Stanley

Richard Should Have Executed Stanley And Morton Along With Hastings
For Treason.
One Theory Was That He Was Afraid That Stanley's Sons Would Rise Up In
Cheshire - That May Well Be - Once A Traitor Etc.
Also Catesby And Others Begged Richard Not To Allow Stanley To Go Back
To His Estates But He Refused To Listen.
Bosworth Was A Complete Fiasco - So Many Mistakes Made.

with the assistance of the stanleys england was returned to the plantagent/york dynasty in 1471. this may have played a role in richard's decision to trust the family. an honourable person does not easily forget a valid favour done for one's family.

hastings was offed because he HAD always been a trusted companion, but he turned on richard. richard knew he could not trust hastings. perhaps hastings turned because buckingham had become involved with richard. hastings would have been significantly more aware of buckingham's personality than richard was.

had richard executed morton he would have been faced with the huge problem of the masses. one does not off a bishop easily. this also most likely why stillington survived as long as he did. the execution of lords spiritual may have also required papal permission.

the biggest question is why did richard trust buckingham? edward didn't, and had not for years. buckingham was biggest opportunistic weasel of the era.

between buckingham, and the namesake spawn of woodville, richard's reputation was weakened if not destroyed. the tudors parlayed the work of these two in to richard being the most heinious of uncles.

i have come to the conclusion that eliz of york started the rumours she was going to wed richard, and richard was advised to publically deny them as they were becoming believable.

i also think look-a-like gown event was overt attempt of e of y to usurp queen anne. vital, young and healthy vs older and sickly...and this is why the gowns were mentioned in croyland. the writer was covertly telling the reader there was more to the events than meets the eye. loads of court gossip.

e of y was infatuated with her uncle, and ambitious. and if she DID NOT want to marry henry tudor, and if anne hastened and died, e of y would have it all.
safety and crown.

gotta wonder if momma may have had a hand in "doctoring" anne. remember, woodville and her mother were accused of sorcery. this would also indicate they knew their herbs, both healing and disabilitating effects.

richard and anne were both victims in this political event.

personally, i think we have all been victims of tudor propaganda about e of y, as much as we have been about richard. her story was twisted to make richard appear the lecherous one vs her being her mother's daughter....out to capture a king.

remember h7 was "forced" to keep his vow to marry the daughter of e4. and there does not appear to have been a great love match. in fact, h7 may have seen his first real glimpse of sincere emotion from e of y when their son arthur died. and that was why he went to comfort her.

e of y was also a "planner" arthur and katherine of aragon were married in nov. 1501. he died in april 1502. ten months later her last child was born and named katherine. was this done because york was covering her bases, should henry happen to marry his brother's widow (it was in the planning at the time).

an elderly dowager queen would need all the gratitude she could get when her son became king. only months prior to her death an astrologer had predicted she would live into her 80's.

the clues are there about e of y, if you read between the lines. she only became/appeared "mousey" after her marriage.

roslyn

John <mezzerin1@...> wrote:
Richard Should Have Executed Stanley And Morton Along With Hastings
For Treason.
One Theory Was That He Was Afraid That Stanley's Sons Would Rise Up In
Cheshire - That May Well Be - Once A Traitor Etc.
Also Catesby And Others Begged Richard Not To Allow Stanley To Go Back
To His Estates But He Refused To Listen.
Bosworth Was A Complete Fiasco - So Many Mistakes Made.







SPONSORED LINKS
Richard iii United kingdom United kingdom flower delivery United kingdom phone United kingdom phone card United kingdom travel

---------------------------------
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.


---------------------------------

Have found my garden has some pink roses in, and thought what a good colour it would be for the Stanleys, neither white nor red, but kind of in between!
Paul


Sent from my iPad

Indeed. And my white rose is already blooming this year. H



From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017, 20:07
Subject: Stanley

Have found my garden has some pink roses in, and thought what a good colour it would be for the Stanleys, neither white nor red, but kind of in between!
Paul

Sent from my iPad

I dont think the Stanleys warrant a rose of any shade or hue. I think if choosing a flower/naturalistic emblem for them Ragwort might suit them perfectly. This plant is so toxic it can and does kill horses.

