedly said during those meetings, that were likely glimpsed or overheard by persons not actually at the meetings (servants, clerks, etc.) that have been interpreted in ways always to Richard's disadvantage. Odd that, don't you think? So yes, it's entirely possible that the disappearance from the Tower, around Easter, of Edward and his brother may have been confused, deliberately or otherwise, with the actual death of Edward of Middleham; with the only question being whether the confusion was, as I noted, deliberate or accidental. FWIW, the idea that the boys were moved as part of an agreement with their mother, who left sanctuary in Westminster in March 1484 could also be seen as being related to the death of Richard's son, if only in its timing. What if the boys were moved, in part anyway, as a reaction to Edward of Middleham's death? There were those who had never accepted Titulus Regius and could view the boys as the legitimate king and heir, only needing sufficient support to replace a now heirless Richard on the throne. Then there'd be those who might view the boys as impediments to their claim to the throne and wish the boys ill. By moving the boys out of London, Richard would be removing them as a constant center of attraction, regardless of whether that attention was merely idle curiosity or something darker. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Ed

2017-04-17 15:34:51

Doug Stamate

Paul wrote: This is the sequel to the ghastly White Queen series you tried watching Doug. I was appalled by not just the historical inaccuracies but also simple things like hairstyles and costumes, and the television aerial clearly visible in one scene shot in Bruges! Bosworth fought in a snow storm? This ghastly writer has no connection with reality. Like those straps at the end of films, " any connection with real people and events is purely coincidental ". Doug here: To be fair, I did read somewhere that Bruges was used because it looked medieval-y. The same was done for some of the scenes in the Chronicles of Narnia series, I believe. And, of course, sweeping aerial shots, while being very dramatic, also all but preclude the need for actual dialogue between the characters. Bosworth fought in a snowstorm? Really? Obviously I didn't miss anything! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Ed

2017-04-17 15:52:13

Doug Stamate

Paul wrote: Richard would never have made Warwick his heir, not just because of his age, but also because the boy had been showing signs of his inadequacy and mental issues that were much clearer later on in his life. Another blot on Henry VII's reputation, accusing then executing a mentally retarded youth on charges he would not have even understood. Doug here: I knew Warwick was considered backward by those who saw him not too long before his execution/murder, but that it wasn't determined whether that backwardness was physical or due to his having been incarcerated in the Tower for half his life. Or longer. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-04-17 15:54:23

Pamela Bain

And pardon this stupid question, but were they speaking French???? And if so, could the common folks understand ?

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 9:26 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Eileen wrote:

Doug here:

Well, there are the examples of Dr. Shaa's misunderstood sermon on Edward V's illegitimacy, where some claimed he was trying to say it was Edward IV who was illegitimate.

Then there's the example of the overheard argument between Cicely, Duchess of York and Edward IV where the Duchess herself supposedly declared Edward to not be his father's son; when most likely what she actually said was something such as You're no son of your father to have married that woman! The latter is almost certainly closer to what the Duchess said and, more importantly, meant; but the former, being juicier, was what was heard.

There are also thing supposedly occurring in Council meetings, or things people supposedly said during those meetings, that were likely glimpsed or overheard by persons not actually at the meetings (servants, clerks, etc.) that have been interpreted in ways always to Richard's disadvantage. Odd that, don't you think?

So yes, it's entirely possible that the disappearance from the Tower, around Easter, of Edward and his brother may have been confused, deliberately or otherwise, with the actual death of Edward of Middleham; with the only question being whether the confusion was, as I noted, deliberate or accidental.

FWIW, the idea that the boys were moved as part of an agreement with their mother, who left sanctuary in Westminster in March 1484 could also be seen as being related to the death of Richard's son, if only in its timing. What if the boys were moved, in part anyway, as a reaction to Edward of Middleham's death? There were those who had never accepted Titulus Regius and could view the boys as the legitimate king and heir, only needing sufficient support to replace a now heirless Richard on the throne. Then there'd be those who might view the boys as impediments to their claim to the throne and wish the boys ill. By moving the boys out of London, Richard would be removing them as a constant center of attraction, regardless of whether that attention was merely idle curiosity or something darker.

Doug

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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Ed

2017-04-17 15:56:10

Doug Stamate

Eileen wrote: What happened Doug..you nearly spilt your coffee over your screen...? Doug here: Not spilt, sprayed...when I started laughing. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Ed

2017-04-17 15:58:51

Doug Stamate

Eileen wrote: Douglas..I will have you know a cadbury's cream egg has not touched my lips this Easter neither has fudge..unfortunately... Doug here: What could you have done to so...upset the Easter Bunny? Or whoever makes the fudge? Doug Who, FWIW, much prefers fudge to those crème eggs.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-04-17 16:02:33

Sandra Wilson

Pamela, I'll bet all the stuff they wanted to spread were told in good old English! So Daniel the Dullard would understand and pass it on! From: mailto: Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 3:54 PM To: Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place And pardon this stupid question, but were they speaking French???? And if so, could the common folks understand ?

Re: {Disarmed} RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-04-17 16:03:56

Doug Stamate

Pamela wrote:

So the news has ALWAYS been fake news! I think that sounds entirely plausible.

Doug here:

Not so much the news has always been fake news', as there's always been fake news.

