The Sons of Edward
The Sons of Edward
2006-02-15 21:58:28
Eileen wrote:
>I did myself, a very long time ago, tinker with the idea that Bucks had done it but it just
>doesnt add up. For example I do understand Richard would be in a most difficult position
>if Bucks had done it & possibly concluded the least said the better but there would have
>been an inner circle of people who would have known. The persons who had looked after
>the princes at the Tower, would have noticed something was amiss -( the two little empty
>beds with the indents on the pillows - aaaaah) likewise I am sure the story would have
>been discussed with Richards council, what to do for the best etc., his closest freinds,
>Jocky of Norfolk, Ratcliffe, Lovell et al, R's wife, last but not least La Woodville would have
>been enlightened & her surviving oldest son. But what happen years later when in Bacon's
>words the news that one of Edwards sons was coming to claim his inheritance "came
>blazing and thundering over into England" was that Sir William Stanley (of all people!) said
>he would not fight Warbeck if he indeed was one of Edwards sons ! Now this tells me that
>persons such as Stanley, who surely would have been in the position to know if Bucks
>had outed the boys, not only did not have a clue as to where they were but in fact believed
>it possible that Warbeck could have been the youngest.
>
>Henry T I also discount because it is obvious he didnt have a clue either. Plagued with
>imposters (genuine or not) if he, himself. had been responsible he would have produced
>the bodies at some later stage, faking shock and horror etc., & laying the responsibility
>down to Richard. Anyone with a brain the size of a pea would have done so. But he didnt
>because he didnt know.
>
>La Woodville knew one of her sons at least had survived - that is the only reason could
>have tempted her to take part in a rebellion that would have ousted her own daughter
>from the throne if it had been successful.
>
>Its about time they took another look at those old bones in the Abbey - couldnt the dna be
>checked with King Edwards or La Woodvilles?
>Eileen
Well said! That sums things up very nicely. The point about William Stanley has always spoken volumes to me--first of all, for what it says about his loyalty to Edward IV, and second for what it says, or doesn't day, about what was known about the sons of Edward and Elizabeth Woodville. I too have grappled with whether or not they survived 1483-85, and if they did not concluded it must have been Buck or Tudor who did away with them. But in the end, postures like E. Woodville's and Stanley's, all the mystery and contradictions in Tyrrel's "confession" combined with so many other factors is beginning to convince me that at least one did survive into adulthood.
And yes, why not do DNA testing on the bones if at all possible???
MargaretA
>I did myself, a very long time ago, tinker with the idea that Bucks had done it but it just
>doesnt add up. For example I do understand Richard would be in a most difficult position
>if Bucks had done it & possibly concluded the least said the better but there would have
>been an inner circle of people who would have known. The persons who had looked after
>the princes at the Tower, would have noticed something was amiss -( the two little empty
>beds with the indents on the pillows - aaaaah) likewise I am sure the story would have
>been discussed with Richards council, what to do for the best etc., his closest freinds,
>Jocky of Norfolk, Ratcliffe, Lovell et al, R's wife, last but not least La Woodville would have
>been enlightened & her surviving oldest son. But what happen years later when in Bacon's
>words the news that one of Edwards sons was coming to claim his inheritance "came
>blazing and thundering over into England" was that Sir William Stanley (of all people!) said
>he would not fight Warbeck if he indeed was one of Edwards sons ! Now this tells me that
>persons such as Stanley, who surely would have been in the position to know if Bucks
>had outed the boys, not only did not have a clue as to where they were but in fact believed
>it possible that Warbeck could have been the youngest.
>
>Henry T I also discount because it is obvious he didnt have a clue either. Plagued with
>imposters (genuine or not) if he, himself. had been responsible he would have produced
>the bodies at some later stage, faking shock and horror etc., & laying the responsibility
>down to Richard. Anyone with a brain the size of a pea would have done so. But he didnt
>because he didnt know.
>
>La Woodville knew one of her sons at least had survived - that is the only reason could
>have tempted her to take part in a rebellion that would have ousted her own daughter
>from the throne if it had been successful.
>
>Its about time they took another look at those old bones in the Abbey - couldnt the dna be
>checked with King Edwards or La Woodvilles?
>Eileen
Well said! That sums things up very nicely. The point about William Stanley has always spoken volumes to me--first of all, for what it says about his loyalty to Edward IV, and second for what it says, or doesn't day, about what was known about the sons of Edward and Elizabeth Woodville. I too have grappled with whether or not they survived 1483-85, and if they did not concluded it must have been Buck or Tudor who did away with them. But in the end, postures like E. Woodville's and Stanley's, all the mystery and contradictions in Tyrrel's "confession" combined with so many other factors is beginning to convince me that at least one did survive into adulthood.
And yes, why not do DNA testing on the bones if at all possible???
MargaretA
Re: The Sons of Edward
2006-02-16 00:18:51
--- In , Margaret Anderson <megander@...>
wrote:
>
> >
> Well said! That sums things up very nicely. The point about William Stanley has always
spoken volumes to me--first of all, for what it says about his loyalty to Edward IV, and
second for what it says, or doesn't day, about what was known about the sons of Edward
and Elizabeth Woodville. I too have grappled with whether or not they survived 1483-85,
and if they did not concluded it must have been Buck or Tudor who did away with them.
But in the end, postures like E. Woodville's and Stanley's, all the mystery and
contradictions in Tyrrel's "confession" combined with so many other factors is beginning
to convince me that at least one did survive into adulthood.
Thanks - can I add as well whatever had occurred with the princes, be it they were
murdered or had been spirited away, Bucks would have known - also he would have
known who was responsible, be it himself or Richard. Dont you think he would have
passed this on to Morton (Morton!! wherever you find plotting and trouble there will you
find this slimey git!) during one of their cosy chats during the time they spent together in
Wales. Following on from that dont you think Morton then would have relayed that most
important of facts to Henry Weasle when he escaped and joined him in France? When
Henry got control of the Tower after Bosworth you think he would have not left any stone
unturned (if he had been informed of the fact that the boys had been murdered) to find
their bodies? How strange in the Bill of Attainder the only accusation that could be linked
to the murder of the boys was " ....the shedding of infants blood" - which seems rather
wishy washy to me - we are after all talking about a child king and his brother. Had Henry
known they really were dead/murdered and by whom he would have made it absolutely
clear they were exactly that - dead.
Eileen
>
> And yes, why not do DNA testing on the bones if at all possible???
>
> MargaretA
>
wrote:
>
> >
> Well said! That sums things up very nicely. The point about William Stanley has always
spoken volumes to me--first of all, for what it says about his loyalty to Edward IV, and
second for what it says, or doesn't day, about what was known about the sons of Edward
and Elizabeth Woodville. I too have grappled with whether or not they survived 1483-85,
and if they did not concluded it must have been Buck or Tudor who did away with them.
But in the end, postures like E. Woodville's and Stanley's, all the mystery and
contradictions in Tyrrel's "confession" combined with so many other factors is beginning
to convince me that at least one did survive into adulthood.
Thanks - can I add as well whatever had occurred with the princes, be it they were
murdered or had been spirited away, Bucks would have known - also he would have
known who was responsible, be it himself or Richard. Dont you think he would have
passed this on to Morton (Morton!! wherever you find plotting and trouble there will you
find this slimey git!) during one of their cosy chats during the time they spent together in
Wales. Following on from that dont you think Morton then would have relayed that most
important of facts to Henry Weasle when he escaped and joined him in France? When
Henry got control of the Tower after Bosworth you think he would have not left any stone
unturned (if he had been informed of the fact that the boys had been murdered) to find
their bodies? How strange in the Bill of Attainder the only accusation that could be linked
to the murder of the boys was " ....the shedding of infants blood" - which seems rather
wishy washy to me - we are after all talking about a child king and his brother. Had Henry
known they really were dead/murdered and by whom he would have made it absolutely
clear they were exactly that - dead.
Eileen
>
> And yes, why not do DNA testing on the bones if at all possible???
>
> MargaretA
>
Re: The Sons of Edward
2006-02-16 00:40:39
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Margaret Anderson
<megander@>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > Well said! That sums things up very nicely. The point about
William Stanley has always
> spoken volumes to me--first of all, for what it says about his
loyalty to Edward IV, and
> second for what it says, or doesn't day, about what was known about
the sons of Edward
> and Elizabeth Woodville. I too have grappled with whether or not
they survived 1483-85,
> and if they did not concluded it must have been Buck or Tudor who
did away with them.
> But in the end, postures like E. Woodville's and Stanley's, all the
mystery and
> contradictions in Tyrrel's "confession" combined with so many other
factors is beginning
> to convince me that at least one did survive into adulthood.
>
> Thanks - can I add as well whatever had occurred with the princes,
be it they were
> murdered or had been spirited away, Bucks would have known - also
he would have
> known who was responsible, be it himself or Richard. Dont you
think he would have
> passed this on to Morton (Morton!! wherever you find plotting and
trouble there will you
> find this slimey git!) during one of their cosy chats during the
time they spent together in
> Wales. Following on from that dont you think Morton then would
have relayed that most
> important of facts to Henry Weasle when he escaped and joined him
in France? When
> Henry got control of the Tower after Bosworth you think he would
have not left any stone
> unturned (if he had been informed of the fact that the boys had
been murdered) to find
> their bodies? How strange in the Bill of Attainder the only
accusation that could be linked
> to the murder of the boys was " ....the shedding of infants blood" -
which seems rather
> wishy washy to me - we are after all talking about a child king and
his brother. Had Henry
> known they really were dead/murdered and by whom he would have made
it absolutely
> clear they were exactly that - dead.
> Eileen
> >
> > And yes, why not do DNA testing on the bones if at all
possible???
> >
> > MargaretA
I agree with all these observations. I'm inclined to think that the
full story was probably quite complicated. But if Buckingham had
killed them both, yes, Richard would have wrung it out of him, Morton
would have known. Henry VII would not have been in such doubt. . .
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Margaret Anderson
<megander@>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > Well said! That sums things up very nicely. The point about
William Stanley has always
> spoken volumes to me--first of all, for what it says about his
loyalty to Edward IV, and
> second for what it says, or doesn't day, about what was known about
the sons of Edward
> and Elizabeth Woodville. I too have grappled with whether or not
they survived 1483-85,
> and if they did not concluded it must have been Buck or Tudor who
did away with them.
> But in the end, postures like E. Woodville's and Stanley's, all the
mystery and
> contradictions in Tyrrel's "confession" combined with so many other
factors is beginning
> to convince me that at least one did survive into adulthood.
>
> Thanks - can I add as well whatever had occurred with the princes,
be it they were
> murdered or had been spirited away, Bucks would have known - also
he would have
> known who was responsible, be it himself or Richard. Dont you
think he would have
> passed this on to Morton (Morton!! wherever you find plotting and
trouble there will you
> find this slimey git!) during one of their cosy chats during the
time they spent together in
> Wales. Following on from that dont you think Morton then would
have relayed that most
> important of facts to Henry Weasle when he escaped and joined him
in France? When
> Henry got control of the Tower after Bosworth you think he would
have not left any stone
> unturned (if he had been informed of the fact that the boys had
been murdered) to find
> their bodies? How strange in the Bill of Attainder the only
accusation that could be linked
> to the murder of the boys was " ....the shedding of infants blood" -
which seems rather
> wishy washy to me - we are after all talking about a child king and
his brother. Had Henry
> known they really were dead/murdered and by whom he would have made
it absolutely
> clear they were exactly that - dead.
> Eileen
> >
> > And yes, why not do DNA testing on the bones if at all
possible???
> >
> > MargaretA
I agree with all these observations. I'm inclined to think that the
full story was probably quite complicated. But if Buckingham had
killed them both, yes, Richard would have wrung it out of him, Morton
would have known. Henry VII would not have been in such doubt. . .
