holinshed - richard declares innocence before the world - re princes

i'm still reading holinshed, in amongst the heavily influenced tudor
propaganda. i've just read this page....concerning richard putting
down buckingham's rebellion, and ric iii's return to london.
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?
TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1983

it states that richard declared "his innocencie concerning the
murther of his nephues towards the world"...

i found this startling as i was under the understanding that richard
NEVER refuted/declared his nephews were dead. but here we have a pro-
tudor writer telling us, richard did deny responsibility for the
deaths of his nephews.

it would be interesting to find the source for holinshed's comment.

a couple of pages previously he says he was given some info by an
unnamed source. now inspite of the info contained on this page of
holinshed..i will warn anyone reading this..READ BETWEEN THE LINES.
the info surrounding this revelation is pure tudor propaganda. it is
written in a mocking tone, with intent to influence the reader as to
what richard is declaring is false.

nonetheless, it belies the rumour that richard never addressed the
issue of the princes, dead or alive.

also..i'd like to add...

in one of the recent posts, someone stated they
were upset that one of the tudor era writers stated that richard had
a conversation while in the privvie.

this was not unusal behaviour, even by today's standards. how many
times have you had "secret"/private conversations in the washroom.
how often do we hear of decisions being made in the executive
washroom? a washroom offers significant privacy.

richard was human, he did need to use the toilet on occassion, and
further, during this era there were higher ranking nobles who were
known as the master of the stool. yes, it was their job to gather the
king's fecal matter and examine it for infestation or infection.

furthermore, the servants who would walk behind the king, ready for
any command to run/fetch or deliver an item or message were
uncerimoniously know as "fart catchers".

as much as we don't like the chroniclers for what they write about
richard, it is important to understand the day and age they wrote in
as well as the era they wrote about.

as long as we shun more's or any other writer who do not paint
richard in a postitive light, we will never find grains of truth,
such as richard declared his innocence regarding the murder of the
princes.

in journalism, journalists are taught..find THREE confirming sources.
here are three sources to prove richard did not kill the princes.
1/.
holinshed - page 746 see above url.
2/.
this forum's post from a couple of years ago.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/3824?
threaded=1&var=1&p=2

"And after the passing away of king Edward in the year of 83, another
one of his brothers, the Duke of Gloucester, had in his power the
Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, the young sons of the said king
his brother, and turned them to the Duke of Buckingham, under whose
custody the said Princes were starved to death. And the said
Gloucester, author of this murder out of his desire to be king,
wishing to clear himself of so ugly an event, beheaded the Duke of
Buckingham and rose to kingship..."

In the original Portuguese, it says:

"E depois do falecimento del Rej Duarte que foj no anno de 83 outro
seu
jrmao o Duque de Grosetia ouue a seu poder o Princepe de Gales e o
Duque
d Eorca que erao mocos filhos do dito Rej seu jrmao e os entregou ao
Duque de Boquincom que os tiuesse em cujo poder os ditos Princepes
forao
mortos a fame, e os ditos de Grosetra que desta morte era autor por se
alcar por Rej querendo sse de tam feo caso alimpar degolou o Duque de
Boquincom e alcou sse por Rej ..."
source cited...
If anyone wants to follow this up, the reference to the princes is in
Alvaro Lopes de Chaves, Livro de Apontamentos (1438-1489), (Codice
443 da Coleccao Pombalina da B.N.L.), Imprensa Nacional - Casa da
Moeda, Lisboa, 1983 and is supposed to be available in a Portuguese
paperback.
end forum excerpt.
3/.
Historical notes of a London citizen 1483-1488
This yer King Edward the Vth, late callyd Preince
Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the iiij
sonys, wer put to deyth in the Towur of London be the vise of the
duke of Buckingham.

in addition to the above, french chroniclers commynes and molinet
also link buckingham to the murder of the princes.

the above, to me, is very strong evidence, buckingham killed the boys.

imagine what different world we would be living in today, if more
people had "read between the lines" when gw bush told us there were
WMD in iraq.

don't shoot the messenger..grains of truth can be extracted from the
most foul sources, if you pay close enough attention.

roslyn

--- In , "fayreroze" <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>> in one of the recent posts, someone stated they
> were upset that one of the tudor era writers stated that richard had
> a conversation while in the privvie.