Doug

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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-04-17 16:25:44

Doug Stamate

Eileen wrote: The Royal Shakespeare Theatre in Stratford Upon Avon seem to manage well enough. You come upon them sometimes wandering around Stratford doing a bit of shopping and the costumes are spot on and wonderful. Its not rocket science is it..just research into the costumes of whatever period...and good seamstresses and there you go. But no..they look like they have originally started life as curtains..Ive never got over Cicely Nevilles headdress in the white queen..looked like she had a sofa balanced in her head. Doug here: To be fair, the costumers at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre know their costumes aren't one-off and will be used many, many times, so they can put more effort, time and money into making certain the costumes are accurate. I presume the managers of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre have been approached concerning their costumes by people making productions for television or movies? If not, why not? Of course, they may not be able to allow the costumes out of the theatre for the length of a television series, but for a movie? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-04-17 16:35:18

Doug Stamate

Paul wrote: It isn't television. The White Princess is the novel about Elizabeth of York, a sequel to the earlier dross! Doug I think got confused. He must have seen a few minutes of ghastly White Queen and mixed up titles. Doug here: I did! I'm sorry for the mistake, but it does appear that neither is really worth any attention! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-04-17 16:47:37

Pamela Bain

Right Doug, and thank you Sandra.

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 10:03 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Pamela wrote:

So the news has ALWAYS been fake news! I think that sounds entirely plausible.

Doug here:

Not so much the news has always been fake news', as there's always been fake news.

Doug

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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-04-17 17:27:35

ricard1an

Didn't MB have property near to Croyland/ Crowland and wasn't it in Morton's Diocese of Ely?
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-04-17 17:43:52

b.eileen25

Yes Mary Collyweston..about 40 miles

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward

2017-04-17 21:44:50

Nance Crawford

I tried to change my email address with Yahoo Groups and, having done what they requested - changing my password - I am now informed I am no longer a member of this group. Absolutely maddening because I've tried to change the address almost every weekday and been blocked from doing it. Now, it seems, I am no longer a member of this group. If this doesn't go through, I will go back to one of Nick's responses (yes, I save quite a lot of you!) and email him directly. Oy.
www.NanceCrawford.com
KING'S GAMES: The Commentaries
http://amzn.to/1VvKiHV

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward

2017-04-18 08:52:24

Bale Paul Trevor

I had to leave then rejoin from scratch. Yahoo are really annoying at times.Neil is very helpful so contact him directly.
Paul
On 17 Apr 2017, at 22:44, 'Nance Crawford' Nance@... [] <> wrote:

I tried to change my email address with Yahoo Groups and, having done what they requested - changing my password - I am now informed I am no longer a member of this group. Absolutely maddening because I've tried to change the address almost every weekday and been blocked from doing it. Now, it seems, I am no longer a member of this group. If this doesn't go through, I will go back to one of Nick's responses (yes, I save quite a lot of you!) and email him directly. Oy.
www.NanceCrawford.com
KING'S GAMES: The Commentaries
http://amzn.to/1VvKiHV

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-04-18 09:09:55

Hilary Jones

I reckon the French do costumes best. I love their costume dramas, like something straight out of a medieval manuscript. Did anyone every see 'The Accursed Kings'? H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 April 2017, 16:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Eileen wrote: The Royal Shakespeare Theatre in Stratford Upon Avon seem to manage well enough. You come upon them sometimes wandering around Stratford doing a bit of shopping and the costumes are spot on and wonderful. Its not rocket science is it..just research into the costumes of whatever period...and good seamstresses and there you go. But no..they look like they have originally started life as curtains..Ive never got over Cicely Nevilles headdress in the white queen..looked like she had a sofa balanced in her head. Doug here: To be fair, the costumers at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre know their costumes aren't one-off and will be used many, many times, so they can put more effort, time and money into making certain the costumes are accurate. I presume the managers of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre have been approached concerning their costumes by people making productions for television or movies? If not, why not? Of course, they may not be able to allow the costumes out of the theatre for the length of a television series, but for a movie? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-04-18 09:16:17

Hilary Jones

And then there is the other thing in the York Minutes, the very famous record of Richard's death where it was quoted as being due to the treachery of the Duke of Norfolk. People don't always do it maliciously, they have misinformation which unfortunately can be perpetuated - as all those of us who visit genealogy sites note. H

From: "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 17 April 2017, 15:54
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

And pardon this stupid question, but were they speaking French???? And if so, could the common folks understand ? From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 9:26 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place Eileen wrote: Do you think its possible 'people' i.e. the general populace, having to get most of their 'news' while probably drinking in the local tavern, or chatting while selling their chickens at the market, got their Prince Edwards muddled up on hearing about the death of EoM..and presumed it was the Edward in the Tower? Doug here: Well, there are the examples of Dr. Shaa's misunderstood sermon on Edward V's illegitimacy, where some claimed he was trying to say it was Edward IV who was illegitimate. Then there's the example of the overheard argument between Cicely, Duchess of York and Edward IV where the Duchess herself supposedly declared Edward to not be his father's son; when most likely what she actually said was something such as You're no son of your father to have married that woman! The latter is almost certainly closer to what the Duchess said and, more importantly, meant; but the former, being juicier, was what was heard. There are also thing supposedly occurring in Council meetings, or things people supposedly said during those meetings, that were likely glimpsed or overheard by persons not actually at the meetings (servants, clerks, etc.) that have been interpreted in ways always to Richard's disadvantage. Odd that, don't you think? So yes, it's entirely possible that the disappearance from the Tower, around Easter, of Edward and his brother may have been confused, deliberately or otherwise, with the actual death of Edward of Middleham; with the only question being whether the confusion was, as I noted, deliberate or accidental. FWIW, the idea that the boys were moved as part of an agreement with their mother, who left sanctuary in Westminster in March 1484 could also be seen as being related to the death of Richard's son, if only in its timing. What if the boys were moved, in part anyway, as a reaction to Edward of Middleham's death? There were those who had never accepted Titulus Regius and could view the boys as the legitimate king and heir, only needing sufficient support to replace a now heirless Richard on the throne. Then there'd be those who might view the boys as impediments to their claim to the throne and wish the boys ill. By moving the boys out of London, Richard would be removing them as a constant center of attraction, regardless of whether that attention was merely idle curiosity or something darker. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-04-18 09:23:31