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: The Sons of Edward
2006-02-16 05:26:50
eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote: --- In , Margaret Anderson <megander@...>
wrote:
>
> >
> Well said! That sums things up very nicely. The point about William Stanley has always
spoken volumes to me--first of all, for what it says about his loyalty to Edward IV, and
second for what it says, or doesn't day, about what was known about the sons of Edward
and Elizabeth Woodville. I too have grappled with whether or not they survived 1483-85,
and if they did not concluded it must have been Buck or Tudor who did away with them.
But in the end, postures like E. Woodville's and Stanley's, all the mystery and
contradictions in Tyrrel's "confession" combined with so many other factors is beginning
to convince me that at least one did survive into adulthood.
Thanks - can I add as well whatever had occurred with the princes, be it they were
murdered or had been spirited away, Bucks would have known - also he would have
known who was responsible, be it himself or Richard.
Dont you think he would have
passed this on to Morton (Morton!! wherever you find plotting and trouble there will you
find this slimey git!) during one of their cosy chats during the time they spent together in
Wales.
---------------
no, i don't think buckingham would have shared the knowledge he was responsible for the princes.
what purpose would it serve him to do so? idle chit-chat? highly unlikely. murderers aren't known to brag about their deeds. he would need morton to trust him, not be cautious around him.
moreover IF the rebellion was being planned to place tudor on the throne, he sure wouldn't want his foul play coming back to haunt him at a later time.
these were dangerous times, you did not reveal your full hand. it could cost you more than just your honour.
moreover, if buckingham knew richard HAD done the deed..he would have blurted it out to all..loud and clear for everyone to know..it would have only assisted him in his cause. morton would have told tudor and pretenders would have never gotten off the ground.
it would be more than whispers and rumours in europe and throughout the land.
richard killing the princes is a tudor invention. it could have been laid at buckingham's feet, but it was more politick to demonise richard.
---------------------
Following on from that dont you think Morton then would have relayed that most
important of facts to Henry Weasle when he escaped and joined him in France? When
Henry got control of the Tower after Bosworth you think he would have not left any stone
unturned (if he had been informed of the fact that the boys had been murdered) to find
their bodies? How strange in the Bill of Attainder the only accusation that could be linked
to the murder of the boys was " ....the shedding of infants blood" - which seems rather
wishy washy to me - we are after all talking about a child king and his brother.
--------
wrong..ed5 and richard were illegitimate high born children. they only thing they had going for them in richard's court, is they were blood relatives..but relatives with no power. they could not inherit land. kind actions of wealthy family members would make their way in life..had they survived.
they were merely footnotes in history, and would have remained so if richard had not been defeated at bosworth.
----------------
Had Henry
known they really were dead/murdered and by whom he would have made it absolutely
clear they were exactly that - dead.
--------
james tyrrell who stands accused of the murder of the princes, pardoned by tudor on a couple of occassions..and then he's finally tortured to confess what he knows about the princes in 1502.
arthur tudor dies april 02, 1502, tyrell dies may 6, 1502.
after the simnel and warbeck..h7 NEEDED to be sure the boys were dead. he only had one more son to continue his dynasty.
tyrell confesses to the death of the boys under torture. moore "presents the offical version". but the confession is not recorded, or it didn't survive.
why would such an important document not survive? logic says because it conflicted with the offical version.
tyrrell knew the boys were dead. but he did not know exactly where their remains were. he knew they had been moved..and again moore presents us with the offical version.
roslyn
Eileen
>
> And yes, why not do DNA testing on the bones if at all possible???
>
> MargaretA
>
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
wrote:
>
> >
> Well said! That sums things up very nicely. The point about William Stanley has always
spoken volumes to me--first of all, for what it says about his loyalty to Edward IV, and
second for what it says, or doesn't day, about what was known about the sons of Edward
and Elizabeth Woodville. I too have grappled with whether or not they survived 1483-85,
and if they did not concluded it must have been Buck or Tudor who did away with them.
But in the end, postures like E. Woodville's and Stanley's, all the mystery and
contradictions in Tyrrel's "confession" combined with so many other factors is beginning
to convince me that at least one did survive into adulthood.
Thanks - can I add as well whatever had occurred with the princes, be it they were
murdered or had been spirited away, Bucks would have known - also he would have
known who was responsible, be it himself or Richard.
Dont you think he would have
passed this on to Morton (Morton!! wherever you find plotting and trouble there will you
find this slimey git!) during one of their cosy chats during the time they spent together in
Wales.
---------------
no, i don't think buckingham would have shared the knowledge he was responsible for the princes.
what purpose would it serve him to do so? idle chit-chat? highly unlikely. murderers aren't known to brag about their deeds. he would need morton to trust him, not be cautious around him.
moreover IF the rebellion was being planned to place tudor on the throne, he sure wouldn't want his foul play coming back to haunt him at a later time.
these were dangerous times, you did not reveal your full hand. it could cost you more than just your honour.
moreover, if buckingham knew richard HAD done the deed..he would have blurted it out to all..loud and clear for everyone to know..it would have only assisted him in his cause. morton would have told tudor and pretenders would have never gotten off the ground.
it would be more than whispers and rumours in europe and throughout the land.
richard killing the princes is a tudor invention. it could have been laid at buckingham's feet, but it was more politick to demonise richard.
---------------------
Following on from that dont you think Morton then would have relayed that most
important of facts to Henry Weasle when he escaped and joined him in France? When
Henry got control of the Tower after Bosworth you think he would have not left any stone
unturned (if he had been informed of the fact that the boys had been murdered) to find
their bodies? How strange in the Bill of Attainder the only accusation that could be linked
to the murder of the boys was " ....the shedding of infants blood" - which seems rather
wishy washy to me - we are after all talking about a child king and his brother.
--------
wrong..ed5 and richard were illegitimate high born children. they only thing they had going for them in richard's court, is they were blood relatives..but relatives with no power. they could not inherit land. kind actions of wealthy family members would make their way in life..had they survived.
they were merely footnotes in history, and would have remained so if richard had not been defeated at bosworth.
----------------
Had Henry
known they really were dead/murdered and by whom he would have made it absolutely
clear they were exactly that - dead.
--------
james tyrrell who stands accused of the murder of the princes, pardoned by tudor on a couple of occassions..and then he's finally tortured to confess what he knows about the princes in 1502.
arthur tudor dies april 02, 1502, tyrell dies may 6, 1502.
after the simnel and warbeck..h7 NEEDED to be sure the boys were dead. he only had one more son to continue his dynasty.
tyrell confesses to the death of the boys under torture. moore "presents the offical version". but the confession is not recorded, or it didn't survive.
why would such an important document not survive? logic says because it conflicted with the offical version.
tyrrell knew the boys were dead. but he did not know exactly where their remains were. he knew they had been moved..and again moore presents us with the offical version.
roslyn
Eileen
>
> And yes, why not do DNA testing on the bones if at all possible???
>
> MargaretA
>
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: The Sons of Edward
2006-02-16 18:57:32
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote: --- In , >
>> ---------------
>
> Following on from that dont you think Morton then would have relayed that most
> important of facts to Henry Weasle when he escaped and joined him in France? When
> Henry got control of the Tower after Bosworth you think he would have not left any
stone
> unturned (if he had been informed of the fact that the boys had been murdered) to find
> their bodies? How strange in the Bill of Attainder the only accusation that could be
linked
> to the murder of the boys was " ....the shedding of infants blood" - which seems rather
> wishy washy to me - we are after all talking about a child king and his brother.
>
> --------
> wrong..ed5 and richard were illegitimate high born children. they only thing they had
going for them in richard's court, is they were blood relatives..but relatives with no power.
they could not inherit land. kind actions of wealthy family members would make their way
in life..had they survived.
Wrong? No I dont think I am wrong Roslyn - although I not enirely sure what part of my
posting you are saying is wrong/dismissing - probably the whole of it - but if it is re the
importance of the possibility of the two ex-royal children being murdered well I think it
was of enormous importance both to Henry and Richard. Titulus Regius which delcared
the boys illegitamacy could be repealed at any time . Richard probably lost a lot of
support because of the rumours spread that he had murdered his nephews. It was a
constant thorn in Henrys side that he did not know the truth about their disappearance.
Catherine of Aragons parents would not consent to the marriage of their daughter to
Henrys son until the thorny problem of the Plantagents had been sorted. Not only in
England but Europe too. Far from being 'merely footnotes' in history there were rebellions
mounted in their names not to mention William Stanley losing his head because he
mentioned he would never fight Warbeck if he was indeed the son of Edward.
I see you say yourself in a later posting "the murder of royal blood would be of significant
importance to the assorted royal houses through Europe" - come on you cant have it both
ways
Eileen
>
> they were merely footnotes in history, and would have remained so if richard had not
been defeated at bosworth.
>
> ----------------
> Had Henry
> known they really were dead/murdered and by whom he would have made it absolutely
> clear they were exactly that - dead.
> --------
> james tyrrell who stands accused of the murder of the princes, pardoned by tudor on a
couple of occassions..and then he's finally tortured to confess what he knows about the
princes in 1502.
>
> arthur tudor dies april 02, 1502, tyrell dies may 6, 1502.
>
> after the simnel and warbeck..h7 NEEDED to be sure the boys were dead. he only had
one more son to continue his dynasty.
>
> tyrell confesses to the death of the boys under torture. moore "presents the offical
version". but the confession is not recorded, or it didn't survive.
>
> why would such an important document not survive? logic says because it conflicted
with the offical version.
>
> tyrrell knew the boys were dead. but he did not know exactly where their remains
were. he knew they had been moved..and again moore presents us with the offical version.
>
> roslyn
>
> Eileen
> >
> > And yes, why not do DNA testing on the bones if at all possible???
> >
> > MargaretA
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom
United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote: --- In , >
>> ---------------
>
> Following on from that dont you think Morton then would have relayed that most
> important of facts to Henry Weasle when he escaped and joined him in France? When
> Henry got control of the Tower after Bosworth you think he would have not left any
stone
> unturned (if he had been informed of the fact that the boys had been murdered) to find
> their bodies? How strange in the Bill of Attainder the only accusation that could be
linked
> to the murder of the boys was " ....the shedding of infants blood" - which seems rather
> wishy washy to me - we are after all talking about a child king and his brother.
>
> --------
> wrong..ed5 and richard were illegitimate high born children. they only thing they had
going for them in richard's court, is they were blood relatives..but relatives with no power.
they could not inherit land. kind actions of wealthy family members would make their way
in life..had they survived.
Wrong? No I dont think I am wrong Roslyn - although I not enirely sure what part of my
posting you are saying is wrong/dismissing - probably the whole of it - but if it is re the
importance of the possibility of the two ex-royal children being murdered well I think it
was of enormous importance both to Henry and Richard. Titulus Regius which delcared
the boys illegitamacy could be repealed at any time . Richard probably lost a lot of
support because of the rumours spread that he had murdered his nephews. It was a
constant thorn in Henrys side that he did not know the truth about their disappearance.
Catherine of Aragons parents would not consent to the marriage of their daughter to
Henrys son until the thorny problem of the Plantagents had been sorted. Not only in
England but Europe too. Far from being 'merely footnotes' in history there were rebellions
mounted in their names not to mention William Stanley losing his head because he
mentioned he would never fight Warbeck if he was indeed the son of Edward.
I see you say yourself in a later posting "the murder of royal blood would be of significant
importance to the assorted royal houses through Europe" - come on you cant have it both
ways
Eileen
>
> they were merely footnotes in history, and would have remained so if richard had not
been defeated at bosworth.