No Roslyn - I did not say that I was " upset that Richard had a conversationwhile in the
privvie"- how you read that into my comments I do not know!. The point I was trying to
make was that I found it astonishing that so many years (something like 50 years) later
More would have such knowedge and be able to repeat word for word a conversation that
was held whilst Richard was in the privvy - this is not the only example of a full blown
conversation that More repeats in this story. There are many including a long blow by blow
account of what Woodville said whilst trying to prevent her youngest son being removed
from sanctuary at Westminster. What was his sources? Or did he make it up as he went
along. BUT It is a cracking good yarn and I think More knew that and possibly did not
mean it to be taken seriously.



Fayreroze said

richard was human, he did need to use the toilet on occassion

Errh - yeah I do know that

Eileen



and
> further, during this era there were higher ranking nobles who were
> known as the master of the stool. yes, it was their job to gather the
> king's fecal matter and examine it for infestation or infection.
>
> furthermore, the servants who would walk behind the king, ready for
> any command to run/fetch or deliver an item or message were
> uncerimoniously know as "fart catchers".
>
> as much as we don't like the chroniclers for what they write about
> richard, it is important to understand the day and age they wrote in
> as well as the era they wrote about.
>
> as long as we shun more's or any other writer who do not paint
> richard in a postitive light, we will never find grains of truth,
> such as richard declared his innocence regarding the murder of the
> princes.
>
> in journalism, journalists are taught..find THREE confirming sources.
> here are three sources to prove richard did not kill the princes.
> 1/.
> holinshed - page 746 see above url.
> 2/.
> this forum's post from a couple of years ago.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/3824?
> threaded=1&var=1&p=2
>
> "And after the passing away of king Edward in the year of 83, another
> one of his brothers, the Duke of Gloucester, had in his power the
> Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, the young sons of the said king
> his brother, and turned them to the Duke of Buckingham, under whose
> custody the said Princes were starved to death. And the said
> Gloucester, author of this murder out of his desire to be king,
> wishing to clear himself of so ugly an event, beheaded the Duke of
> Buckingham and rose to kingship..."
>
> In the original Portuguese, it says:
>
> "E depois do falecimento del Rej Duarte que foj no anno de 83 outro
> seu
> jrmao o Duque de Grosetia ouue a seu poder o Princepe de Gales e o
> Duque
> d Eorca que erao mocos filhos do dito Rej seu jrmao e os entregou ao
> Duque de Boquincom que os tiuesse em cujo poder os ditos Princepes
> forao
> mortos a fame, e os ditos de Grosetra que desta morte era autor por se
> alcar por Rej querendo sse de tam feo caso alimpar degolou o Duque de
> Boquincom e alcou sse por Rej ..."
> source cited...
> If anyone wants to follow this up, the reference to the princes is in
> Alvaro Lopes de Chaves, Livro de Apontamentos (1438-1489), (Codice
> 443 da Coleccao Pombalina da B.N.L.), Imprensa Nacional - Casa da
> Moeda, Lisboa, 1983 and is supposed to be available in a Portuguese
> paperback.
> end forum excerpt.
> 3/.
> Historical notes of a London citizen 1483-1488
> This yer King Edward the Vth, late callyd Preince
> Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the iiij
> sonys, wer put to deyth in the Towur of London be the vise of the
> duke of Buckingham.
>
> in addition to the above, french chroniclers commynes and molinet
> also link buckingham to the murder of the princes.
>
> the above, to me, is very strong evidence, buckingham killed the boys.
>
> imagine what different world we would be living in today, if more
> people had "read between the lines" when gw bush told us there were
> WMD in iraq.
>
> don't shoot the messenger..grains of truth can be extracted from the
> most foul sources, if you pay close enough attention.
>
> roslyn
>

--- In , "fayreroze" <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>> as long as we shun more's or any other writer who do not paint
> richard in a postitive light, we will never find grains of truth,
> such as richard declared his innocence regarding the murder of the
> princes.
>

Well I for one have not shunned More's story - you have to read it so that you know what
he's written - then you mke your own mind up.