Ah, I had thought of the Tudor pink rose myself. How sweet. 
On May 4, 2017 3:07 PM, "Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []" <> wrote:
 

Have found my garden has some pink roses in, and thought what a good colour it would be for the Stanleys, neither white nor red, but kind of in between!
Paul

Sent from my iPad

Eileen wrote: I dont think the Stanleys warrant a rose of any shade or hue. I think if choosing a flower/naturalistic emblem for them Ragwort might suit them perfectly. This plant is so toxic it can and does kill horses.  Don't hold back, Eileen, tell us how you really feel! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I feel in much the same way as Eileen about those treacherous self interested turncoats. I also feel the same about Morton. One of my proudest moments remains by literally spitting on his grave in Canterbury Cathedral!Paul
Sent from my iPad
On 5 May 2017, at 17:49, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Eileen wrote: I dont think the Stanleys warrant a rose of any shade or hue. I think if choosing a flower/naturalistic emblem for them Ragwort might suit them perfectly. This plant is so toxic it can and does kill horses.  Don't hold back, Eileen, tell us how you really feel! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug..Tried to post a link on here for something I wrote for the murreyandblue blog..but failed...doh

Paul you do know his bones are no longer there. They have been stolen/lost over the years and now only the skull remains which is at Stonyhurst College.

Yes I know that. It is still his name writ large on his tomb. That's enough.Paul

Sent from my iPad
On 5 May 2017, at 23:10, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

Paul you do know his bones are no longer there. They have been stolen/lost over the years and now only the skull remains which is at Stonyhurst College.

Eileen wrote: Doug..Tried to post a link on here for something I wrote for the murreyandblue blog..but failed...doh Doug here: Not to worry! I googled murrayandblue and copied its' internet address. The year and month for the article would be helpful, though; as there's quite a lot to try and skim through to find it! Doug Who's bookmarked that blog for further general reading. It looks very interesting.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug..15 February 'Sir William Stanley Turncoat of Loyalist'.

This year.

https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/sir-william-stanley-turncoat-or-loyalist/

From: [mailto:]
Sent: 06 May 2017 17:30
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Stanley

This year.

Thank you Stephen.

Eileen wrote: Doug..15 February 2017 'Sir William Stanley Turncoat of Loyalist'. Thanks! Got it! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Also, if Richard had executed the other conspirators, it would have shown him as the tyrant he's been vilified as being, and is still getting vilified today.
It was a terrible time for treachery and disloyalty. Placing Morton in Buckingham's custody was like mixing a Molotov cocktail.

Sorry Dave, as Constable of England between monarchs any attack on Richard was treason, so he could have executed all of them and still have been simply following the law. In many ways I wish he had. Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 8 mai 2017 à 04:10, davetheslave44@... [] <> a écrit :

Also, if Richard had executed the other conspirators, it would have shown him as the tyrant he's been vilified as being, and is still getting vilified today.
It was a terrible time for treachery and disloyalty. Placing Morton in Buckingham's custody was like mixing a Molotov cocktail.

When you use the word 'fiasco,' are you referring to his (Richard's) shortsightedness in the antics of Sir William?

Yes, ok, but that he didn't does - or at least must - say something about his character. I agree. If he had he would have kept his crown.

https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/sir-william-stanley-turncoat-or-loyalist/#comment-4304

This comment threw me off the scent somewhat after reading it yesterday. Does anyone agree with it? That Sir William wasn't a Hasting's-like turncoat figure after all, and was, in fact, charging to aid Richard, but got caught in the Tudor-backed melee?

Are we into a William Stanley society now? :-) it was one of Stanleys Welsh men who claimed the killer blow.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 9 mai 2017 à 08:33, davetheslave44@... [] <> a écrit :

https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/sir-william-stanley-turncoat-or-loyalist/#comment-4304

This comment threw me off the scent somewhat after reading it yesterday. Does anyone agree with it? That Sir William wasn't a Hasting's-like turncoat figure after all, and was, in fact, charging to aid Richard, but got caught in the Tudor-backed melee?

I think it a complete nonsense, farcical, that William Stanley was riding to Richard's rescue. As I wrote the article I could have deleted this person's comments but I chose not to so as to add to the debate, although I did delete his opening sentence which rudely rubbished my article. Basically he is saying that it was Thomas who was duplicious and not William and a 'blunder' on William's part. This was my reply 'If it was indeed a 'blunder' on Sir William side and that he was 'actually coming to the king's aid' then he must have recovered his composure pretty quick in the aftermath of the battle..Mr X is saying that Sir William was not a serial turncoat and that it was his brother who was duplicitous! I would say that for someone who rides into battle to someone's aid, fails, the does a rapid turnabout to look as if he was doing the exact opposite is in fact the epitome of duplicity'.
This gentleman who rubbished my article oddly enough still continued to read other blogs i wrote and comment - which is strange if he thinks they are indeed rubbish , so much so that in the end I got him removed from being able to comment on my articles.