Sandra Wilson

The Accursed Kings? Indeed I did, Hilary. Robert of Artois will be with me forever. From: mailto: Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 9:09 AM To: Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

I reckon the French do costumes best. I love their costume dramas, like something straight out of a medieval manuscript. Did anyone every see 'The Accursed Kings'? H

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Ed

2017-04-18 09:32:37

Hilary Jones

Sorry like Paul I thought you were talking about the White Princess, which we can't get over here. That is a novel about very little. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 April 2017, 14:28
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Every woman except the extras have their hair uncovered. I suppose the producers found the veiling awkward and unattractive. Women want to see their fantasies. Anne acts like a kitchen maid all through. They give her this ugly green dress with dyed green fur and she wears it constantly. She even has it thirteen years later. Richard must have been really cheap. Then they light her to be sallow. I must say otherwise the casting was great. Edward looks just splendid although I did not find him appealing. Too immature. FYI. For some reason EoY gets into Beaufort's custody so she can attend Bosworth, visit Richard in his tent and lie with him. Thankfully Richard waits til he's widowed, gallantry refusing to bed her until she throws herself at him It's satisfying to think he may have cuckolded HT. This is fantasy land.
On Apr 17, 2017 8:39 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []" <> wrote:
I have to cancel my last post as I just looked it up and the same people who made the sex and violence Spartacus series have filmed the Philippa Gregory rubbish. Stills show the costumes and casting are as spot on as the White Queen was, which means ladies who don't mind getting their kit off, and anything vaguely early Tudor as the kit they lose - often!If it comes to France, as the made in English Versailles inexplicably has, I won't be watching!Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 17 avr. 2017 à 14:27, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> a écrit :

It isn't television. The White Princess is the novel about Elizabeth of York, a sequel to the earlier dross! Doug I think got confused. He must have seen a few minutes of ghastly White Queen and mixed up titles.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 17 avr. 2017 à 13:51, nico11238@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> a écrit :

On the subject of the White Princess, we can't get it in this country. Paul, how did you get it in France? I'm curious though how they do this one. Jodie Comer is a good actress, better than that bland Swedish woman who played Elizabeth Woodville with an irritating and undefinable foreign accent. The day time soap opera description doesn't surprise me though. The plot (even the true version) has the potential for that, but add Philippa Gregory to the mix and I can't imagine it would be anything other than completely over the top, but maybe a good laugh.

Nico

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-04-18 09:33:57

Hilary Jones

And me! I loved it. H

From: "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 9:23
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

The Accursed Kings? Indeed I did, Hilary. Robert of Artois will be with me forever. From: mailto: Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 9:09 AM To: Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place I reckon the French do costumes best. I love their costume dramas, like something straight out of a medieval manuscript. Did anyone every see 'The Accursed Kings'? H

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-04-18 09:40:42

Paul Trevor Bale

Les Rois Maudits! Wonderful. They did a remake not that long ago with the glorious Jeanne Moreau. The original was I think made in the early 1970s. Don't think either has been seen much outside of France. I've not seen the 2005 version though I'd love to.There was also a wonderful film about Louis XI and his daughter, made in 2011, and it was like paintings brought to life. Jacques Perrin the actor who played him, looked so much like his portraits it was startling. A really good film set in 1483 about the plot of D'Orleans and some other nobles, to oust him, and the relationship between the king and his daughter, who succeeded him as regent.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 18 avr. 2017 à 10:09, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-04-18 10:41:56

[email protected]

Further to my earlier mail the original was made in 1972 and is considered a classic. The remake has some scathing comments on amazon where both versions are on DVD. No idea why the French, who broadcast everything High Definition now, all channels through the aerial, have not put out Blu Rays of so many of their costume dramas! In spite of the presence of Jeanne Moreau and Gerard Depardieu the remake had thumbs down from most. The remake is available in a Dutch edition which has a cover using the English Title of The Accursed Kings, but no information on subtitles, only that it is in French. I must have seen the original on British television. No chance of their showing such interesting stuff anymore!