But how can you be sure that there is in fact a "grain of truth" in that statement regarding
Richard declaring his innocence?


> imagine what different world we would be living in today, if more
> people had "read between the lines" when gw bush told us there were
> WMD in iraq.

Well I do agree with you on this one - You can tell when Bush & Blair are lying - their lips
are moving!

Eileen
>
> don't shoot the messenger..grains of truth can be extracted from the
> most foul sources, if you pay close enough attention.
>
> roslyn
>

i have not read all of more. i've read some of more...now regarding holinshed.
how can i be so sure that richard declaring his innocence in regard to the murder of the princes, is a grain of truth.

holinshed strongly states on several pages..richard did it.
holinshed even blames e4 for the death of the princes..because he lied upon returning to england. according to holinshed. e4 gained access to england and support of the nobles in his uprising to reclaim the throne by lying to them..according to holinshed e4 went to church and vowed..all he wanted was his title duke of york restored..and as he gathered momentum..e4 then began saying he was king...it was e4's broken vow at the church that led to death of his sons...so sayeth holinshed.

so we have holinshed several times calling/accusing richard of murder..blaming his brother e4 for the death of the boys..

so why would holinshed need to report that richard upon his return from buckingham's rebellion declared his innocence?

it was done to mock richard, to paint him as a liar as well as a murderer. that and in the same statement..holinshed is commenting richard's tax and tallage..and buying of favours of the peers. richard was a bad, depraved, nasty evil man..according to holinshed.

there was no need to have richard declare his innocence...holinshed has buckingham saying richard killed the boys...and according to holinshed, the princes were dead by the time buckingham connected with morton in wales.

so why was it necessary for hollingshed to record this event? because it did occur.

how do we know that?
because..the portuguese record buckingham guilty.
the london citizen says the murder was the vise of buckingham.
commynes and molinet record that buckingham was involved.

the french could not come right out and state buckingham did it..their king was seriously involved with tudor..and tudor needed ric iii to be the bad guy. ric iii had to be the usurper..not h7..and not buckingham who supposedly supported tudor. all politics.

the portuguese info isn't in a public statement..it's in a diary. probably not intended for publication..nor was the london citizen's comment up for public display. but time and luck has allowed these documents to survive and record the grains of truth.

history is written by the victors..and if the writer could lose their head for recording the "wrong bit of info" the writer erred on the side of safety.

the declaration occurs at the time of richard's first parliament, richard has returned to london after executing buckingham for the rebellion, attainting h7 and those who supported the rebellion.

we know it occured at parliament..because richard declared his innocency before the world...it wasn't whispered in the streets or orated in guildhall meetings..it was declared before parliament..there would be ambassadors/foreign dignitaries..the known world's ears.

no known record of richard's declaration before parliament exists..why? think tudor parchment shredders.

----------
also..i could use a little help...was buckingham attainted? do the documents exist? is there any comment within that could reflect an accusation of the murder of the princes?

if the document is available on line..could some one point me in the direction of it via a url.

if the document is recorded in a book or held in an archive/library etc..can someone tell me where i can locate it.

thanks
roslyn



eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
--- In , "fayreroze" <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>> as long as we shun more's or any other writer who do not paint
> richard in a postitive light, we will never find grains of truth,
> such as richard declared his innocence regarding the murder of the
> princes.
>

Well I for one have not shunned More's story - you have to read it so that you know what
he's written - then you mke your own mind up.