Dave..im not sure to what you are referring here..can you please quote the sentence in full..many thanks..

Given the climate of those times, that the influence and fortunes of the ruling class had mushroomed out of control, which partly explains the causes of the W of the R, I'd also say his comments are rubbish.

I didn't know. You don't say! ( just joking). Yes, Rhys ap Thomas. Where did you find that he was Stanley's Welshman? I've looked for the reference in a book I have about him, although it doesn't seem to be indicated.

Dave wrote:

"Yes, ok, but that he didn't does - or at least must - say something about his character. I agree. If he had he would have kept his crown."

Carol responds:

Forgive me. but without any context, it's unclear with whom you're agreeing or what Richard didn't do or what that omission says about his character. I'm assuming from the subject line that it has something to do with one or both Stanleys.

Carol

Dave wrote:

"https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/sir-william-stanley-turncoat-or-loyalist/#comment-4304

"This comment threw me off the scent somewhat after reading it yesterday. Does anyone agree with it? That Sir William wasn't a Hasting's-like turncoat figure after all, and was, in fact, charging to aid Richard, but got caught in the Tudor-backed melee?"

Carol responds:

There's some evidence (including a Yorkist rose necklace or whatever they were called found among his possessions at his death and his support of Perkin Warbeck) that he was what I call an Edwardian Yorkist--a supporter of Edward IV and his heirs (legitimate or otherwise) but not necessarily of Richard (especially after the death of Richard's son). We would need to look at his history in battles such as Towton, Barnet, and Tewkesbury to understand where his loyalties (such as they were) lay. Did he waver like his brother (whose loyalties were consistently to his own interests) or did he consistently support Edward IV (and before that, Richard Duke of York)? I don't know the answer, but I imagine that someone on this forum does.

Carol Regarding William Stanley's loyalty, the research has already been done and a link is provided in one of the comments. If I can summarise, the author concludes that William was true to York on every occasion.
Regards David
On 9 May 2017 6:05 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:
 

Dave wrote:

"https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/sir-william-stanley-turncoat-or-loyalist/#comment-4304

"This comment threw me off the scent somewhat after reading it yesterday. Does anyone agree with it? That Sir William wasn't a Hasting's-like turncoat figure after all, and was, in fact, charging to aid Richard, but got caught in the Tudor-backed melee?"

Carol responds:

There's some evidence (including a Yorkist rose necklace or whatever they were called found among his possessions at his death and his support of Perkin Warbeck) that he was what I call an Edwardian Yorkist--a supporter of Edward IV and his heirs (legitimate or otherwise) but not necessarily of Richard (especially after the death of Richard's son). We would need to look at his history in battles such as Towton, Barnet, and Tewkesbury to understand where his loyalties (such as they were) lay. Did he waver like his brother (whose loyalties were consistently to his own interests) or did he consistently support Edward IV (and before that, Richard Duke of York)? I don't know the answer, but I imagine that someone on this forum does.

Carol the link David is referring to was to someone who reckons that William Stanley was actually riding to Richard's defence at Bosworth and couldnt control his Welsh troops so Richard got killed by those who were suppose to be helping him. Make of that what you will...

There is no further reference. I'm just pointing out that the opinion that William Stanley was riding to help Richard is nonsense