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-04-18 15:36:38

Hilary Jones

I saw the original Paul - it was extremely good. I'm not sure if it even had subtitles though and it could have been in black and white. It's what got me hooked on that particular story. H

From: "paul.bale@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 10:41
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Further to my earlier mail the original was made in 1972 and is considered a classic. The remake has some scathing comments on amazon where both versions are on DVD. No idea why the French, who broadcast everything High Definition now, all channels through the aerial, have not put out Blu Rays of so many of their costume dramas! In spite of the presence of Jeanne Moreau and Gerard Depardieu the remake had thumbs down from most. The remake is available in a Dutch edition which has a cover using the English Title of The Accursed Kings, but no information on subtitles, only that it is in French. I must have seen the original on British television. No chance of their showing such interesting stuff anymore!

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-04-18 17:33:33

Paul Trevor Bale

Definitely in colour, though you may not have had a colour set in 1972. I remember being regularly invaded in early 1970s because I rented a colour set. They were far from everyday until the 80s.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 18 avr. 2017 à 16:36, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-04-18 18:36:25

Hilary Jones

You're right. My dad thought colour was frivolous. As you say I had to go to a friend's if I wanted to see anything important - like the Shadow of the Tower! H

From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 17:33
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Definitely in colour, though you may not have had a colour set in 1972. I remember being regularly invaded in early 1970s because I rented a colour set. They were far from everyday until the 80s.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 18 avr. 2017 à 16:36, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

I saw the original Paul - it was extremely good. I'm not sure if it even had subtitles though and it could have been in black and white. It's what got me hooked on that particular story. H

From: "paul.bale@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 April 2017, 10:41
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Further to my earlier mail the original was made in 1972 and is considered a classic. The remake has some scathing comments on amazon where both versions are on DVD. No idea why the French, who broadcast everything High Definition now, all channels through the aerial, have not put out Blu Rays of so many of their costume dramas! In spite of the presence of Jeanne Moreau and Gerard Depardieu the remake had thumbs down from most. The remake is available in a Dutch edition which has a cover using the English Title of The Accursed Kings, but no information on subtitles, only that it is in French. I must have seen the original on British television. No chance of their showing such interesting stuff anymore!

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-23 15:52:34

Doug Stamate

Hilary, First off, I want to apologize for taking so long in posting my comments I thought I had, but apparently suffered what my sister calls a senior moment'! Hilary wrote: For my sins I've read the 'White Queen' (I make myself read everything). It actually goes absolutely nowhere - it doesn't even go to her death. Doug here: I haven't read it, bit I did Google it, was led to a site titled phillipagregory.com and discovered nothing more than an un-sourced blurb for the volume. For me, that says it all! Hilary continued: However going back to EOM, we're now saying, I think, that until the Croyland Chronicle was found the only source of information that he was dead was John Rous and he was rather vague? But hang on, Rous's great patroness was Anne Beauchamp and wasn't she at Middleham then? So how could such knowledge be that vague? And even if she'd gone on a trip she'd surely know someone there would did feed her the precise information? Doug here: If Edward's death was, as Paul I think imagined it might have been, would there have been much to say about it other than that he had died? The reactions of Richard, the reigning king, and Anne, his wife and a Beauchamp, would have interested Rous more, wouldn't they? Another possibility, less likely in my view, is that Rous was presented with several versions and decided not to write down any of them. As for the overall lack of records, well, paper wouldn't last long, would it? Any letters would likely have disintegrated unless special efforts were taken and who would want to keep a letter just because it mentioned something about that usurping monster Richard III? Other than an historian, that is? The same would also apply to civic records, wouldn't it? Until the development of antiquarianism(?) during the late (very late) 16th century, there'd not be any special efforts made to retain civic records. And, of course, with the destruction of the monasteries and abbeys, their records would also be, if you'll pardon the bad joke, history. Hilary continued: Then we come to Croyland the appropriate section of which again was written after HT took over. Croyland is to me a vindication of HT's seizure of the Crown and there was one person who regularly visited Crowland who would have wanted that vindication and that was MB. Her hand might not have written it but she could have controlled its direction. And being the wife of Richard's top counsellor she would know what would have gone on. Doug here: Your suggestion makes sense, if only in that it would explain the anti-Richard bias, as well as the lack of exact knowledge of what happened during various meetings of the Council. I hardly imagine that Lord Thomas went home, was sat down by his wife and quizzed on what had taken place. More likely he'd mention various topics, some of which would stick in Margaret's memory and some of which wouldn't, while not mentioning other topics at all. Hilary concluded: I find MB to be a basically good and intelligent woman who found herself in the wrong place - her flaw was that she was desperate for her son to come home. I can see her justifying all her plotting by saying that she was helping to right a wrong and get him home, but then in the process he killed an anointed king, which would mean almost certain damnation. The very religious MB would have to justify to herself as much as anyone how and why this came to pass and to do this you twist the information about Richard until you begin to believe it. That's how generations would also believe it. There seems to be so little available that we really can believe. Doug here: Henry was born in 1456 and fled England in 1471. Just how much of the intervening time did he actually spend with his mother? Because, or so it seems to me, it's entirely possible that Margaret, even when trying to arrange a marriage between Henry and EoY, may still have thought of him as a child. By that I mean that, while Margaret may have mentally realized Henry was no longer a child, emotionally he was still the boy she'd last seen all those years ago. Would something such as that help explain her, as you pointed out, desperation to get him back in England? Emotionally, at least as far as Margaret was concerned, Henry was still the boy she'd last seen? And in her desperation to get her child back, Margaret connived at treason against an anointed King, not once, but three times. First, the Hastings' affair; second, during Buckingham's Rebellion; thirdly during 1485. Now, I'm not religious and I often have a very difficult time placing myself in 15th century England, but I have gathered that there most definitely was a religious aspect to kingship and that religious aspect was recognized both by the monarch himself and his subjects. And here's Margaret denying her terrestrial king three times! Might that help explain her later actions? Or is it too out there? Doug