But how can you be sure that there is in fact a "grain of truth" in that statement regarding
Richard declaring his innocence?

> imagine what different world we would be living in today, if more
> people had "read between the lines" when gw bush told us there were
> WMD in iraq.

Well I do agree with you on this one - You can tell when Bush & Blair are lying - their lips
are moving!

Eileen
>
> don't shoot the messenger..grains of truth can be extracted from the
> most foul sources, if you pay close enough attention.
>
> roslyn
>

eileen, on june 10th, in the three concubines thread while discussing more and his portrayal of richard....you commented.
begin excerpt

He even described Richard as sitting on the privvie whilst holding one discussion! Oh pleeeese!

end excerpt

the above statement can be read as a comment by some one who is upset that more would portray "richard sitting on the privvie"...the oh pleeese! part was what gives the impression of being upset.

as to what were more's sources, i'm going to make a big calculated assumed guess that the info came via morton, and other members of the clergy morton was associated with...confession is great for the soul...morton was a high ranking church offical..and the lords temporal and spiritual ruled the land. morton had the status and rank to extract info..willingly and forcefully if necessary.

the more i read on morton and learn about the man...i'm thinking .he was foul..buckingham almost has no stench compared to morton...especially when i learn morton was associated with the borgia pope..morton was pure machavellian..
using these concepts..hold your friends near..hold your enemies closer. if you can't destroy the person, destroy their reputation...which in turn destroys their credibility, therefore no one will align with them.

can you see this philosophy being actively used in the tudor era charactor assination of richard?

morton is more of a poster boy for machavelli's prince, than cesare borgia.
btw..the borgias liked their poisons..if anyone slipped e4 a mickey, it was morton...with perhaps a little assistance from margaret beaufort.

morton, according to holinshed was a devoted h6 supporter..

so i wonder when did morton first begin to serve at h6's court...how much influence did he have on h6..how closely aligned was morton with margaret d'anjou?

where was morton in the 1460's. it appears he was attainted in 1461
see...
http://www.yorkshirehistory.com/towton/towton4.htm

morton was solidly pro-lancasterian..he just held his enemy close until he could get the house of york replaced.

roslyn




eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
--- In , "fayreroze" <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>> in one of the recent posts, someone stated they
> were upset that one of the tudor era writers stated that richard had
> a conversation while in the privvie.

No Roslyn - I did not say that I was " upset that Richard had a conversationwhile in the
privvie"- how you read that into my comments I do not know!. The point I was trying to
make was that I found it astonishing that so many years (something like 50 years) later
More would have such knowedge and be able to repeat word for word a conversation that
was held whilst Richard was in the privvy - this is not the only example of a full blown
conversation that More repeats in this story. There are many including a long blow by blow
account of what Woodville said whilst trying to prevent her youngest son being removed
from sanctuary at Westminster. What was his sources? Or did he make it up as he went
along. BUT It is a cracking good yarn and I think More knew that and possibly did not
mean it to be taken seriously.