>
> ----------------
> Had Henry
> known they really were dead/murdered and by whom he would have made it absolutely
> clear they were exactly that - dead.
> --------
> james tyrrell who stands accused of the murder of the princes, pardoned by tudor on a
couple of occassions..and then he's finally tortured to confess what he knows about the
princes in 1502.
>
> arthur tudor dies april 02, 1502, tyrell dies may 6, 1502.
>
> after the simnel and warbeck..h7 NEEDED to be sure the boys were dead. he only had
one more son to continue his dynasty.
>
> tyrell confesses to the death of the boys under torture. moore "presents the offical
version". but the confession is not recorded, or it didn't survive.
>
> why would such an important document not survive? logic says because it conflicted
with the offical version.
>
> tyrrell knew the boys were dead. but he did not know exactly where their remains
were. he knew they had been moved..and again moore presents us with the offical version.
>
> roslyn
>
> Eileen
> >
> > And yes, why not do DNA testing on the bones if at all possible???
> >
> > MargaretA
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom
United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: The Sons of Edward
2006-02-16 19:17:19
eileen..consider..if you wanted to downplay the end of the princes..but wanted it recorded..how would you state it in a public document?
diplomacy was a key word. just enough info, without revealing matters of state.
rumours were circulating..and such rumours would be of important to royal houses, and chroniclers.
what is the date of the attaintment..and what is the date of the spanish betrothal negotiations? when were the rebellions mounted? all after the fact. ergo, at the time of the attaintment..the princes were simply a footnote in history.
most assuredly they have become significant, because richard lost bosworth. and all the events that occurred afterwards.
i look directly at what is occuring when a document is written..not the known events afterwards...these people didn't have crystal balls to predict the future..they dealt in real time.
roslyn
eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote: --- In , >
>> ---------------
>
> Following on from that dont you think Morton then would have relayed that most
> important of facts to Henry Weasle when he escaped and joined him in France? When
> Henry got control of the Tower after Bosworth you think he would have not left any
stone
> unturned (if he had been informed of the fact that the boys had been murdered) to find
> their bodies? How strange in the Bill of Attainder the only accusation that could be
linked
> to the murder of the boys was " ....the shedding of infants blood" - which seems rather
> wishy washy to me - we are after all talking about a child king and his brother.
>
> --------
> wrong..ed5 and richard were illegitimate high born children. they only thing they had
going for them in richard's court, is they were blood relatives..but relatives with no power.
they could not inherit land. kind actions of wealthy family members would make their way
in life..had they survived.
Wrong? No I dont think I am wrong Roslyn - although I not enirely sure what part of my
posting you are saying is wrong/dismissing - probably the whole of it - but if it is re the
importance of the possibility of the two ex-royal children being murdered well I think it
was of enormous importance both to Henry and Richard. Titulus Regius which delcared
the boys illegitamacy could be repealed at any time . Richard probably lost a lot of
support because of the rumours spread that he had murdered his nephews. It was a
constant thorn in Henrys side that he did not know the truth about their disappearance.
Catherine of Aragons parents would not consent to the marriage of their daughter to
Henrys son until the thorny problem of the Plantagents had been sorted. Not only in
England but Europe too. Far from being 'merely footnotes' in history there were rebellions
mounted in their names not to mention William Stanley losing his head because he
mentioned he would never fight Warbeck if he was indeed the son of Edward.
I see you say yourself in a later posting "the murder of royal blood would be of significant
importance to the assorted royal houses through Europe" - come on you cant have it both
ways
Eileen
>
> they were merely footnotes in history, and would have remained so if richard had not
been defeated at bosworth.
>
> ----------------
> Had Henry
> known they really were dead/murdered and by whom he would have made it absolutely
> clear they were exactly that - dead.
> --------
> james tyrrell who stands accused of the murder of the princes, pardoned by tudor on a
couple of occassions..and then he's finally tortured to confess what he knows about the
princes in 1502.
>
> arthur tudor dies april 02, 1502, tyrell dies may 6, 1502.
>
> after the simnel and warbeck..h7 NEEDED to be sure the boys were dead. he only had
one more son to continue his dynasty.
>
> tyrell confesses to the death of the boys under torture. moore "presents the offical
version". but the confession is not recorded, or it didn't survive.
>
> why would such an important document not survive? logic says because it conflicted
with the offical version.
>
> tyrrell knew the boys were dead. but he did not know exactly where their remains
were. he knew they had been moved..and again moore presents us with the offical version.
>
> roslyn
>
> Eileen
> >
> > And yes, why not do DNA testing on the bones if at all possible???
> >
> > MargaretA
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom
United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
diplomacy was a key word. just enough info, without revealing matters of state.
rumours were circulating..and such rumours would be of important to royal houses, and chroniclers.
what is the date of the attaintment..and what is the date of the spanish betrothal negotiations? when were the rebellions mounted? all after the fact. ergo, at the time of the attaintment..the princes were simply a footnote in history.
most assuredly they have become significant, because richard lost bosworth. and all the events that occurred afterwards.
i look directly at what is occuring when a document is written..not the known events afterwards...these people didn't have crystal balls to predict the future..they dealt in real time.
roslyn
eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote: --- In , >
>> ---------------
>
> Following on from that dont you think Morton then would have relayed that most
> important of facts to Henry Weasle when he escaped and joined him in France? When
> Henry got control of the Tower after Bosworth you think he would have not left any
stone
> unturned (if he had been informed of the fact that the boys had been murdered) to find
> their bodies? How strange in the Bill of Attainder the only accusation that could be
linked
> to the murder of the boys was " ....the shedding of infants blood" - which seems rather
> wishy washy to me - we are after all talking about a child king and his brother.
>
> --------
> wrong..ed5 and richard were illegitimate high born children. they only thing they had
going for them in richard's court, is they were blood relatives..but relatives with no power.
they could not inherit land. kind actions of wealthy family members would make their way
in life..had they survived.
Wrong? No I dont think I am wrong Roslyn - although I not enirely sure what part of my
posting you are saying is wrong/dismissing - probably the whole of it - but if it is re the
importance of the possibility of the two ex-royal children being murdered well I think it
was of enormous importance both to Henry and Richard. Titulus Regius which delcared
the boys illegitamacy could be repealed at any time . Richard probably lost a lot of
support because of the rumours spread that he had murdered his nephews. It was a
constant thorn in Henrys side that he did not know the truth about their disappearance.
Catherine of Aragons parents would not consent to the marriage of their daughter to
Henrys son until the thorny problem of the Plantagents had been sorted. Not only in
England but Europe too. Far from being 'merely footnotes' in history there were rebellions
mounted in their names not to mention William Stanley losing his head because he
mentioned he would never fight Warbeck if he was indeed the son of Edward.
I see you say yourself in a later posting "the murder of royal blood would be of significant
importance to the assorted royal houses through Europe" - come on you cant have it both
ways
Eileen
>
> they were merely footnotes in history, and would have remained so if richard had not
been defeated at bosworth.
>
> ----------------
> Had Henry
> known they really were dead/murdered and by whom he would have made it absolutely
> clear they were exactly that - dead.
> --------
> james tyrrell who stands accused of the murder of the princes, pardoned by tudor on a
couple of occassions..and then he's finally tortured to confess what he knows about the
princes in 1502.
>
> arthur tudor dies april 02, 1502, tyrell dies may 6, 1502.
>
> after the simnel and warbeck..h7 NEEDED to be sure the boys were dead. he only had
one more son to continue his dynasty.
>
> tyrell confesses to the death of the boys under torture. moore "presents the offical
version". but the confession is not recorded, or it didn't survive.
>
> why would such an important document not survive? logic says because it conflicted
with the offical version.
>
> tyrrell knew the boys were dead. but he did not know exactly where their remains
were. he knew they had been moved..and again moore presents us with the offical version.
>
> roslyn
>
> Eileen
> >
> > And yes, why not do DNA testing on the bones if at all possible???
> >
> > MargaretA
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom
United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: The Sons of Edward
2006-02-16 20:44:53
the url i sent in my last message led me to this e. woodville is arguing for richard to remain in sanctuary with her.
QUEEN Excellent father, distinguished by the high honor of a Cardinal’s cap, I do not disagree that brother ought to remain with brother in one home, although both of them (whose young age has not yet taught them fear) would be safer if they were to remain in their mother’s lap. And because the younger is the less protected by his age, and also since a dangerous disease has long oppressed him, his great peril requires a mother’s care. So much the more threat is posed by a recurring disease, and a constitution once undermined cannot vigorously resist or protect itself against another attack. I know how much labor his dutiful nurse will give, who diligently cares for my son. But still, it is more suitable for him to be left to me, since I better know how to care for the little one, who has always clung to my arms. Nor can anyone cherish him more gently than the mother who has carried him at her breast.
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/rich/act4eng.html
the above is from a play written in the 1500's. has anyone ever see it written elsewhere that e5's younger brother suffered from a chronic health problem?
roslyn
QUEEN Excellent father, distinguished by the high honor of a Cardinal’s cap, I do not disagree that brother ought to remain with brother in one home, although both of them (whose young age has not yet taught them fear) would be safer if they were to remain in their mother’s lap. And because the younger is the less protected by his age, and also since a dangerous disease has long oppressed him, his great peril requires a mother’s care. So much the more threat is posed by a recurring disease, and a constitution once undermined cannot vigorously resist or protect itself against another attack. I know how much labor his dutiful nurse will give, who diligently cares for my son. But still, it is more suitable for him to be left to me, since I better know how to care for the little one, who has always clung to my arms. Nor can anyone cherish him more gently than the mother who has carried him at her breast.
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/rich/act4eng.html
the above is from a play written in the 1500's. has anyone ever see it written elsewhere that e5's younger brother suffered from a chronic health problem?
roslyn
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: The Sons of Edward
2006-02-17 03:22:29
hi all
i'm still reading the play, but i'm now wondering...by this statement made by richard..
My frame staggers with disease, my eyes deny me sleep, my sluggish digestion refuses food, my pulse grows weak, this bloodless arm of mine has grown withered and refuses to work.
is it just me..or does this sound like the symptoms of a stroke?
i've a heart defect, and on some of my bad days..i pretty much feel like the discription above.
given the high anxiety level richard would have been under during this time frame in his life..the day that hastings is rumoured to have been executed..it is possible he did have a mild stroke..which the tudor propagandists parlayed into richard being deformed.
does anyone know what or if there is a contemporary document that records the events of june 13th as they occurred..btw..this play's latin translator states there is only a 5 day difference between the hastings execution, and that of rivers and grey.
the 16C author also has catesby and buckingham conspiring to have hastings executed because of his loyalty to e5.
roslyn
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
the url i sent in my last message led me to this e. woodville is arguing for richard to remain in sanctuary with her.
QUEEN Excellent father, distinguished by the high honor of a Cardinal’s cap, I do not disagree that brother ought to remain with brother in one home, although both of them (whose young age has not yet taught them fear) would be safer if they were to remain in their mother’s lap. And because the younger is the less protected by his age, and also since a dangerous disease has long oppressed him, his great peril requires a mother’s care. So much the more threat is posed by a recurring disease, and a constitution once undermined cannot vigorously resist or protect itself against another attack. I know how much labor his dutiful nurse will give, who diligently cares for my son. But still, it is more suitable for him to be left to me, since I better know how to care for the little one, who has always clung to my arms. Nor can anyone cherish him more gently than the mother who has carried him at her breast.
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/rich/act4eng.html
the above is from a play written in the 1500's. has anyone ever see it written elsewhere that e5's younger brother suffered from a chronic health problem?
roslyn
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
i'm still reading the play, but i'm now wondering...by this statement made by richard..