Eileen, I've left your post in its' entirety below, but I did want to comment on Sir William. If it helps any, I tend to separate Yorkists into, at least, two groups: those who supported Richard as the legitimate heir to his brother and those who, for whatever reason/s, wished to see Edward IV's children on the throne; preferably one of his sons, but willing to accept his daughter as HT's queen.. Hastings, for example, fits into the latter group, as do almost all the Woodvilles; at least until Elizabeth Woodville made her peace with Richard and left sanctuary in the spring of 1484, thus forcing her relations to choose between supporting her actions or remaining in opposition to Richard. Opposition, I might add, that went all the way to armed rebellion. Seemingly Sir William, based on his actions at Bosworth, was in the second group. I think the position Sir William later took in regards to Perkin Warbeck supports my idea. In 1485 Sir William, believing Edward and Richard to be dead, supported HT because Henry was pledged to marry Edward IV's eldest daughter, thus placing a descendent of Edward IV on the throne once HT expired. However, when Perkin Warbeck popped up, claiming to the younger of Edward IV's sons, Sir William's loyalty to HT wavered. HT would have been completely acceptable to Sir William as the husband of Edward IV's eldest surviving child but, seemingly, if Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury, then Sir William's further support of the husband of the daughter of Edward IV was doubtful. I phrased that the way I did because I tend to believe that's the view Sir William himself likely held. IOW, Sir William, or so I believe, justified his actions at Bosworth by telling himself that his treasonous act against Richard was actually a display of loyalty to Edward IV. The fence-sitting attitude developed by the Stanley's likely had a lot to do with his attempt at justifying his treason. His attitude, by the way, may also be partially explained if he, and his brother Lord Thomas, viewed the contents of Titulus Regius as a cynical attempt at justification by Richard. It's exactly the sort of thing the Stanleys would do to increase their power/authority... BTW, I fully agree that the idea Sir William was trying to intervene at Bosworth on Richard's side is, well, silly. Had Sir William really wanted to help Richard, he could have joined his forces with Richard's the day before, which would have either prevented the battle entirely or else seen that it had a speedy conclusion in Richard's favor. Lastly, in your reply to Carol, you mentioned Sir William's Welsh troops. Where does that come from? Is it something else I've missed; as I've never heard of Sir William having any Welsh troops at Bosworth? Doug I think it a complete nonsense, farcical, that William Stanley was riding to Richard's rescue. As I wrote the article I could have deleted this person's comments but I chose not to so as to add to the debate, although I did delete his opening sentence which rudely rubbished my article. Basically he is saying that it was Thomas who was duplicious and not William and a 'blunder' on William's part. This was my reply 'If it was indeed a 'blunder' on Sir William side and that he was 'actually coming to the king's aid' then he must have recovered his composure pretty quick in the aftermath of the battle..Mr X is saying that Sir William was not a serial turncoat and that it was his brother who was duplicitous! I would say that for someone who rides into battle to someone's aid, fails, the does a rapid turnabout to look as if he was doing the exact opposite is in fact the epitome of duplicity'. &nbs p; This gentleman who rubbished my article oddly enough still continued to read other blogs i wrote and comment - which is strange if he thinks they are indeed rubbish , so much so that in the end I got him removed from being able to comment on my articles.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Yes Doug..absolutely agree with everything you have said in your post. As I wondered in my blog did William's loyalty to Edward of Westminster date back to the days when he was Steward to the Prince of Wales Household. Whatever...I feel it's a pretty dispicable thing to do, turn coat in the middle of a battle. Traitor!
Re the Welsh troops. I know nothing about this at all. One of the messages that were posted said that 'Emyr Wyn JOnes in A Kinsman King suggests that Stanley may never have intended to come to Tudor's aid nor Richard's either but he was simply unable to control his Welsh troops.

Eileen wrote:

"Carol the link David is referring to was to someone who reckons that William Stanley was actually riding to Richard's defence at Bosworth and couldnt control his Welsh troops so Richard got killed by those who were suppose to be helping him. Make of that what you will..."

Carol responds:

Yes, I read the comment that David referred to, which is why I think that someone on this forum (who has done real, unprejudiced research, which our Stanley fan clearly has not) might have researched the question. I meant a battle-by-battle account of where Sir William was and whom he supported, which we did not get in that comment.

I decided to do a little checking myself and it seems that Sir William, unlike his fence-sitting brother, did indeed support EIV on several occasions: Blore Heath (1459), Towton (1461), siege of Alnwick (1462), Hexham (1464). When Warwick rebelled, Sir William brought troops to join Edward. In the 1470s, he was steward of the Prince of Wales's household. (All this from http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/people_stanley_william.html).

Assuming that the information is reliable, Sir William was indeed an Edwardian Yorkist, as I have suggested, and not a time server like his brother. However, he chose the pseudo-Lancastrian Tudor (probably in the hope that he would marry Elizabeth of York and honor *her* claim, which shows how little he knew HT) over the true Yorkist heir, Richard. He supported HT at the Battle of Stoke, but by the time Perkin Warbeck came around, he seems to have put on his Edwardian Yorkist colors again, probably feeling with reason that HT's Yorkist (and Welsh?) supporters had made a bad bargain.