Fayreroze said

richard was human, he did need to use the toilet on occassion

Errh - yeah I do know that

Eileen

and
> further, during this era there were higher ranking nobles who were
> known as the master of the stool. yes, it was their job to gather the
> king's fecal matter and examine it for infestation or infection.
>
> furthermore, the servants who would walk behind the king, ready for
> any command to run/fetch or deliver an item or message were
> uncerimoniously know as "fart catchers".
>
> as much as we don't like the chroniclers for what they write about
> richard, it is important to understand the day and age they wrote in
> as well as the era they wrote about.
>
> as long as we shun more's or any other writer who do not paint
> richard in a postitive light, we will never find grains of truth,
> such as richard declared his innocence regarding the murder of the
> princes.
>
> in journalism, journalists are taught..find THREE confirming sources.
> here are three sources to prove richard did not kill the princes.
> 1/.
> holinshed - page 746 see above url.
> 2/.
> this forum's post from a couple of years ago.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/3824?
> threaded=1&var=1&p=2
>
> "And after the passing away of king Edward in the year of 83, another
> one of his brothers, the Duke of Gloucester, had in his power the
> Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, the young sons of the said king
> his brother, and turned them to the Duke of Buckingham, under whose
> custody the said Princes were starved to death. And the said
> Gloucester, author of this murder out of his desire to be king,
> wishing to clear himself of so ugly an event, beheaded the Duke of
> Buckingham and rose to kingship..."
>
> In the original Portuguese, it says:
>
> "E depois do falecimento del Rej Duarte que foj no anno de 83 outro
> seu
> jrmao o Duque de Grosetia ouue a seu poder o Princepe de Gales e o
> Duque
> d Eorca que erao mocos filhos do dito Rej seu jrmao e os entregou ao
> Duque de Boquincom que os tiuesse em cujo poder os ditos Princepes
> forao
> mortos a fame, e os ditos de Grosetra que desta morte era autor por se
> alcar por Rej querendo sse de tam feo caso alimpar degolou o Duque de
> Boquincom e alcou sse por Rej ..."
> source cited...
> If anyone wants to follow this up, the reference to the princes is in
> Alvaro Lopes de Chaves, Livro de Apontamentos (1438-1489), (Codice
> 443 da Coleccao Pombalina da B.N.L.), Imprensa Nacional - Casa da
> Moeda, Lisboa, 1983 and is supposed to be available in a Portuguese
> paperback.
> end forum excerpt.
> 3/.
> Historical notes of a London citizen 1483-1488
> This yer King Edward the Vth, late callyd Preince
> Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the iiij
> sonys, wer put to deyth in the Towur of London be the vise of the
> duke of Buckingham.
>
> in addition to the above, french chroniclers commynes and molinet
> also link buckingham to the murder of the princes.
>
> the above, to me, is very strong evidence, buckingham killed the boys.
>
> imagine what different world we would be living in today, if more
> people had "read between the lines" when gw bush told us there were
> WMD in iraq.
>
> don't shoot the messenger..grains of truth can be extracted from the
> most foul sources, if you pay close enough attention.
>
> roslyn
>

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:

> morton is more of a poster boy for machavelli's prince, than
cesare borgia.
> btw..the borgias liked their poisons..if anyone slipped e4 a
mickey, it was morton...with perhaps a little assistance from
margaret beaufort.
>
> morton, according to holinshed was a devoted h6 supporter..
>
> so i wonder when did morton first begin to serve at h6's
court...how much influence did he have on h6..how closely aligned
was morton with margaret d'anjou?
>
> where was morton in the 1460's. it appears he was attainted in
1461
> see...
> http://www.yorkshirehistory.com/towton/towton4.htm
>
> morton was solidly pro-lancasterian..he just held his enemy
close until he could get the house of york replaced.


Oddly enough, since he was a pivotal if behind-the-scenes player in
so much of 15th century politics (he deserves the title King-Maker
more than Warwick does) there is no good biography of John Morton
that I am aware of. Someone should take him on.

Katy

see below...way below..:-))
oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote: --- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:

> morton is more of a poster boy for machavelli's prince, than
cesare borgia.
> btw..the borgias liked their poisons..if anyone slipped e4 a
mickey, it was morton...with perhaps a little assistance from
margaret beaufort.
>
> morton, according to holinshed was a devoted h6 supporter..
>
> so i wonder when did morton first begin to serve at h6's
court...how much influence did he have on h6..how closely aligned
was morton with margaret d'anjou?
>
> where was morton in the 1460's. it appears he was attainted in
1461
> see...
> http://www.yorkshirehistory.com/towton/towton4.htm
>
> morton was solidly pro-lancasterian..he just held his enemy
close until he could get the house of york replaced.

Oddly enough, since he was a pivotal if behind-the-scenes player in
so much of 15th century politics (he deserves the title King-Maker
more than Warwick does) there is no good biography of John Morton
that I am aware of. Someone should take him on.