My frame staggers with disease, my eyes deny me sleep, my sluggish digestion refuses food, my pulse grows weak, this bloodless arm of mine has grown withered and refuses to work.
is it just me..or does this sound like the symptoms of a stroke?
i've a heart defect, and on some of my bad days..i pretty much feel like the discription above.
given the high anxiety level richard would have been under during this time frame in his life..the day that hastings is rumoured to have been executed..it is possible he did have a mild stroke..which the tudor propagandists parlayed into richard being deformed.
does anyone know what or if there is a contemporary document that records the events of june 13th as they occurred..btw..this play's latin translator states there is only a 5 day difference between the hastings execution, and that of rivers and grey.
the 16C author also has catesby and buckingham conspiring to have hastings executed because of his loyalty to e5.
roslyn
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
the url i sent in my last message led me to this e. woodville is arguing for richard to remain in sanctuary with her.
QUEEN Excellent father, distinguished by the high honor of a Cardinal’s cap, I do not disagree that brother ought to remain with brother in one home, although both of them (whose young age has not yet taught them fear) would be safer if they were to remain in their mother’s lap. And because the younger is the less protected by his age, and also since a dangerous disease has long oppressed him, his great peril requires a mother’s care. So much the more threat is posed by a recurring disease, and a constitution once undermined cannot vigorously resist or protect itself against another attack. I know how much labor his dutiful nurse will give, who diligently cares for my son. But still, it is more suitable for him to be left to me, since I better know how to care for the little one, who has always clung to my arms. Nor can anyone cherish him more gently than the mother who has carried him at her breast.
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/rich/act4eng.html
the above is from a play written in the 1500's. has anyone ever see it written elsewhere that e5's younger brother suffered from a chronic health problem?
roslyn
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: The Sons of Edward
2006-02-17 09:46:48
Have you got any sort of precise date for this play or info about the author? Has it recently emerged, or has its existence been known for a long time?
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: hi all
i'm still reading the play, but i'm now wondering...by this statement made by richard..
My frame staggers with disease, my eyes deny me sleep, my sluggish digestion refuses food, my pulse grows weak, this bloodless arm of mine has grown withered and refuses to work.
is it just me..or does this sound like the symptoms of a stroke?
i've a heart defect, and on some of my bad days..i pretty much feel like the discription above.
given the high anxiety level richard would have been under during this time frame in his life..the day that hastings is rumoured to have been executed..it is possible he did have a mild stroke..which the tudor propagandists parlayed into richard being deformed.
Bear in mind that Richard was only 30 in 1483, which is unusually young for any sort of stroke. Your thesis is not impossible, but for this reason unlikely. Stroke is an umbrella term for either a blood clot in the brain or a brain haemorrhage; there is a particular type of brain haemorrhage which almost exclusively affects young men, but this is invariably fatal. I have known three people who had it; the youngest was 15, the oldest 31; the other was one of my students who was 20-21.
Ann
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: hi all
i'm still reading the play, but i'm now wondering...by this statement made by richard..
My frame staggers with disease, my eyes deny me sleep, my sluggish digestion refuses food, my pulse grows weak, this bloodless arm of mine has grown withered and refuses to work.
is it just me..or does this sound like the symptoms of a stroke?
i've a heart defect, and on some of my bad days..i pretty much feel like the discription above.
given the high anxiety level richard would have been under during this time frame in his life..the day that hastings is rumoured to have been executed..it is possible he did have a mild stroke..which the tudor propagandists parlayed into richard being deformed.
Bear in mind that Richard was only 30 in 1483, which is unusually young for any sort of stroke. Your thesis is not impossible, but for this reason unlikely. Stroke is an umbrella term for either a blood clot in the brain or a brain haemorrhage; there is a particular type of brain haemorrhage which almost exclusively affects young men, but this is invariably fatal. I have known three people who had it; the youngest was 15, the oldest 31; the other was one of my students who was 20-21.
Ann
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: The Sons of Edward
2006-02-17 15:09:05
it was written by thomas legge in 1579. i know nothing about the author or how long it has been in existance...publically. it is at a university website. it was originally written in latin. a scholar has translated it.
i'm still reading it. it has green and blue squares you can click for commentary or the latin text.
legge is definitely building to richard killed or had the boys done in..surprise, surprise, given the era it is written in.
however, there does seem to be some info i've not seen/heard before..and even the worst of hollywood history movies have grains of truth in them...so i plough on.
if you want to read it, go here
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/library.html
scroll to the letter L. it is the only L entry.
roslyn
A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
Have you got any sort of precise date for this play or info about the author? Has it recently emerged, or has its existence been known for a long time?
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: hi all
i'm still reading the play, but i'm now wondering...by this statement made by richard..
My frame staggers with disease, my eyes deny me sleep, my sluggish digestion refuses food, my pulse grows weak, this bloodless arm of mine has grown withered and refuses to work.
is it just me..or does this sound like the symptoms of a stroke?
i've a heart defect, and on some of my bad days..i pretty much feel like the discription above.
given the high anxiety level richard would have been under during this time frame in his life..the day that hastings is rumoured to have been executed..it is possible he did have a mild stroke..which the tudor propagandists parlayed into richard being deformed.
Bear in mind that Richard was only 30 in 1483, which is unusually young for any sort of stroke. Your thesis is not impossible, but for this reason unlikely. Stroke is an umbrella term for either a blood clot in the brain or a brain haemorrhage; there is a particular type of brain haemorrhage which almost exclusively affects young men, but this is invariably fatal. I have known three people who had it; the youngest was 15, the oldest 31; the other was one of my students who was 20-21.
Ann
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
i'm still reading it. it has green and blue squares you can click for commentary or the latin text.
legge is definitely building to richard killed or had the boys done in..surprise, surprise, given the era it is written in.
however, there does seem to be some info i've not seen/heard before..and even the worst of hollywood history movies have grains of truth in them...so i plough on.
if you want to read it, go here
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/library.html
scroll to the letter L. it is the only L entry.
roslyn
A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
Have you got any sort of precise date for this play or info about the author? Has it recently emerged, or has its existence been known for a long time?
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: hi all
i'm still reading the play, but i'm now wondering...by this statement made by richard..
My frame staggers with disease, my eyes deny me sleep, my sluggish digestion refuses food, my pulse grows weak, this bloodless arm of mine has grown withered and refuses to work.
is it just me..or does this sound like the symptoms of a stroke?
i've a heart defect, and on some of my bad days..i pretty much feel like the discription above.
given the high anxiety level richard would have been under during this time frame in his life..the day that hastings is rumoured to have been executed..it is possible he did have a mild stroke..which the tudor propagandists parlayed into richard being deformed.
Bear in mind that Richard was only 30 in 1483, which is unusually young for any sort of stroke. Your thesis is not impossible, but for this reason unlikely. Stroke is an umbrella term for either a blood clot in the brain or a brain haemorrhage; there is a particular type of brain haemorrhage which almost exclusively affects young men, but this is invariably fatal. I have known three people who had it; the youngest was 15, the oldest 31; the other was one of my students who was 20-21.
Ann
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: The Sons of Edward
2006-02-17 16:01:58
i forgot to add. the translator cites hall's chronicle frequently. the url below has scanned pages of the book, complete with olde english spelling and print face.
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=halle&PagePosition=654
Hall, Edward, d. 1547. The vnion of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancastre & Yorke, beyng long in continuall discension for the croune of this noble realme : with al the actes done in both the tymes of the princes, both of the one linage & of the other.... London : Rychard Grafton, Prynter to the Kynges Maiestye, 1550. In Horace Howard Furness Memorial (Shakespeare) Library. Folio DA245 H23 1550
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
it was written by thomas legge in 1579. i know nothing about the author or how long it has been in existance...publically. it is at a university website. it was originally written in latin. a scholar has translated it.
i'm still reading it. it has green and blue squares you can click for commentary or the latin text.
legge is definitely building to richard killed or had the boys done in..surprise, surprise, given the era it is written in.
however, there does seem to be some info i've not seen/heard before..and even the worst of hollywood history movies have grains of truth in them...so i plough on.
if you want to read it, go here
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/library.html
scroll to the letter L. it is the only L entry.
roslyn
A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
Have you got any sort of precise date for this play or info about the author? Has it recently emerged, or has its existence been known for a long time?
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: hi all
i'm still reading the play, but i'm now wondering...by this statement made by richard..
My frame staggers with disease, my eyes deny me sleep, my sluggish digestion refuses food, my pulse grows weak, this bloodless arm of mine has grown withered and refuses to work.
is it just me..or does this sound like the symptoms of a stroke?
i've a heart defect, and on some of my bad days..i pretty much feel like the discription above.
given the high anxiety level richard would have been under during this time frame in his life..the day that hastings is rumoured to have been executed..it is possible he did have a mild stroke..which the tudor propagandists parlayed into richard being deformed.
Bear in mind that Richard was only 30 in 1483, which is unusually young for any sort of stroke. Your thesis is not impossible, but for this reason unlikely. Stroke is an umbrella term for either a blood clot in the brain or a brain haemorrhage; there is a particular type of brain haemorrhage which almost exclusively affects young men, but this is invariably fatal. I have known three people who had it; the youngest was 15, the oldest 31; the other was one of my students who was 20-21.
Ann
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=halle&PagePosition=654
Hall, Edward, d. 1547. The vnion of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancastre & Yorke, beyng long in continuall discension for the croune of this noble realme : with al the actes done in both the tymes of the princes, both of the one linage & of the other.... London : Rychard Grafton, Prynter to the Kynges Maiestye, 1550. In Horace Howard Furness Memorial (Shakespeare) Library. Folio DA245 H23 1550
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
it was written by thomas legge in 1579. i know nothing about the author or how long it has been in existance...publically. it is at a university website. it was originally written in latin. a scholar has translated it.
i'm still reading it. it has green and blue squares you can click for commentary or the latin text.
legge is definitely building to richard killed or had the boys done in..surprise, surprise, given the era it is written in.
however, there does seem to be some info i've not seen/heard before..and even the worst of hollywood history movies have grains of truth in them...so i plough on.
if you want to read it, go here
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/library.html
scroll to the letter L. it is the only L entry.
roslyn
A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
Have you got any sort of precise date for this play or info about the author? Has it recently emerged, or has its existence been known for a long time?
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: hi all
i'm still reading the play, but i'm now wondering...by this statement made by richard..
My frame staggers with disease, my eyes deny me sleep, my sluggish digestion refuses food, my pulse grows weak, this bloodless arm of mine has grown withered and refuses to work.
is it just me..or does this sound like the symptoms of a stroke?
i've a heart defect, and on some of my bad days..i pretty much feel like the discription above.
given the high anxiety level richard would have been under during this time frame in his life..the day that hastings is rumoured to have been executed..it is possible he did have a mild stroke..which the tudor propagandists parlayed into richard being deformed.
Bear in mind that Richard was only 30 in 1483, which is unusually young for any sort of stroke. Your thesis is not impossible, but for this reason unlikely. Stroke is an umbrella term for either a blood clot in the brain or a brain haemorrhage; there is a particular type of brain haemorrhage which almost exclusively affects young men, but this is invariably fatal. I have known three people who had it; the youngest was 15, the oldest 31; the other was one of my students who was 20-21.
Ann
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: The Sons of Edward
2006-02-17 17:48:57
Thanks. 1579 is of course 100 years later, and very much in a Tudor milieu. We also have to bear in mind dramatic licence (I know full well that I've taken plenty of liberties with my novel!)
Ann
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
i forgot to add. the translator cites hall's chronicle frequently. the url below has scanned pages of the book, complete with olde english spelling and print face.