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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-23 17:10:07

ricard1an

Doug, reading your post it occurred to me that if MB was plotting, despite supposedly being in Stanley's "custody" after the Hastings affair, if Richard had won at Bosworth would her lands have been forfeit even if the delightful Thomas had come in on Richard's side? There must have been a reason for Richard to detain Lord Strange and I am sure that he would have had spies all over the country. Could the fact that he might lose MB's lands and money have tipped the balance between Stanley supporting his rightful king or his stepson? Along with the other nobles he would have already have been annoyed by Richard's tendency to reward his Northern followers and to give rights to the lower classes, and of course if you then also take in to account his previous history of fence sitting I suppose Stanley was one to watch. Poor Thomas between a rock and a hard place, who would give more to him his rightful king or his unknown stepson?
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-23 18:37:38

b.eileen25

Regarding MB being desperate for her man cub to be able to return to England.. couldn't she have gone down the route of trying to persuade Richard to let him return? It's seems Richard must have thought highly of her to give her the honour of carrying Anne's train at the coronation or was there another reason for this which has escapes me?. RIchard does also seem to have been a bit of a soft touch at times and quite human.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-23 19:14:47

ricard1an

That has always seemed a bit odd to me. June 13th and she is given in to Stanley's custody because she has presumably been plotting and he receives her lands and then on July 6th she is carrying Anne's train. Also, if I remember rightly wasn't Stanley initially arrested with Hastings and Morton? He must have spun a good line for Richard to make him, I think, Lord Chamberlain.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-23 20:19:27

bronwyn.fraley110

I suspect that having MB carrying Anne,s train may well have been a ruse to keep her at court where he could keep his eye on her.

Bronwyn

-------- Original message --------
From "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
Date: 23/04/2017 19:37 (GMT+01:00)
To
Subject Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-23 22:12:46

b.eileen25

Agree Mary..''tis very odd...if only we knew all the minutiae might make sense of it.
Regarding Stanley..I think Richard may have been between a rock and a hard place with him...maybe trying to keep him onside. At the end of the day though he must have known he was completely untrustworthy because he took his son Lord Strange? in an attempt to make him behave. But to expect Stanley to behave however honourably was pointless...the man had no honour. What a nest of vipers..

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-23 22:45:06

ricard1an

Yes I think that you are right Eileen. Maybe Richard thought if he gave him a position he would do the decent thing and and support him. However Stanley being Stanley would probably always put his own interests first.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-23 23:22:29

A J Hibbard

All of this looks like a management issue to me. Richard came on board and had to make the best he could with the team already in place. We know that he was a fair-minded man, which makes it easy for me to believe that he would only exact the required penalties when the evidence was solid. He also seems to have been observant of the entitlements of rank, so again, I don't think that he would deny someone his or her place in the coronation she-bang without very good reason.

A J

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 1:14 PM, maryfriend@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-24 12:59:53

Paul Trevor Bale

You forget Eileen at the time of Richard's accession MB was married to Lord Stanley who Richard had made Constable in an effort to pull all sides together I can only imagine.Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 23 avr. 2017 à 19:37, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> a écrit :

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

Hilary asked could HT have planted an assassin in the mob that killed Percy. I don't know but I definitely thought that Henry knew it was going to be so dangerous that Percy was extremely unlikely to survive. Neat plan eh?

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-25 11:09:53

nico11238

That is true. None of them were connected in their lifetime to Leicester, but that is Richard's permanent resting place, so reintering Anne and Edwarfld in Leicester would be the only hope of reuniting the family.

Nico

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-25 12:30:33

mariewalsh2003

On Edward's death: I was surprised to return home to find that Annette had posted this on her blog - we were to have published in the September Bulletin.

I will go ahead and publish my own findings on Prince Edward's death in the Bulletin. I'm afraid there is no answer to the burial question, but I do intend to try place Richard's itinerary in the context of other events in order to perhaps move the debate forward a little.

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-25 14:18:07

b.eileen25

Looking forward to that Marie..

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-25 15:51:09

Hilary Jones

Yes please! H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 April 2017, 14:18
Subject: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Looking forward to that Marie..

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-25 20:46:41

justcarol67

Mary wrote:

"Carol do you think that Stanley may have told Richard about the so called "Hastings plot" so that he could get rid of Hastings. I must admit that I had always thought that he had been arrested initially. However, if he wasn't arrested and then made Lord Constable and his wife was given in to his custody whatever was he up to? Do you think he was trying to get into Richard's good books or was there more to it than that?"