Katy
i'm more inclined to think of morton as a king destroyer vs maker.
i have to wonder what head games he played on poor h6..h6 was a very devote person. morton probably parlayed that into something good for himself.
morton is a good candidate for poisoning e4. look at what he has done to ric iii.
and then consider the reputation h7 gained by the association with morton..and using morton's fork to rob his peers blind.
roslyn

Hi all,

I've been finding this post very interesting.

I suspect the comment on rejecting More because you don't like what
he says was also addressed to me.

I too would like to place on record that this is not at all the
reason I have rejected More. The reasons are:-

1) I have read him in his entirety (albeit donkeys years ago), and I
have compared his statements to what proper primary sources we have,
and found that the two do not tally. This also holds true, even
though to a lesser extent, of that much more highly regarded 'Tudor
historian', Polydore Vergil.
It therefore seems to me to be extremely dangerous to rely on More or
any other later humanist writer to fill in the gaps in the primary
record. I am actually aware of a couple of important issues on which
modern historians have completely missed the significance of an
important discovery because they have persisted in trying to
reconcile it with the Tudor histories rather than examining it on its
own terms.
True antiquaries, on the other hand, can be useful, as in many cases
they have left us copies of genuine documents which are no longer
extant.

The Tudor histories are full of speeches and scenes which read like
fly-on-the-wall journalism. But they are not. This was the humanist
style of writing history. The main purpose of history for them was to
make a moral point, and fleshing out the bones of the tale with
invented scenes and dialogue was not only admissable, it was
fashionable and a chance for them to show off their own writing
skills and powers of rhetoric. They were copying the way the Romans
had done things rather than writing either chronicles in the medieval
sense or history in the modern sense.

I agree to some extent that where Tudor historians say something
which is against their own argument it is more likely to be true. But
the problem with trying to use this sort of evidence is that
traditionalist opponents will accuse us of trying to have our cake
and eat it - ignoring the Tudor histories where we don't like what
they say, and accepting them where we do. People taking the
traditionally accepted line can afford to get away with far woollier
evidence than those challenging it. In fact, some of the sloppiest
historical writing these days is coming out of the traditionalist
camp simply because they can.
There is a second problem with accepting bits of Tudor historianese
which appear to run against their general flow, and that is that we
may be missing their reasons for including it. With Richard
protesting his innocence to Parliament, for instance. This could be a
corruption of the true fact that Richard's murder of the Princes was
proclaimed by the French Parlement at pretty much exactly the same
time. It could also be meant as another example of
Richard's 'hypocrisy', which is a strong thread running through the
Tudor histories - you know, this guy presented himself as a good man
with the public interest at heart, but he was such a bare-faced liar.
It could well be picking up on his denial to an audience at
Clerkenwell of his desire to see off his wife and marry his niece. Or
it could be true. But we've no way of knowing.

There's a lot more truly contemporary documentation surviving than we
often imagine, and more is coming to light all the time (the vast
majority of the holdings of the National Archives, for instance, have
never been indexed, and the online indexes for most of the country's
other archives are also very incomplete). There are also published
contemporary sources which are quite obscure and not much looked at
(often local material). Plus material of relevance to English affairs
lurking in foreign archives. A lot of manuscript sources are huge and
in Latin, and some of them are in poor condition, making their use
far more of a chore than just picking up More or Vergil, but I do so
strongly feel that this is where we Ricardians should be
concentrating.

There. That's that off me chest.