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=halle&PagePosition=654
Hall, Edward, d. 1547. The vnion of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancastre & Yorke, beyng long in continuall discension for the croune of this noble realme : with al the actes done in both the tymes of the princes, both of the one linage & of the other.... London : Rychard Grafton, Prynter to the Kynges Maiestye, 1550. In Horace Howard Furness Memorial (Shakespeare) Library. Folio DA245 H23 1550
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
it was written by thomas legge in 1579. i know nothing about the author or how long it has been in existance...publically. it is at a university website. it was originally written in latin. a scholar has translated it.
i'm still reading it. it has green and blue squares you can click for commentary or the latin text.
legge is definitely building to richard killed or had the boys done in..surprise, surprise, given the era it is written in.
however, there does seem to be some info i've not seen/heard before..and even the worst of hollywood history movies have grains of truth in them...so i plough on.
if you want to read it, go here
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/library.html
scroll to the letter L. it is the only L entry.
roslyn
A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
Have you got any sort of precise date for this play or info about the author? Has it recently emerged, or has its existence been known for a long time?
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: hi all
i'm still reading the play, but i'm now wondering...by this statement made by richard..
My frame staggers with disease, my eyes deny me sleep, my sluggish digestion refuses food, my pulse grows weak, this bloodless arm of mine has grown withered and refuses to work.
is it just me..or does this sound like the symptoms of a stroke?
i've a heart defect, and on some of my bad days..i pretty much feel like the discription above.
given the high anxiety level richard would have been under during this time frame in his life..the day that hastings is rumoured to have been executed..it is possible he did have a mild stroke..which the tudor propagandists parlayed into richard being deformed.
Bear in mind that Richard was only 30 in 1483, which is unusually young for any sort of stroke. Your thesis is not impossible, but for this reason unlikely. Stroke is an umbrella term for either a blood clot in the brain or a brain haemorrhage; there is a particular type of brain haemorrhage which almost exclusively affects young men, but this is invariably fatal. I have known three people who had it; the youngest was 15, the oldest 31; the other was one of my students who was 20-21.
Ann
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Ann
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
i forgot to add. the translator cites hall's chronicle frequently. the url below has scanned pages of the book, complete with olde english spelling and print face.
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=halle&PagePosition=654
Hall, Edward, d. 1547. The vnion of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancastre & Yorke, beyng long in continuall discension for the croune of this noble realme : with al the actes done in both the tymes of the princes, both of the one linage & of the other.... London : Rychard Grafton, Prynter to the Kynges Maiestye, 1550. In Horace Howard Furness Memorial (Shakespeare) Library. Folio DA245 H23 1550
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
it was written by thomas legge in 1579. i know nothing about the author or how long it has been in existance...publically. it is at a university website. it was originally written in latin. a scholar has translated it.
i'm still reading it. it has green and blue squares you can click for commentary or the latin text.
legge is definitely building to richard killed or had the boys done in..surprise, surprise, given the era it is written in.
however, there does seem to be some info i've not seen/heard before..and even the worst of hollywood history movies have grains of truth in them...so i plough on.
if you want to read it, go here
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/library.html
scroll to the letter L. it is the only L entry.
roslyn
A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
Have you got any sort of precise date for this play or info about the author? Has it recently emerged, or has its existence been known for a long time?
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: hi all
i'm still reading the play, but i'm now wondering...by this statement made by richard..
My frame staggers with disease, my eyes deny me sleep, my sluggish digestion refuses food, my pulse grows weak, this bloodless arm of mine has grown withered and refuses to work.
is it just me..or does this sound like the symptoms of a stroke?
i've a heart defect, and on some of my bad days..i pretty much feel like the discription above.
given the high anxiety level richard would have been under during this time frame in his life..the day that hastings is rumoured to have been executed..it is possible he did have a mild stroke..which the tudor propagandists parlayed into richard being deformed.
Bear in mind that Richard was only 30 in 1483, which is unusually young for any sort of stroke. Your thesis is not impossible, but for this reason unlikely. Stroke is an umbrella term for either a blood clot in the brain or a brain haemorrhage; there is a particular type of brain haemorrhage which almost exclusively affects young men, but this is invariably fatal. I have known three people who had it; the youngest was 15, the oldest 31; the other was one of my students who was 20-21.
Ann
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: The Sons of Edward
2006-02-17 19:16:58
wikipedia has an interesting, albeit brief bio on edward hall aka halle, son of john, born shropshire circa 1498. his chronicle was first published 1542, and richard grafton the king's printer, issued other editions after hall's death.
grafton also got himself jailed for publishing seditious materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hall
i wonder if a copy of hall's original 1542 chronicle exists, and i'm not finding his genealogy on line..yet...but, then again i've not looked too terribly hard either.
grafton also wrote some chronicles.
boy..this research is like following cats..each cat has kittens..and each kitten has kittens..and on and on.
the problem is finding which kitten to track back to the original cat..:-))
also of note..legge comments on e4 having a stepmother. the translator supposes this is to mean e4's nurse. i'm left wondering e4's father had a mistress, yet to be discovered/uncovered. legge may have used creative licence, or history has been buried or lost in time.
the play also releases morton into buckingham's custody prior to richard's coronation.
tyrrell is ric's murderous henchman ala more, but tyr gives an interesting oration that ric killed princes out of fear, rather than just pure malice.
buckingham is given a fair bit of "air time", whereas ric is almost an after thought..occassionally striding in, or mentioned.
later
roslyn..still reading the play...buck and morton are in wales..plotting
A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
Thanks. 1579 is of course 100 years later, and very much in a Tudor milieu. We also have to bear in mind dramatic licence (I know full well that I've taken plenty of liberties with my novel!)
Ann
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
i forgot to add. the translator cites hall's chronicle frequently. the url below has scanned pages of the book, complete with olde english spelling and print face.
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=halle&PagePosition=654
Hall, Edward, d. 1547. The vnion of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancastre & Yorke, beyng long in continuall discension for the croune of this noble realme : with al the actes done in both the tymes of the princes, both of the one linage & of the other.... London : Rychard Grafton, Prynter to the Kynges Maiestye, 1550. In Horace Howard Furness Memorial (Shakespeare) Library. Folio DA245 H23 1550
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
it was written by thomas legge in 1579. i know nothing about the author or how long it has been in existance...publically. it is at a university website. it was originally written in latin. a scholar has translated it.
i'm still reading it. it has green and blue squares you can click for commentary or the latin text.
legge is definitely building to richard killed or had the boys done in..surprise, surprise, given the era it is written in.
however, there does seem to be some info i've not seen/heard before..and even the worst of hollywood history movies have grains of truth in them...so i plough on.
if you want to read it, go here
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/library.html
scroll to the letter L. it is the only L entry.
roslyn
A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
Have you got any sort of precise date for this play or info about the author? Has it recently emerged, or has its existence been known for a long time?
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: hi all
i'm still reading the play, but i'm now wondering...by this statement made by richard..
My frame staggers with disease, my eyes deny me sleep, my sluggish digestion refuses food, my pulse grows weak, this bloodless arm of mine has grown withered and refuses to work.
is it just me..or does this sound like the symptoms of a stroke?
i've a heart defect, and on some of my bad days..i pretty much feel like the discription above.
given the high anxiety level richard would have been under during this time frame in his life..the day that hastings is rumoured to have been executed..it is possible he did have a mild stroke..which the tudor propagandists parlayed into richard being deformed.
Bear in mind that Richard was only 30 in 1483, which is unusually young for any sort of stroke. Your thesis is not impossible, but for this reason unlikely. Stroke is an umbrella term for either a blood clot in the brain or a brain haemorrhage; there is a particular type of brain haemorrhage which almost exclusively affects young men, but this is invariably fatal. I have known three people who had it; the youngest was 15, the oldest 31; the other was one of my students who was 20-21.
Ann
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
grafton also got himself jailed for publishing seditious materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hall
i wonder if a copy of hall's original 1542 chronicle exists, and i'm not finding his genealogy on line..yet...but, then again i've not looked too terribly hard either.
grafton also wrote some chronicles.
boy..this research is like following cats..each cat has kittens..and each kitten has kittens..and on and on.
the problem is finding which kitten to track back to the original cat..:-))
also of note..legge comments on e4 having a stepmother. the translator supposes this is to mean e4's nurse. i'm left wondering e4's father had a mistress, yet to be discovered/uncovered. legge may have used creative licence, or history has been buried or lost in time.
the play also releases morton into buckingham's custody prior to richard's coronation.
tyrrell is ric's murderous henchman ala more, but tyr gives an interesting oration that ric killed princes out of fear, rather than just pure malice.
buckingham is given a fair bit of "air time", whereas ric is almost an after thought..occassionally striding in, or mentioned.
later
roslyn..still reading the play...buck and morton are in wales..plotting
A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
Thanks. 1579 is of course 100 years later, and very much in a Tudor milieu. We also have to bear in mind dramatic licence (I know full well that I've taken plenty of liberties with my novel!)
Ann
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
i forgot to add. the translator cites hall's chronicle frequently. the url below has scanned pages of the book, complete with olde english spelling and print face.
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=halle&PagePosition=654
Hall, Edward, d. 1547. The vnion of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancastre & Yorke, beyng long in continuall discension for the croune of this noble realme : with al the actes done in both the tymes of the princes, both of the one linage & of the other.... London : Rychard Grafton, Prynter to the Kynges Maiestye, 1550. In Horace Howard Furness Memorial (Shakespeare) Library. Folio DA245 H23 1550
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
it was written by thomas legge in 1579. i know nothing about the author or how long it has been in existance...publically. it is at a university website. it was originally written in latin. a scholar has translated it.
i'm still reading it. it has green and blue squares you can click for commentary or the latin text.
legge is definitely building to richard killed or had the boys done in..surprise, surprise, given the era it is written in.
however, there does seem to be some info i've not seen/heard before..and even the worst of hollywood history movies have grains of truth in them...so i plough on.
if you want to read it, go here
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/library.html
scroll to the letter L. it is the only L entry.
roslyn
A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
Have you got any sort of precise date for this play or info about the author? Has it recently emerged, or has its existence been known for a long time?
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: hi all
i'm still reading the play, but i'm now wondering...by this statement made by richard..
My frame staggers with disease, my eyes deny me sleep, my sluggish digestion refuses food, my pulse grows weak, this bloodless arm of mine has grown withered and refuses to work.
is it just me..or does this sound like the symptoms of a stroke?
i've a heart defect, and on some of my bad days..i pretty much feel like the discription above.
given the high anxiety level richard would have been under during this time frame in his life..the day that hastings is rumoured to have been executed..it is possible he did have a mild stroke..which the tudor propagandists parlayed into richard being deformed.
Bear in mind that Richard was only 30 in 1483, which is unusually young for any sort of stroke. Your thesis is not impossible, but for this reason unlikely. Stroke is an umbrella term for either a blood clot in the brain or a brain haemorrhage; there is a particular type of brain haemorrhage which almost exclusively affects young men, but this is invariably fatal. I have known three people who had it; the youngest was 15, the oldest 31; the other was one of my students who was 20-21.