Carol

Hello Eileen and Carol

I think this article provides a much better explanation than the comments of that commentator.

http://www.historyextra.com/feature/treachery-what-really-brought-down-richard-iii

But maybe you've already seen this, or already know about the 20-year old power struggle in particular between the Stanleys and the Harringtons in a bitter dispute over the Hornby Estate. When Richard took control of the North, and especially after becoming king, he sided with the Harringtons to 'check' the Stanleys which diminshed their power and influence in the region.

That commentator threw me off guard, so to speak, as I hadn't really looked into the issue. I agree. You need to do the research, particularly coming from someone (me) who majored in history. By the way, I noticed some particularly foul and lengthy comments directed against Richard and all Ricardians, denouncing them as 'delusional.' The troll particularly wanted to slag off Annette Carson when she appeared with Philippa Langley at the R3 Society to lecture on the aftermath of the 'Looking for Richard' project. The troll boasted he had 'read every book' about Richard. If he had really read both sides, he would surely have a more balanced view and not being persistent in his prejudicial criticism.

Trolls are the down side of the internet, nearly always people with no lives of their own who enjoy annoying others and trying to make other lives as miserable as their own. They are everywhere these days unfortunately, and one has to develop an antenna to use recognising them before responding in the like and upsetting yourself!Anybody who has bad things to say about Annette and her immense research and clear and sensible use of the sources deserves no audience.Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 11 mai 2017 à 05:52, davetheslave44@... [] <> a écrit :

Hello Eileen and Carol

I think this article provides a much better explanation than the comments of that commentator.

http://www.historyextra.com/feature/treachery-what-really-brought-down-richard-iii

But maybe you've already seen this, or already know about the 20-year old power struggle in particular between the Stanleys and the Harringtons in a bitter dispute over the Hornby Estate. When Richard took control of the North, and especially after becoming king, he sided with the Harringtons to 'check' the Stanleys which diminshed their power and influence in the region.

That commentator threw me off guard, so to speak, as I hadn't really looked into the issue. I agree. You need to do the research, particularly coming from someone (me) who majored in history. By the way, I noticed some particularly foul and lengthy comments directed against Richard and all Ricardians, denouncing them as 'delusional.' The troll particularly wanted to slag off Annette Carson when she appeared with Philippa Langley at the R3 Society to lecture on the aftermath of the 'Looking for Richard' project. The troll boasted he had 'read every book' about Richard. If he had really read both sides, he would surely have a more balanced view and not being persistent in his prejudicial criticism.

Eileen wrote: Yes Doug..absolutely agree with everything you have said in your post. As I wondered in my blog did William's loyalty to Edward of Westminster date back to the days when he was Steward to the Prince of Wales Household. Whatever...I feel it's a pretty dispicable thing to do, turn coat in the middle of a battle. Traitor! Doug here: I have absolutely no proof, and I'm not conversant with Lord Thomas' and Sir William's actions in maintaining and extending Stanley influence, but I do wonder of Sir William's actions weren't the result of an extremely cynical view of why/how Richard came to the throne. Sir William, and his brother, may very well have always viewed Edward of Westminster as the legal king all along, but were simply in no position to do anything about it until 1485. If that was the case, then both Stanleys likely also viewed Titulus Regius as nothing more than propaganda, and that Richard had pushed his nephews aside for his (Richard's) own benefit. It's also quite possible that, having noted the problems and dangers having an underage king on the throne could bring in its' wake, the Stanleys were willing to go along with Richard for their own benefit and only switched sides when a better offer, aka Henry Tudor married to EoY, came along. Especially if they, or at least Sir William, were in place and willing to throw their troops into the fight against Richard at the most opportune, for the Stanleys', moment. To be fair, there's a possibility that Lord Thomas may have known about the fate of Richard's nephews than he told Sir William, but either way, Sir William's actions leading up to Bosworth and during the battle supports the idea that, whatever Lord Thomas did or did not believe, Sir William thought Richard's nephews were dead. In support of that idea, we have at least one report that Sir William said he wouldn't lead troops against Warbeck should Warbeck prove to be Richard of Shrewsbury and, as that statement cost Sir William his head, it says to me that Sir William had believed, until that point in time at least, that Richard's nephews were dead. Otherwise, why ever support HT if a live, legitimate son of Edward IV was alive somewhere? I hope this makes sense! Eileen concluded: Re the Welsh troops. I know nothing about this at all. One of the messages that were posted said that 'Emyr Wyn JOnes in A Kinsman King suggests that Stanley may never have intended to come to Tudor's aid nor Richard's either but he was simply unable to control his Welsh troops. Doug here: I'm sorry to say I haven't been to the blog yet! I was going to go there, start at the beginning and read everything, but stuff keeps happening; so I think I'll just go and read your article and the comments. Not to worry, though, I don't grade for punctuation! Anyway, the reason I asked was because I'd never, ever heard of any Welsh at Bosworth other than those attached to HT's forces. Of course, if only from a geographical standpoint, if Sir William was heading south with men gathered from the Stanley holdings in the Lancashire area, there's no reason he couldn't have been met by a contingent from the Stanley holdings in Wales heading east. But it's still strange that there's never been a mention until now, or a mention I've ever heard anyway, that Sir William's forces included a Welsh contingent. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug you have to look at the geography of Staffordshire/Cheshire/Lancashire. They border with Wales and, and there is intermarriage. For example Sir David Caradog, Justiciar of Wales of Craddock (Stillington) fame, is buried in Nantwich. Go to Hooton, one of the original seats of the Stanleys, and it is there to 'guard/overlook' the Welsh borders. So if the Stanleys needed Welsh support they could get it. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2017, 18:19
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Stanley