Carol responds:

Hi, Mary. I think it was probably Buckingham who told Richard that Hastings, Morton, and Rotherham (and perhaps others) were meeting in each others' houses (Mancini) and whatever other evidence he may have had that didn't make it into the chronicles. As for Stanley (being Stanley), he probably saw Richard as the strongest candidate around (Tudor being nobody and off the radar at the time, Edward V being a child potentially manipulated by the Woodvilles--and, of course, Richard had the qualifications later listed by the Three Estates (Stanley being one of them) in their request to Richard to become king. Richard was a
good soldier with lots of government experience. We forget that he was popular at the time for his victories in Scotland (Stanley had been with him there). And, of course, Richard at that time had a son and heir. I think that Stanley viewed him then (and during Buckingham;s rebellion and the January Parliament) as the man to back. It's only in April 1484 when EoM died and things started falling apart for Richard that men like Stanley (and maybe Northumberland, though I don't think so as Richard still had his Northern ties through Anne) that Stanley may have had second thoughts--especially if his dear wife had shifted her focus to making her son king rather than just bringing him home. Even then, Stanley might have hesitated to back his unknown stepson against an experienced soldier and administrator like Richard. I think in the end (if Thomas Stanley was even present at Bosworth--there's some doubt) that it all came down to who looked likely to win in the end. (As for Lord Stanley's brother, Sir William, he was what I call an Edwardian Yorkist. I think he backed Tudor because he believed the rumor that Richard's nephews were dead and supported HT in the belief that he would marry the supposed "rightful heir," EOY. When he later thought that Perkin Warbeck was or might be Edward IV's younger son, he supported him and was executed for it. A Yorkist collar was found among his possessions at his death.)

It is, of course, impossible to definitively determine motives and personalities of long-dead people who left few letters and no diaries behind to help us figure them out, but based on what evidence we do have, that's what I think--self-interest as Lord Thomas's primary motive, family interest perhaps second; self-interest plus a rather surprising loyalty to E4 for his brother, Sir William. (Sir W. wasn't fond of Richard, whether he thought he had murdered his nephews or not. He called him "old Dick" even though he was about seventeen years older than Richard [estimated birth year 1435]).

Just my interpretation, subject to change if I find reliable counter-evidence.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-25 22:50:55

ricard1an

I can see the logic of what you are saying Carol. I think it is a good thing that we debate and put forward our theories and interpretations.My theory has always been that it was MB doing all the plotting and Stanley was just going along going with her.However, I can see that your interpretation is a definite possibility too and thinking about it Stanley probably wasn't likely to say "yes Margaret, no Margaret, three bags full Margaret" Also someone suggested ( I think that it was Marie) that maybe Stanley was the source of the story that he had been arrested on June 13th. Knowing what we do about Stanley I would think that that is a possibility too. I am also of the opinion that maybe, whoever told Richard about meeting in one another's houses, Hastings was possibly encouraged to join the plotters by possibly MB and Morton. If I remember rightly in Geoff Richardson's "The Deceivers" he suggests that Buckingham was one of the people who were meeting in one another's houses so could he have taken his chance to get rid of Hastings?
Mary

---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote :

Mary wrote:

"Carol do you think that Stanley may have told Richard about the so called "Hastings plot" so that he could get rid of Hastings. I must admit that I had always thought that he had been arrested initially. However, if he wasn't arrested and then made Lord Constable and his wife was given in to his custody whatever was he up to? Do you think he was trying to get into Richard's good books or was there more to it than that?"

Carol responds:

Hi, Mary. I think it was probably Buckingham who told Richard that Hastings, Morton, and Rotherham (and perhaps others) were meeting in each others' houses (Mancini) and whatever other evidence he may have had that didn't make it into the chronicles. As for Stanley (being Stanley), he probably saw Richard as the strongest candidate around (Tudor being nobody and off the radar at the time, Edward V being a child potentially manipulated by the Woodvilles--and, of course, Richard had the qualifications later listed by the Three Estates (Stanley being one of them) in their request to Richard to become king. Richard was a
good soldier with lots of government experience. We forget that he was popular at the time for his victories in Scotland (Stanley had been with him there). And, of course, Richard at that time had a son and heir. I think that Stanley viewed him then (and during Buckingham;s rebellion and the January Parliament) as the man to back. It's only in April 1484 when EoM died and things started falling apart for Richard that men like Stanley (and maybe Northumberland, though I don't think so as Richard still had his Northern ties through Anne) that Stanley may have had second thoughts--especially if his dear wife had shifted her focus to making her son king rather than just bringing him home. Even then, Stanley might have hesitated to back his unknown stepson against an experienced soldier and administrator like Richard. I think in the end (if Thomas Stanley was even present at Bosworth--there's some doubt) that it all came down to who looked likely to win in the end. (As for Lord Stanley's brother, Sir William, he was what I call an Edwardian Yorkist. I think he backed Tudor because he believed the rumor that Richard's nephews were dead and supported HT in the belief that he would marry the supposed "rightful heir," EOY. When he later thought that Perkin Warbeck was or might be Edward IV's younger son, he supported him and was executed for it. A Yorkist collar was found among his possessions at his death.)

It is, of course, impossible to definitively determine motives and personalities of long-dead people who left few letters and no diaries behind to help us figure them out, but based on what evidence we do have, that's what I think--self-interest as Lord Thomas's primary motive, family interest perhaps second; self-interest plus a rather surprising loyalty to E4 for his brother, Sir William. (Sir W. wasn't fond of Richard, whether he thought he had murdered his nephews or not. He called him "old Dick" even though he was about seventeen years older than Richard [estimated birth year 1435]).