Ann
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: The Sons of Edward
2006-02-19 07:30:19
i've finished reading the play.
some scholars believe shakespeare based his play on legge's. and
i've just found
Polydore Vergil,
Anglica Historia (1555 version)
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/polverg/
your choice latin or english
so i've more ric iii to read..:-))
later
roslyn
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
wikipedia has an interesting, albeit brief bio on edward hall aka halle, son of john, born shropshire circa 1498. his chronicle was first published 1542, and richard grafton the king's printer, issued other editions after hall's death.
grafton also got himself jailed for publishing seditious materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hall
i wonder if a copy of hall's original 1542 chronicle exists, and i'm not finding his genealogy on line..yet...but, then again i've not looked too terribly hard either.
grafton also wrote some chronicles.
boy..this research is like following cats..each cat has kittens..and each kitten has kittens..and on and on.
the problem is finding which kitten to track back to the original cat..:-))
also of note..legge comments on e4 having a stepmother. the translator supposes this is to mean e4's nurse. i'm left wondering e4's father had a mistress, yet to be discovered/uncovered. legge may have used creative licence, or history has been buried or lost in time.
the play also releases morton into buckingham's custody prior to richard's coronation.
tyrrell is ric's murderous henchman ala more, but tyr gives an interesting oration that ric killed princes out of fear, rather than just pure malice.
buckingham is given a fair bit of "air time", whereas ric is almost an after thought..occassionally striding in, or mentioned.
later
roslyn..still reading the play...buck and morton are in wales..plotting
A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
Thanks. 1579 is of course 100 years later, and very much in a Tudor milieu. We also have to bear in mind dramatic licence (I know full well that I've taken plenty of liberties with my novel!)
Ann
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
i forgot to add. the translator cites hall's chronicle frequently. the url below has scanned pages of the book, complete with olde english spelling and print face.
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=halle&PagePosition=654
Hall, Edward, d. 1547. The vnion of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancastre & Yorke, beyng long in continuall discension for the croune of this noble realme : with al the actes done in both the tymes of the princes, both of the one linage & of the other.... London : Rychard Grafton, Prynter to the Kynges Maiestye, 1550. In Horace Howard Furness Memorial (Shakespeare) Library. Folio DA245 H23 1550
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
it was written by thomas legge in 1579. i know nothing about the author or how long it has been in existance...publically. it is at a university website. it was originally written in latin. a scholar has translated it.
i'm still reading it. it has green and blue squares you can click for commentary or the latin text.
legge is definitely building to richard killed or had the boys done in..surprise, surprise, given the era it is written in.
however, there does seem to be some info i've not seen/heard before..and even the worst of hollywood history movies have grains of truth in them...so i plough on.
if you want to read it, go here
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/library.html
scroll to the letter L. it is the only L entry.
roslyn
A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
Have you got any sort of precise date for this play or info about the author? Has it recently emerged, or has its existence been known for a long time?
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: hi all
i'm still reading the play, but i'm now wondering...by this statement made by richard..
My frame staggers with disease, my eyes deny me sleep, my sluggish digestion refuses food, my pulse grows weak, this bloodless arm of mine has grown withered and refuses to work.
is it just me..or does this sound like the symptoms of a stroke?
i've a heart defect, and on some of my bad days..i pretty much feel like the discription above.
given the high anxiety level richard would have been under during this time frame in his life..the day that hastings is rumoured to have been executed..it is possible he did have a mild stroke..which the tudor propagandists parlayed into richard being deformed.
Bear in mind that Richard was only 30 in 1483, which is unusually young for any sort of stroke. Your thesis is not impossible, but for this reason unlikely. Stroke is an umbrella term for either a blood clot in the brain or a brain haemorrhage; there is a particular type of brain haemorrhage which almost exclusively affects young men, but this is invariably fatal. I have known three people who had it; the youngest was 15, the oldest 31; the other was one of my students who was 20-21.
Ann
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
some scholars believe shakespeare based his play on legge's. and
i've just found
Polydore Vergil,
Anglica Historia (1555 version)
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/polverg/
your choice latin or english
so i've more ric iii to read..:-))
later
roslyn
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
wikipedia has an interesting, albeit brief bio on edward hall aka halle, son of john, born shropshire circa 1498. his chronicle was first published 1542, and richard grafton the king's printer, issued other editions after hall's death.
grafton also got himself jailed for publishing seditious materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hall
i wonder if a copy of hall's original 1542 chronicle exists, and i'm not finding his genealogy on line..yet...but, then again i've not looked too terribly hard either.
grafton also wrote some chronicles.
boy..this research is like following cats..each cat has kittens..and each kitten has kittens..and on and on.
the problem is finding which kitten to track back to the original cat..:-))
also of note..legge comments on e4 having a stepmother. the translator supposes this is to mean e4's nurse. i'm left wondering e4's father had a mistress, yet to be discovered/uncovered. legge may have used creative licence, or history has been buried or lost in time.
the play also releases morton into buckingham's custody prior to richard's coronation.
tyrrell is ric's murderous henchman ala more, but tyr gives an interesting oration that ric killed princes out of fear, rather than just pure malice.
buckingham is given a fair bit of "air time", whereas ric is almost an after thought..occassionally striding in, or mentioned.
later
roslyn..still reading the play...buck and morton are in wales..plotting
A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
Thanks. 1579 is of course 100 years later, and very much in a Tudor milieu. We also have to bear in mind dramatic licence (I know full well that I've taken plenty of liberties with my novel!)
Ann
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
i forgot to add. the translator cites hall's chronicle frequently. the url below has scanned pages of the book, complete with olde english spelling and print face.
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=halle&PagePosition=654
Hall, Edward, d. 1547. The vnion of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancastre & Yorke, beyng long in continuall discension for the croune of this noble realme : with al the actes done in both the tymes of the princes, both of the one linage & of the other.... London : Rychard Grafton, Prynter to the Kynges Maiestye, 1550. In Horace Howard Furness Memorial (Shakespeare) Library. Folio DA245 H23 1550
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
it was written by thomas legge in 1579. i know nothing about the author or how long it has been in existance...publically. it is at a university website. it was originally written in latin. a scholar has translated it.
i'm still reading it. it has green and blue squares you can click for commentary or the latin text.
legge is definitely building to richard killed or had the boys done in..surprise, surprise, given the era it is written in.
however, there does seem to be some info i've not seen/heard before..and even the worst of hollywood history movies have grains of truth in them...so i plough on.
if you want to read it, go here
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/library.html
scroll to the letter L. it is the only L entry.
roslyn
A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
Have you got any sort of precise date for this play or info about the author? Has it recently emerged, or has its existence been known for a long time?
fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: hi all
i'm still reading the play, but i'm now wondering...by this statement made by richard..
My frame staggers with disease, my eyes deny me sleep, my sluggish digestion refuses food, my pulse grows weak, this bloodless arm of mine has grown withered and refuses to work.
is it just me..or does this sound like the symptoms of a stroke?
i've a heart defect, and on some of my bad days..i pretty much feel like the discription above.
given the high anxiety level richard would have been under during this time frame in his life..the day that hastings is rumoured to have been executed..it is possible he did have a mild stroke..which the tudor propagandists parlayed into richard being deformed.
Bear in mind that Richard was only 30 in 1483, which is unusually young for any sort of stroke. Your thesis is not impossible, but for this reason unlikely. Stroke is an umbrella term for either a blood clot in the brain or a brain haemorrhage; there is a particular type of brain haemorrhage which almost exclusively affects young men, but this is invariably fatal. I have known three people who had it; the youngest was 15, the oldest 31; the other was one of my students who was 20-21.
Ann
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: The Sons of Edward
2006-02-19 20:52:22
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> eileen..consider..if you wanted to downplay the end of the
princes..but wanted it recorded..how would you state it in a public
document?
>
> diplomacy was a key word. just enough info, without revealing
matters of state.
>
> rumours were circulating..and such rumours would be of important
to royal houses, and chroniclers.
>
> what is the date of the attaintment..and what is the date of the
spanish betrothal negotiations? when were the rebellions mounted? all
after the fact. ergo, at the time of the attaintment..the princes
were simply a footnote in history.
>
> most assuredly they have become significant, because richard lost
bosworth. and all the events that occurred afterwards.
I can't really agree with this analysis (or what I follow of it). The
boys were definitely not a footnote after Richard became King. A well
organised plot free them from the Tower was foiled in late July, as
was a plan to smuggle their sisters abroad. The sedition that became
Buckingham's rebellion began as second attempt to free the Princes
and restore Edward V. It was only their apparent disappearance from
the Tower which put paid to further rebellions in their name, but
this in turn only moved the focus of those still loyal to Edward's
line to his eldest daughter Elizabeth. And that was what gave Henry
Tudor his opportunity.
Henry's problems as King regarding the Princes were exacerbated, but
not entirely caused, by the fact that he had been forced to honour
his promise and make the Princes' sister his queen (in the process
repealing Titulus Regius) but was never able to demonstrate that they
really were dead.
No one who continued to believe in Edward's line was put off by
Titulus Regius during Richard's reign, either before or after it was
enrolled as statute. No more than Henry Tudor's supporters were put
off in 1485 by his attainder, or the supporters of York and the
Nevilles in 1460 by their attainders. No more, indeed, than York was
put off in 1460 by the legal fiction of the time that the
Lancastrian's ancestor Edmund Crouchback was senior to Edward I.
The Princes remained of great significance, though they by no means
represented Henry's only, or perhaps even his prime, Yorkist threat.
Marie
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> eileen..consider..if you wanted to downplay the end of the
princes..but wanted it recorded..how would you state it in a public
document?
>
> diplomacy was a key word. just enough info, without revealing
matters of state.
>
> rumours were circulating..and such rumours would be of important
to royal houses, and chroniclers.
>
> what is the date of the attaintment..and what is the date of the
spanish betrothal negotiations? when were the rebellions mounted? all
after the fact. ergo, at the time of the attaintment..the princes
were simply a footnote in history.
>
> most assuredly they have become significant, because richard lost
bosworth. and all the events that occurred afterwards.
I can't really agree with this analysis (or what I follow of it). The
boys were definitely not a footnote after Richard became King. A well
organised plot free them from the Tower was foiled in late July, as
was a plan to smuggle their sisters abroad. The sedition that became
Buckingham's rebellion began as second attempt to free the Princes
and restore Edward V. It was only their apparent disappearance from
the Tower which put paid to further rebellions in their name, but
this in turn only moved the focus of those still loyal to Edward's
line to his eldest daughter Elizabeth. And that was what gave Henry
Tudor his opportunity.
Henry's problems as King regarding the Princes were exacerbated, but
not entirely caused, by the fact that he had been forced to honour
his promise and make the Princes' sister his queen (in the process
repealing Titulus Regius) but was never able to demonstrate that they
really were dead.
No one who continued to believe in Edward's line was put off by
Titulus Regius during Richard's reign, either before or after it was
enrolled as statute. No more than Henry Tudor's supporters were put
off in 1485 by his attainder, or the supporters of York and the
Nevilles in 1460 by their attainders. No more, indeed, than York was
put off in 1460 by the legal fiction of the time that the
Lancastrian's ancestor Edmund Crouchback was senior to Edward I.
The Princes remained of great significance, though they by no means
represented Henry's only, or perhaps even his prime, Yorkist threat.
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: The Sons of Edward
2006-02-20 16:09:26
comments interspersed see below...
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: --- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> eileen..consider..if you wanted to downplay the end of the
princes..but wanted it recorded..how would you state it in a public
document?
>
> diplomacy was a key word. just enough info, without revealing
matters of state.
>
> rumours were circulating..and such rumours would be of important
to royal houses, and chroniclers.
>
> what is the date of the attaintment..and what is the date of the
spanish betrothal negotiations? when were the rebellions mounted? all
after the fact. ergo, at the time of the attaintment..the princes
were simply a footnote in history.
>
> most assuredly they have become significant, because richard lost
bosworth. and all the events that occurred afterwards.
I can't really agree with this analysis (or what I follow of it). The
boys were definitely not a footnote after Richard became King.
A well
organised plot free them from the Tower was foiled in late July, as
was a plan to smuggle their sisters abroad.
-------------------------
agreed there was an uprising, but do we know for sure it was to free the princes or was it to free the daughters? or to do both. whatever it was, it was quickly put down.
----------------------
The sedition that became
Buckingham's rebellion began as second attempt to free the Princes
and restore Edward V.
-----------------------
what are your sources for the above statement?