Eileen wrote: Yes Doug..absolutely agree with everything you have said in your post. As I wondered in my blog did William's loyalty to Edward of Westminster date back to the days when he was Steward to the Prince of Wales Household. Whatever...I feel it's a pretty dispicable thing to do, turn coat in the middle of a battle. Traitor! Doug here: I have absolutely no proof, and I'm not conversant with Lord Thomas' and Sir William's actions in maintaining and extending Stanley influence, but I do wonder of Sir William's actions weren't the result of an extremely cynical view of why/how Richard came to the throne. Sir William, and his brother, may very well have always viewed Edward of Westminster as the legal king all along, but were simply in no position to do anything about it until 1485. If that was the case, then both Stanleys likely also viewed Titulus Regius as nothing more than propaganda, and that Richard had pushed his nephews aside for his (Richard's) own benefit. It's also quite possible that, having noted the problems and dangers having an underage king on the throne could bring in its' wake, the Stanleys were willing to go along with Richard for their own benefit and only switched sides when a better offer, aka Henry Tudor married to EoY, came along. Especially if they, or at least Sir William, were in place and willing to throw their troops into the fight against Richard at the most opportune, for the Stanleys', moment. To be fair, there's a possibility that Lord Thomas may have known about the fate of Richard's nephews than he told Sir William, but either way, Sir William's actions leading up to Bosworth and during the battle supports the idea that, whatever Lord Thomas did or did not believe, Sir William thought Richard's nephews were dead. In support of that idea, we have at least one report that Sir William said he wouldn't lead troops against Warbeck should Warbeck prove to be Richard of Shrewsbury and, as that statement cost Sir William his head, it says to me that Sir William had believed, until that point in time at least, that Richard's nephews were dead. Otherwise, why ever support HT if a live, legitimate son of Edward IV was alive somewhere? I hope this makes sense! Eileen concluded: Re the Welsh troops. I know nothing about this at all. One of the messages that were posted said that 'Emyr Wyn JOnes in A Kinsman King suggests that Stanley may never have intended to come to Tudor's aid nor Richard's either but he was simply unable to control his Welsh troops. Doug here: I'm sorry to say I haven't been to the blog yet! I was going to go there, start at the beginning and read everything, but stuff keeps happening; so I think I'll just go and read your article and the comments. Not to worry, though, I don't grade for punctuation! Anyway, the reason I asked was because I'd never, ever heard of any Welsh at Bosworth other than those attached to HT's forces. Of course, if only from a geographical standpoint, if Sir William was heading south with men gathered from the Stanley holdings in the Lancashire area, there's no reason he couldn't have been met by a contingent from the Stanley holdings in Wales heading east. But it's still strange that there's never been a mention until now, or a mention I've ever heard anyway, that Sir William's forces included a Welsh contingent. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.