Just my interpretation, subject to change if I find reliable counter-evidence.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2017-04-26 00:36:32

Doug Stamate

Hilary wrote: Doug if the latter is the case, and I reckon you indeed have something there, then that must have put him in an interesting position with the Staffords i.e. Buckingham. For the two or three hundred years' before they had both hunted the same territory so to speak, but the Stanleys had come from nowhere whereas the Staffords were of the old elite. I would say that by Richard's time in terms of prolific marriage and influence the Stanleys were beginning to edge ahead. That could indeed explain why, if he felt so strongly about Edward V, he didn't come out and back the Buckingham rebellion. As I've said before, apart from the odd messenger, the hand of MB (or Stanley) is not apparent in 1483. Doug here: If I remember my English history correctly, almost all the kings from William the Conqueror on did their best to prevent over-mighty subjects from consolidating their holdings into too compact a territory. Which is exactly the opposite of Lord Thomas' actions in the northwest. Thus, Lord Thomas wouldn't have any real reason during 1483 to not support Richard. Then there's the little matter of Lord Thomas' wife's involvement, however peripherally, with the Woodvilles, Hastings and Co. If Lord Thomas wasn't involved, and he seemingly wasn't, then he'd be likely to want to show that whatever his wife's actions, he fully supported Richard. However, and if I'm not mistaken, didn't Richard also promote some non-Stanley people in that area, but not until after Buckingham's Rebellion? Here's that fool Buckingham finally out of the way, and now the king is placing roadblocks in the way of Lord Thomas' further consolidating his authority! I rather think such actions on Richard's part just might incline Lord Thomas to move away from his out-right support of Richard to the Stanley's time-honored tradition of fence-sitting. And I also wonder if any odd messenger from MB was perhaps employed in calming things down amongst her affinity, rather than attempting to drum up support for Buckingham? Especially if, as I suspect, Buckingham was aiming at the crown for himself all along regardless of the fairy stories put out about Stafford offering to support HT. Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, of completely legitimate descent from Edward III step aside for Henry Tudor? No way. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-26 10:26:09

Hilary Jones

Hi Carol I seem to remember that Richard as a youngster upset William Stanley when he spoke arrogantly to him - and he never forgot or forgave it? H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 April 2017, 20:46
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Mary wrote:

"Carol do you think that Stanley may have told Richard about the so called "Hastings plot" so that he could get rid of Hastings. I must admit that I had always thought that he had been arrested initially. However, if he wasn't arrested and then made Lord Constable and his wife was given in to his custody whatever was he up to? Do you think he was trying to get into Richard's good books or was there more to it than that?"

Carol responds:

Hi, Mary. I think it was probably Buckingham who told Richard that Hastings, Morton, and Rotherham (and perhaps others) were meeting in each others' houses (Mancini) and whatever other evidence he may have had that didn't make it into the chronicles. As for Stanley (being Stanley), he probably saw Richard as the strongest candidate around (Tudor being nobody and off the radar at the time, Edward V being a child potentially manipulated by the Woodvilles--and, of course, Richard had the qualifications later listed by the Three Estates (Stanley being one of them) in their request to Richard to become king. Richard was a
good soldier with lots of government experience. We forget that he was popular at the time for his victories in Scotland (Stanley had been with him there). And, of course, Richard at that time had a son and heir. I think that Stanley viewed him then (and during Buckingham;s rebellion and the January Parliament) as the man to back. It's only in April 1484 when EoM died and things started falling apart for Richard that men like Stanley (and maybe Northumberland, though I don't think so as Richard still had his Northern ties through Anne) that Stanley may have had second thoughts--especially if his dear wife had shifted her focus to making her son king rather than just bringing him home. Even then, Stanley might have hesitated to back his unknown stepson against an experienced soldier and administrator like Richard. I think in the end (if Thomas Stanley was even present at Bosworth--there's some doubt) that it all came down to who looked likely to win in the end. (As for Lord Stanley's brother, Sir William, he was what I call an Edwardian Yorkist. I think he backed Tudor because he believed the rumor that Richard's nephews were dead and supported HT in the belief that he would marry the supposed "rightful heir," EOY. When he later thought that Perkin Warbeck was or might be Edward IV's younger son, he supported him and was executed for it. A Yorkist collar was found among his possessions at his death.)

It is, of course, impossible to definitively determine motives and personalities of long-dead people who left few letters and no diaries behind to help us figure them out, but based on what evidence we do have, that's what I think--self-interest as Lord Thomas's primary motive, family interest perhaps second; self-interest plus a rather surprising loyalty to E4 for his brother, Sir William. (Sir W. wasn't fond of Richard, whether he thought he had murdered his nephews or not. He called him "old Dick" even though he was about seventeen years older than Richard [estimated birth year 1435]).