------------------------------
It was only their apparent disappearance from
the Tower which put paid to further rebellions in their name, but
this in turn only moved the focus of those still loyal to Edward's
line to his eldest daughter Elizabeth.
-------------
there you go..the princes disappear..and the focus goes to e4's other children..his daughters..btw virgil says that the plan to marry h7 was..e of york, and should she not live, then he was to marry cecily.
we're all familiar with more's account of the death of the princes..this is virgil's.
begin excerpt.
, he assigned this task to another man, James
Tyrell. Compelled to to the deed, he sadly went to London and killed
the royal children, setting an example nearly unheard-of within human
memory. Thus Prince Edward died, together with his brother Richard, but
it is unknown what manner of death the poor little boys suffered.
Richard, set free by this deed from his care and fear, did not long
conceal the murder, and a few days later allowed the rumor of the boy's
death to go abroad, as is reasonable to think, because, after the
people had learned that Edward's male issue was extinct, they would be
more tolerant of his own government. But when rumor of his great crime
spread abroad, such great sorrow afflicted all men's minds that
everywhere they wept,
end excerpt
it would seem that there is dispute as to how the princes died..but the rumours were flowing that the princes were dead.
And that was what gave Henry
Tudor his opportunity.
Henry's problems as King regarding the Princes were exacerbated, but
not entirely caused, by the fact that he had been forced to honour
his promise and make the Princes' sister his queen (in the process
repealing Titulus Regius) but was never able to demonstrate that they
really were dead.
No one who continued to believe in Edward's line was put off by
Titulus Regius during Richard's reign, either before or after it was
enrolled as statute.
No more than Henry Tudor's supporters were put
off in 1485 by his attainder, or the supporters of York and the
Nevilles in 1460 by their attainders. No more, indeed, than York was
put off in 1460 by the legal fiction of the time that the
Lancastrian's ancestor Edmund Crouchback was senior to Edward I.
The Princes remained of great significance, though they by no means
represented Henry's only, or perhaps even his prime, Yorkist threat.
let me state it clearer...if richard had won bosworth, the princes would have been footnotes in history. yes, there were ripples of dissatisfaction according to the chroniclers..but it was tudor's victory and his own lack of assurance that the princes that were indeed dead that contributed to the princes's significance in latter years.
at the time of the attaintment..the princes were footnotes..not all footnotes are insignificant, nor are they of great significance. they are markers to follow, or to make note of.
richard's death and the unresolved location of the princes..alive or dead became significant after that fact.
as i read more of the chronicles..known and available on line or within easy access to me..i'll have a better "feel" for the events.
remember, i've come at this research on a genealogical vs purely historical mode. we each have our perspectives...time will tell which of us is correct in our theories, be it in the next decade or centuries to follow.
roslyn
Marie
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: --- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> eileen..consider..if you wanted to downplay the end of the
princes..but wanted it recorded..how would you state it in a public
document?
>
> diplomacy was a key word. just enough info, without revealing
matters of state.
>
> rumours were circulating..and such rumours would be of important
to royal houses, and chroniclers.
>
> what is the date of the attaintment..and what is the date of the
spanish betrothal negotiations? when were the rebellions mounted? all
after the fact. ergo, at the time of the attaintment..the princes
were simply a footnote in history.
>
> most assuredly they have become significant, because richard lost
bosworth. and all the events that occurred afterwards.
I can't really agree with this analysis (or what I follow of it). The
boys were definitely not a footnote after Richard became King.
A well
organised plot free them from the Tower was foiled in late July, as
was a plan to smuggle their sisters abroad.
-------------------------
agreed there was an uprising, but do we know for sure it was to free the princes or was it to free the daughters? or to do both. whatever it was, it was quickly put down.
----------------------
The sedition that became
Buckingham's rebellion began as second attempt to free the Princes
and restore Edward V.
-----------------------
what are your sources for the above statement?
------------------------------
It was only their apparent disappearance from
the Tower which put paid to further rebellions in their name, but
this in turn only moved the focus of those still loyal to Edward's
line to his eldest daughter Elizabeth.
-------------
there you go..the princes disappear..and the focus goes to e4's other children..his daughters..btw virgil says that the plan to marry h7 was..e of york, and should she not live, then he was to marry cecily.
we're all familiar with more's account of the death of the princes..this is virgil's.
begin excerpt.
, he assigned this task to another man, James
Tyrell. Compelled to to the deed, he sadly went to London and killed
the royal children, setting an example nearly unheard-of within human
memory. Thus Prince Edward died, together with his brother Richard, but
it is unknown what manner of death the poor little boys suffered.
Richard, set free by this deed from his care and fear, did not long
conceal the murder, and a few days later allowed the rumor of the boy's
death to go abroad, as is reasonable to think, because, after the
people had learned that Edward's male issue was extinct, they would be
more tolerant of his own government. But when rumor of his great crime
spread abroad, such great sorrow afflicted all men's minds that
everywhere they wept,
end excerpt
it would seem that there is dispute as to how the princes died..but the rumours were flowing that the princes were dead.
And that was what gave Henry
Tudor his opportunity.
Henry's problems as King regarding the Princes were exacerbated, but
not entirely caused, by the fact that he had been forced to honour
his promise and make the Princes' sister his queen (in the process
repealing Titulus Regius) but was never able to demonstrate that they
really were dead.
No one who continued to believe in Edward's line was put off by
Titulus Regius during Richard's reign, either before or after it was
enrolled as statute.
No more than Henry Tudor's supporters were put
off in 1485 by his attainder, or the supporters of York and the
Nevilles in 1460 by their attainders. No more, indeed, than York was
put off in 1460 by the legal fiction of the time that the
Lancastrian's ancestor Edmund Crouchback was senior to Edward I.
The Princes remained of great significance, though they by no means
represented Henry's only, or perhaps even his prime, Yorkist threat.
let me state it clearer...if richard had won bosworth, the princes would have been footnotes in history. yes, there were ripples of dissatisfaction according to the chroniclers..but it was tudor's victory and his own lack of assurance that the princes that were indeed dead that contributed to the princes's significance in latter years.
at the time of the attaintment..the princes were footnotes..not all footnotes are insignificant, nor are they of great significance. they are markers to follow, or to make note of.
richard's death and the unresolved location of the princes..alive or dead became significant after that fact.
as i read more of the chronicles..known and available on line or within easy access to me..i'll have a better "feel" for the events.
remember, i've come at this research on a genealogical vs purely historical mode. we each have our perspectives...time will tell which of us is correct in our theories, be it in the next decade or centuries to follow.
roslyn
Marie
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: The Sons of Edward
2006-02-20 17:24:03
Thanks for this - it's a better and more comprehensive
edition than the one we've had online at the American
Branch site for years.
--- fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> i've finished reading the play.
> some scholars believe shakespeare based his play
> on legge's. and
> i've just found
> Polydore Vergil,
> Anglica Historia (1555 version)
> http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/polverg/
>
> your choice latin or english
> so i've more ric iii to read..:-))
> later
> roslyn
> fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> wikipedia has an interesting, albeit brief bio on
> edward hall aka halle, son of john, born shropshire
> circa 1498. his chronicle was first published 1542,
> and richard grafton the king's printer, issued other
> editions after hall's death.
>
> grafton also got himself jailed for publishing
> seditious materials.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hall
>
> i wonder if a copy of hall's original 1542
> chronicle exists, and i'm not finding his genealogy
> on line..yet...but, then again i've not looked too
> terribly hard either.
>
> grafton also wrote some chronicles.
>
> boy..this research is like following cats..each
> cat has kittens..and each kitten has kittens..and on
> and on.
>
> the problem is finding which kitten to track back
> to the original cat..:-))
>
> also of note..legge comments on e4 having a
> stepmother. the translator supposes this is to mean
> e4's nurse. i'm left wondering e4's father had a
> mistress, yet to be discovered/uncovered. legge may
> have used creative licence, or history has been
> buried or lost in time.
>
> the play also releases morton into buckingham's
> custody prior to richard's coronation.
>
> tyrrell is ric's murderous henchman ala more, but
> tyr gives an interesting oration that ric killed
> princes out of fear, rather than just pure malice.
> buckingham is given a fair bit of "air time",
> whereas ric is almost an after
> thought..occassionally striding in, or mentioned.
>
> later
> roslyn..still reading the play...buck and morton
> are in wales..plotting
>
>
>
> A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
> Thanks. 1579 is of course 100 years later, and
> very much in a Tudor milieu. We also have to bear in
> mind dramatic licence (I know full well that I've
> taken plenty of liberties with my novel!)
>
> Ann
>
> fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> i forgot to add. the translator cites hall's
> chronicle frequently. the url below has scanned
> pages of the book, complete with olde english
> spelling and print face.
>
>
>
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=halle&PagePosition=654
>
> Hall, Edward, d. 1547. The vnion of the two noble
> and illustre famelies of Lancastre & Yorke, beyng
> long in continuall discension for the croune of this
> noble realme : with al the actes done in both the
> tymes of the princes, both of the one linage & of
> the other.... London : Rychard Grafton, Prynter to
> the Kynges Maiestye, 1550. In Horace Howard Furness
> Memorial (Shakespeare) Library. Folio DA245 H23 1550
>
>
> fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> it was written by thomas legge in 1579. i know
> nothing about the author or how long it has been in
> existance...publically. it is at a university
> website. it was originally written in latin. a
> scholar has translated it.
>
> i'm still reading it. it has green and blue
> squares you can click for commentary or the latin
> text.
>
> legge is definitely building to richard killed or
> had the boys done in..surprise, surprise, given the
> era it is written in.
>
> however, there does seem to be some info i've not
> seen/heard before..and even the worst of hollywood
> history movies have grains of truth in them...so i
> plough on.
>
> if you want to read it, go here
> http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/library.html
> scroll to the letter L. it is the only L entry.
> roslyn
>
> A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
> Have you got any sort of precise date for this
> play or info about the author? Has it recently
> emerged, or has its existence been known for a long
> time?
>
> fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: hi all
> i'm still reading the play, but i'm now
> wondering...by this statement made by richard..
> My frame staggers with disease, my eyes deny me
> sleep, my sluggish digestion refuses food, my pulse
> grows weak, this bloodless arm of mine has grown
> withered and refuses to work.
>
> is it just me..or does this sound like the
> symptoms of a stroke?
> i've a heart defect, and on some of my bad days..i
> pretty much feel like the discription above.
>
> given the high anxiety level richard would have
> been under during this time frame in his life..the
> day that hastings is rumoured to have been
> executed..it is possible he did have a mild
> stroke..which the tudor propagandists parlayed into
> richard being deformed.
>
> Bear in mind that Richard was only 30 in 1483,
> which is unusually young for any sort of stroke.
> Your thesis is not impossible, but for this reason
> unlikely. Stroke is an umbrella term for either a
> blood clot in the brain or a brain haemorrhage;
> there is a particular type of brain haemorrhage
> which almost exclusively affects young men, but this
> is invariably fatal. I have known three people who
> had it; the youngest was 15, the oldest 31; the
> other was one of my students who was 20-21.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom
> flower delivery Call united kingdom United
> kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the
> web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom
> flower delivery Call united kingdom United
> kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the
> web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom
> flower delivery Call united kingdom United
> kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the
> web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom
> flower delivery Call united kingdom United
> kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the
> web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom
> flower delivery Call united kingdom United
> kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the
> web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
edition than the one we've had online at the American
Branch site for years.
--- fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> i've finished reading the play.
> some scholars believe shakespeare based his play
> on legge's. and
> i've just found
> Polydore Vergil,
> Anglica Historia (1555 version)
> http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/polverg/
>
> your choice latin or english
> so i've more ric iii to read..:-))
> later
> roslyn
> fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> wikipedia has an interesting, albeit brief bio on
> edward hall aka halle, son of john, born shropshire
> circa 1498. his chronicle was first published 1542,
> and richard grafton the king's printer, issued other
> editions after hall's death.