Marie

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> see below...way below..:-))
> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote: --- In
, fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
>
> > morton is more of a poster boy for machavelli's prince, than
> cesare borgia.
> > btw..the borgias liked their poisons..if anyone slipped e4 a
> mickey, it was morton...with perhaps a little assistance from
> margaret beaufort.
> >
> > morton, according to holinshed was a devoted h6 supporter..
> >
> > so i wonder when did morton first begin to serve at h6's
> court...how much influence did he have on h6..how closely aligned
> was morton with margaret d'anjou?
> >
> > where was morton in the 1460's. it appears he was attainted in
> 1461
> > see...
> > http://www.yorkshirehistory.com/towton/towton4.htm
> >
> > morton was solidly pro-lancasterian..he just held his enemy
> close until he could get the house of york replaced.
>
> Oddly enough, since he was a pivotal if behind-the-scenes player in
> so much of 15th century politics (he deserves the title King-Maker
> more than Warwick does) there is no good biography of John Morton
> that I am aware of. Someone should take him on.
>
> Katy
> i'm more inclined to think of morton as a king destroyer vs maker.
> i have to wonder what head games he played on poor h6..h6 was a
very devote person. morton probably parlayed that into something good
for himself.
> morton is a good candidate for poisoning e4. look at what he has
done to ric iii.
> and then consider the reputation h7 gained by the association
with morton..and using morton's fork to rob his peers blind.
> roslyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> eileen, on june 10th, in the three concubines thread while discussing more and his
portrayal of richard....you commented.
> begin excerpt
>
> He even described Richard as sitting on the privvie whilst holding one discussion! Oh
pleeeese!
>
> end excerpt
>
> the above statement can be read as a comment by some one who is upset that more
would portray "richard sitting on the privvie"...the oh pleeese! part was what gives the
impression of being upset.

Roslyn - take my word for it - as I explained yesterday you have completely
misconstrued my comments. The comment 'oh pleeese' was made in place of saying
something like 'oh my god what a load of rubbish' or 'give us a break' - I hope noone else
has interpreted my comment in the way you have because it makes me sound like I am a
right pratt!