Just my interpretation, subject to change if I find reliable counter-evidence.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-26 11:29:32

ricard1an

Was that when Richard was returning to England from Wales when he was Lord of Glamorgan? I think he caught Stanley up to no good maybe somewhere in Mid Wales. Can't remember the details. Richard carried on somewhere further north and Stanley immediately turned around and high tailed it to London to complain to Edward. When Richard eventually got back to London Edward appeared to support Stanley.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-26 12:51:59

Hilary Jones

Yes that's how I vaguely recall it too. The Stanleys always seemed to like to make trouble for Richard. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 26 April 2017, 11:29
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

Was that when Richard was returning to England from Wales when he was Lord of Glamorgan? I think he caught Stanley up to no good maybe somewhere in Mid Wales. Can't remember the details. Richard carried on somewhere further north and Stanley immediately turned around and high tailed it to London to complain to Edward. When Richard eventually got back to London Edward appeared to support Stanley.
Mary

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-26 12:53:27

A J Hibbard

Even worse. You'd disturb the remains of two people who are buried where Richard intended them to be buried, even if temporarily, to have them joined with Richard's in a place that he never intended to be buried.
A J
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:09 AM, nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-26 19:06:10

justcarol67

Mary wrote:

"Also someone suggested ( I think that it was Marie) that maybe Stanley was the source of the story that he had been arrested on June 13th. Knowing what we do about Stanley I would think that that is a possibility too. I am also of the opinion that maybe, whoever told Richard about meeting in one another's houses, Hastings was possibly encouraged to join the plotters by possibly MB and Morton."

Carol responds:

I agree about Stanley being the source of the story that he was arrested along with Morton et al. And I suspect it was Morton who played on Hastings's discontent at being displaced by Buckingham as well as any antipathy the two might have felt for each other. But, of course, that's only my sense of the people and their respective circumstances. I also think that the tension and plotting began before Stillington's revelation about the precontract and may have had nothing to do with Richard's supposed desire to be king. After all, preparations for the coronation of E5 were still being made when Hastings was executed, and EW released her younger son to Richard after that date. Too much discussion of the Protectorate (from Croyland and Mancini to present-day historians) is made from hindsight (and assumptions based on hindsight that become "facts" in the mind of the historian).

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-26 19:06:24

mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

Hi Carol I seem to remember that Richard as a youngster upset William Stanley when he spoke arrogantly to him - and he never forgot or forgave it?

Marie:

There is no past incident known of between Richard and Sir William Stanley, but he did have an armed spat with Thomas Stanley in March 1470. Kendall put this down to his having caught Stanley up to no good politically, and Mike Jones and David Hipshon say Richard was supporting the Harringtons as he is known to have been at Hornby on one occasion (Hornby being at that time, beseiged by Stanley on the King's orders to get Sir James Harrington out). But the proclamation forbidding people to get involved in Richard's dispute with Stanley suggests it was a) a dispute between the two of them, not simply Richard's support of the Harringtons, and b) not due to any treasonous activity by Stanley.

Again, I recommend that same article by Anne Sutton, which shows that Richard had gone to the north-west to take receipt of Duchy properties he had been granted by King Edward the previous May and the revenues of which Stanley had been withholding from him.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-26 19:54:45

justcarol67

Hilary wrote:

"Hi Carol I seem to remember that Richard as a youngster upset William Stanley when he spoke arrogantly to him - and he never forgot or forgave it?"

Carol responds:

My memory of that incident comes from Sharon Kay Penman. Delightful as she is, I won't quote her as an authority. Does anyone (say, Marie) know Penman's source?

My thought is that Stanley wouldn't let an embarrassing little incident from the past hold him back from success under Richard if he thought Richard were likely to come out the winner (as he undoubtedly did at Stony Stratford and later). Everything from Richard's coronation to his Parliament looked promising--until the death of his son ten months or so into his reign. And Stanley would have wanted, as we know, to stand by the winner.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-04-27 11:22:11

Paul Trevor Bale

That us doing Richard a disfavour. Can't ever imagine Richard speaking arrogantly. There WAS a big argument between Richard and Thomas over a property the Harringtons owned and Stanley felt belonged to him. Can't recall details off hand but it had something to do with marriage dowry I think. Anyway Richard took Harrington'sside, who was in the right over the claim, and he was fiercely loyal to Richard from then on, while Stanley, self interest was all, so..Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 26 avr. 2017 à 20:54, justcarol67@... [] <> a écrit :

Hilary wrote:

"Hi Carol I seem to remember that Richard as a youngster upset William Stanley when he spoke arrogantly to him - and he never forgot or forgave it?"

Carol responds:

My memory of that incident comes from Sharon Kay Penman. Delightful as she is, I won't quote her as an authority. Does anyone (say, Marie) know Penman's source?

My thought is that Stanley wouldn't let an embarrassing little incident from the past hold him back from success under Richard if he thought Richard were likely to come out the winner (as he undoubtedly did at Stony Stratford and later). Everything from Richard's coronation to his Parliament looked promising--until the death of his son ten months or so into his reign. And Stanley would have wanted, as we know, to stand by the winner.

Carol

Re: Edward of Middleham's burial place

2017-04-27 15:10:34

Nicholas Brown

Hi AJ,
I don't take exhuming bodies lightly, nor do I believe it should be done for dna testing or scientific research for the sake of it, but reburials do happen and always have. I was only suggesting it to reunite a family who are separated in far flung places. It would have to be Leicester because Richard is there, and after the very high profile reburial, as far as I know the case for York is closed and the Plantagenet Alliance is no longer active.
Nico

On Wednesday, 26 April 2017, 12:53, "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <> wrote:

Even worse. You'd disturb the remains of two people who are buried where Richard intended them to be buried, even if temporarily, to have them joined with Richard's in a place that he never intended to be buried.
A J
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:09 AM, nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
That is true. None of them were connected in their lifetime to Leicester, but that is Richard's permanent resting place, so reintering Anne and Edwarfld in Leicester would be the only hope of reuniting the family.

Nico

Richard III on Amazon

As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.