>
> grafton also got himself jailed for publishing
> seditious materials.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hall
>
> i wonder if a copy of hall's original 1542
> chronicle exists, and i'm not finding his genealogy
> on line..yet...but, then again i've not looked too
> terribly hard either.
>
> grafton also wrote some chronicles.
>
> boy..this research is like following cats..each
> cat has kittens..and each kitten has kittens..and on
> and on.
>
> the problem is finding which kitten to track back
> to the original cat..:-))
>
> also of note..legge comments on e4 having a
> stepmother. the translator supposes this is to mean
> e4's nurse. i'm left wondering e4's father had a
> mistress, yet to be discovered/uncovered. legge may
> have used creative licence, or history has been
> buried or lost in time.
>
> the play also releases morton into buckingham's
> custody prior to richard's coronation.
>
> tyrrell is ric's murderous henchman ala more, but
> tyr gives an interesting oration that ric killed
> princes out of fear, rather than just pure malice.
> buckingham is given a fair bit of "air time",
> whereas ric is almost an after
> thought..occassionally striding in, or mentioned.
>
> later
> roslyn..still reading the play...buck and morton
> are in wales..plotting
>
>
>
> A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
> Thanks. 1579 is of course 100 years later, and
> very much in a Tudor milieu. We also have to bear in
> mind dramatic licence (I know full well that I've
> taken plenty of liberties with my novel!)
>
> Ann
>
> fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> i forgot to add. the translator cites hall's
> chronicle frequently. the url below has scanned
> pages of the book, complete with olde english
> spelling and print face.
>
>
>
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=halle&PagePosition=654
>
> Hall, Edward, d. 1547. The vnion of the two noble
> and illustre famelies of Lancastre & Yorke, beyng
> long in continuall discension for the croune of this
> noble realme : with al the actes done in both the
> tymes of the princes, both of the one linage & of
> the other.... London : Rychard Grafton, Prynter to
> the Kynges Maiestye, 1550. In Horace Howard Furness
> Memorial (Shakespeare) Library. Folio DA245 H23 1550
>
>
> fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> it was written by thomas legge in 1579. i know
> nothing about the author or how long it has been in
> existance...publically. it is at a university
> website. it was originally written in latin. a
> scholar has translated it.
>
> i'm still reading it. it has green and blue
> squares you can click for commentary or the latin
> text.
>
> legge is definitely building to richard killed or
> had the boys done in..surprise, surprise, given the
> era it is written in.
>
> however, there does seem to be some info i've not
> seen/heard before..and even the worst of hollywood
> history movies have grains of truth in them...so i
> plough on.
>
> if you want to read it, go here
> http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/library.html
> scroll to the letter L. it is the only L entry.
> roslyn
>
> A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
> Have you got any sort of precise date for this
> play or info about the author? Has it recently
> emerged, or has its existence been known for a long
> time?
>
> fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: hi all
> i'm still reading the play, but i'm now
> wondering...by this statement made by richard..
> My frame staggers with disease, my eyes deny me
> sleep, my sluggish digestion refuses food, my pulse
> grows weak, this bloodless arm of mine has grown
> withered and refuses to work.
>
> is it just me..or does this sound like the
> symptoms of a stroke?
> i've a heart defect, and on some of my bad days..i
> pretty much feel like the discription above.
>
> given the high anxiety level richard would have
> been under during this time frame in his life..the
> day that hastings is rumoured to have been
> executed..it is possible he did have a mild
> stroke..which the tudor propagandists parlayed into
> richard being deformed.
>
> Bear in mind that Richard was only 30 in 1483,
> which is unusually young for any sort of stroke.
> Your thesis is not impossible, but for this reason
> unlikely. Stroke is an umbrella term for either a
> blood clot in the brain or a brain haemorrhage;
> there is a particular type of brain haemorrhage
> which almost exclusively affects young men, but this
> is invariably fatal. I have known three people who
> had it; the youngest was 15, the oldest 31; the
> other was one of my students who was 20-21.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom
> flower delivery Call united kingdom United
> kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the
> web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom
> flower delivery Call united kingdom United
> kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the
> web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom
> flower delivery Call united kingdom United
> kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the
> web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom
> flower delivery Call united kingdom United
> kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the
> web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom
> flower delivery Call united kingdom United
> kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United
> kingdom vacation
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the
> web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: The Sons of Edward
2006-02-21 00:18:41
> A well
> organised plot free them from the Tower was foiled in late July, as
> was a plan to smuggle their sisters abroad.
> -------------------------
> agreed there was an uprising, but do we know for sure it was to
free the princes or was it to free the daughters? or to do both.
whatever it was, it was quickly put down.
There were, according to different accounts, two separate plots,
though it is not impossible that they are two versions of the same
plot. One - according to Croyland - was to free the daughters, and is
described in the quotation from Croyland which I give a long way
below.
The other was to free the Princes theselves. This is the account
preserved in Stow's Annales though his sources is now lost:-
"After this [Richard and Anne's coronation] were taken for rebels
against the King, Robert Ruffe sergeant of London, William Davy
pardoner of Hounslow, Iohn Smith groome of King Edwards stirrop, and
Stephen Ireland wardrober in the Tower, with many other, that they
should have sent writings into the parts of Britaine to the Earles of
Richmond and Penbrooke, and the other Lords: and how they were
purposed to haue set fire on diuers parts of London, which fire
whilest men had been stanching, they would have stolen out of the
Tower, the Prince Edward, and his brother the Duke of Yorke, &c.,
Robert Ruffe, William Davy, Iohn Smith, and Stephen Ireland, were at
Westminster judged to deatg; and from thence drawn to the Tower hill,
and there beheaded, and there heads were set on London bridge."
(John Stow, Annales or Great Chronicle of England)
For anyone not familiar, London and Westminster were then separate
entities. Westminster lies to the west of the city of London; the
Tower of London was outside the city wall on the east side. So a plot
to spring the Princes and their sisters simultaneously would still
have had two logistical arms to it. There are some later
interpolations in Stow's account, I would suggest (ie the Tudor
reference), but other wise it looks extremely interesting.
I would submit that if one had to scrub one plot as being garbage, it
would be the one to spring the daughters. Both these accounts come
from after Bosworth, but Stow - though much later - was copying from
older documents, whereas we know that Croyland was writing off the
top of his head after Richard's death. Also the logical thing from
supporters of Edward V to do would be to secure the person of Edward
V, not his sisters. It is possible that the whole story of smuggling
the daughters abroad was borne of the same thing which had Edward V's
would-be rescuers contact Henry Tudor - ie politically-correct
hindsight. History had to have been straining towards that marriage.
Marie
> ----------------------
>
> The sedition that became
> Buckingham's rebellion began as second attempt to free the Princes
> and restore Edward V.
> -----------------------
> what are your sources for the above statement?
Croyland: "In the meantime while these things [Richrd's progress and
the investiture of his son as Prince of Wales] were happening King
Edward remaianed in the Tower of London with a specially appointed
guard. In order to release them from such captivity the people of the
South and of the West of the kingdom began to murmur greatly, to form
assemblies, and to organise associations to this end - many were in
secret, others quite open - especially those men who had fled to
sanctuaries had advised that some of the king's daughters should
leave Westminster in disguise and go overseas so that if any human
fate, inside the Tower, were to befall the male children,
nevertheless through the saving of the persons of the daughters the
kingdom might some day return to the rightful heirs. . . When at last
the people round about the city of London and in Kent, Essex, Sussex,
Hampshire, Dorset, Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire and Berkshire and also
in some other southern counties of the kingdom, just referred to,
began considering vengeaance, Buckingham then living at Brecknock in
Wales, being repentant of what had been done would be captain-in-
chief in this affair, a rumour arose that King Edward's sons, by some
unknown manner of violent destruction, had met their fate. . . . "
(translation from Pronay & Cox edition, 1986)
Marie
PS. Yes, I was concerned to see that editing of a respnose had left
my name at the bottom of something I didn't write.
> organised plot free them from the Tower was foiled in late July, as
> was a plan to smuggle their sisters abroad.
> -------------------------
> agreed there was an uprising, but do we know for sure it was to
free the princes or was it to free the daughters? or to do both.
whatever it was, it was quickly put down.
There were, according to different accounts, two separate plots,
though it is not impossible that they are two versions of the same
plot. One - according to Croyland - was to free the daughters, and is
described in the quotation from Croyland which I give a long way
below.
The other was to free the Princes theselves. This is the account
preserved in Stow's Annales though his sources is now lost:-
"After this [Richard and Anne's coronation] were taken for rebels
against the King, Robert Ruffe sergeant of London, William Davy
pardoner of Hounslow, Iohn Smith groome of King Edwards stirrop, and
Stephen Ireland wardrober in the Tower, with many other, that they
should have sent writings into the parts of Britaine to the Earles of
Richmond and Penbrooke, and the other Lords: and how they were
purposed to haue set fire on diuers parts of London, which fire
whilest men had been stanching, they would have stolen out of the
Tower, the Prince Edward, and his brother the Duke of Yorke, &c.,
Robert Ruffe, William Davy, Iohn Smith, and Stephen Ireland, were at
Westminster judged to deatg; and from thence drawn to the Tower hill,
and there beheaded, and there heads were set on London bridge."
(John Stow, Annales or Great Chronicle of England)
For anyone not familiar, London and Westminster were then separate
entities. Westminster lies to the west of the city of London; the
Tower of London was outside the city wall on the east side. So a plot
to spring the Princes and their sisters simultaneously would still
have had two logistical arms to it. There are some later
interpolations in Stow's account, I would suggest (ie the Tudor
reference), but other wise it looks extremely interesting.
I would submit that if one had to scrub one plot as being garbage, it
would be the one to spring the daughters. Both these accounts come
from after Bosworth, but Stow - though much later - was copying from
older documents, whereas we know that Croyland was writing off the
top of his head after Richard's death. Also the logical thing from
supporters of Edward V to do would be to secure the person of Edward
V, not his sisters. It is possible that the whole story of smuggling
the daughters abroad was borne of the same thing which had Edward V's
would-be rescuers contact Henry Tudor - ie politically-correct
hindsight. History had to have been straining towards that marriage.
Marie
> ----------------------
>
> The sedition that became
> Buckingham's rebellion began as second attempt to free the Princes
> and restore Edward V.
> -----------------------
> what are your sources for the above statement?
Croyland: "In the meantime while these things [Richrd's progress and
the investiture of his son as Prince of Wales] were happening King
Edward remaianed in the Tower of London with a specially appointed
guard. In order to release them from such captivity the people of the
South and of the West of the kingdom began to murmur greatly, to form
assemblies, and to organise associations to this end - many were in
secret, others quite open - especially those men who had fled to
sanctuaries had advised that some of the king's daughters should
leave Westminster in disguise and go overseas so that if any human
fate, inside the Tower, were to befall the male children,
nevertheless through the saving of the persons of the daughters the
kingdom might some day return to the rightful heirs. . . When at last
the people round about the city of London and in Kent, Essex, Sussex,
Hampshire, Dorset, Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire and Berkshire and also
in some other southern counties of the kingdom, just referred to,
began considering vengeaance, Buckingham then living at Brecknock in
Wales, being repentant of what had been done would be captain-in-
chief in this affair, a rumour arose that King Edward's sons, by some
unknown manner of violent destruction, had met their fate. . . . "
(translation from Pronay & Cox edition, 1986)
Marie
PS. Yes, I was concerned to see that editing of a respnose had left
my name at the bottom of something I didn't write.
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.