Eileen


>
> as to what were more's sources, i'm going to make a big calculated assumed guess
that the info came via morton, and other members of the clergy morton was associated
with...confession is great for the soul...morton was a high ranking church offical..and the
lords temporal and spiritual ruled the land. morton had the status and rank to extract
info..willingly and forcefully if necessary.
>
> the more i read on morton and learn about the man...i'm thinking .he was
foul..buckingham almost has no stench compared to morton...especially when i learn
morton was associated with the borgia pope..morton was pure machavellian..
> using these concepts..hold your friends near..hold your enemies closer. if you can't
destroy the person, destroy their reputation...which in turn destroys their credibility,
therefore no one will align with them.
>
> can you see this philosophy being actively used in the tudor era charactor assination of
richard?
>
> morton is more of a poster boy for machavelli's prince, than cesare borgia.
> btw..the borgias liked their poisons..if anyone slipped e4 a mickey, it was
morton...with perhaps a little assistance from margaret beaufort.
>
> morton, according to holinshed was a devoted h6 supporter..
>
> so i wonder when did morton first begin to serve at h6's court...how much influence
did he have on h6..how closely aligned was morton with margaret d'anjou?
>
> where was morton in the 1460's. it appears he was attainted in 1461
> see...
> http://www.yorkshirehistory.com/towton/towton4.htm
>
> morton was solidly pro-lancasterian..he just held his enemy close until he could get
the house of york replaced.
>
> roslyn
>
>
>
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
> --- In , "fayreroze" <fayreroze@>
wrote:
> >>> in one of the recent posts, someone stated they
> > were upset that one of the tudor era writers stated that richard had
> > a conversation while in the privvie.
>
> No Roslyn - I did not say that I was " upset that Richard had a conversationwhile in the
> privvie"- how you read that into my comments I do not know!. The point I was trying to
> make was that I found it astonishing that so many years (something like 50 years) later
> More would have such knowedge and be able to repeat word for word a conversation
that
> was held whilst Richard was in the privvy - this is not the only example of a full blown
> conversation that More repeats in this story. There are many including a long blow by
blow
> account of what Woodville said whilst trying to prevent her youngest son being removed
> from sanctuary at Westminster. What was his sources? Or did he make it up as he went
> along. BUT It is a cracking good yarn and I think More knew that and possibly did not
> mean it to be taken seriously.
>
> Fayreroze said
>
> richard was human, he did need to use the toilet on occassion
>
> Errh - yeah I do know that
>
> Eileen
>
> and
> > further, during this era there were higher ranking nobles who were
> > known as the master of the stool. yes, it was their job to gather the
> > king's fecal matter and examine it for infestation or infection.
> >
> > furthermore, the servants who would walk behind the king, ready for
> > any command to run/fetch or deliver an item or message were
> > uncerimoniously know as "fart catchers".
> >
> > as much as we don't like the chroniclers for what they write about
> > richard, it is important to understand the day and age they wrote in
> > as well as the era they wrote about.
> >
> > as long as we shun more's or any other writer who do not paint
> > richard in a postitive light, we will never find grains of truth,
> > such as richard declared his innocence regarding the murder of the
> > princes.
> >
> > in journalism, journalists are taught..find THREE confirming sources.
> > here are three sources to prove richard did not kill the princes.
> > 1/.
> > holinshed - page 746 see above url.
> > 2/.
> > this forum's post from a couple of years ago.
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/3824?
> > threaded=1&var=1&p=2
> >
> > "And after the passing away of king Edward in the year of 83, another
> > one of his brothers, the Duke of Gloucester, had in his power the
> > Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, the young sons of the said king
> > his brother, and turned them to the Duke of Buckingham, under whose
> > custody the said Princes were starved to death. And the said
> > Gloucester, author of this murder out of his desire to be king,
> > wishing to clear himself of so ugly an event, beheaded the Duke of
> > Buckingham and rose to kingship..."
> >
> > In the original Portuguese, it says:
> >
> > "E depois do falecimento del Rej Duarte que foj no anno de 83 outro
> > seu
> > jrmao o Duque de Grosetia ouue a seu poder o Princepe de Gales e o
> > Duque
> > d Eorca que erao mocos filhos do dito Rej seu jrmao e os entregou ao
> > Duque de Boquincom que os tiuesse em cujo poder os ditos Princepes
> > forao
> > mortos a fame, e os ditos de Grosetra que desta morte era autor por se
> > alcar por Rej querendo sse de tam feo caso alimpar degolou o Duque de
> > Boquincom e alcou sse por Rej ..."
> > source cited...
> > If anyone wants to follow this up, the reference to the princes is in
> > Alvaro Lopes de Chaves, Livro de Apontamentos (1438-1489), (Codice
> > 443 da Coleccao Pombalina da B.N.L.), Imprensa Nacional - Casa da
> > Moeda, Lisboa, 1983 and is supposed to be available in a Portuguese
> > paperback.
> > end forum excerpt.
> > 3/.
> > Historical notes of a London citizen 1483-1488
> > This yer King Edward the Vth, late callyd Preince
> > Walys, and Richard duke of Yourke hys brother, Kyng Edward the iiij
> > sonys, wer put to deyth in the Towur of London be the vise of the
> > duke of Buckingham.
> >
> > in addition to the above, french chroniclers commynes and molinet
> > also link buckingham to the murder of the princes.
> >
> > the above, to me, is very strong evidence, buckingham killed the boys.
> >
> > imagine what different world we would be living in today, if more
> > people had "read between the lines" when gw bush told us there were
> > WMD in iraq.
> >
> > don't shoot the messenger..grains of truth can be extracted from the
> > most foul sources, if you pay close enough attention.
> >
> > roslyn
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > eileen, on june 10th, in the three concubines thread while
discussing more and his
> portrayal of richard....you commented.
> > begin excerpt
> >
> > He even described Richard as sitting on the privvie whilst
holding one discussion! Oh
> pleeeese!
> >
> > end excerpt
> >
> > the above statement can be read as a comment by some one who is
upset that more
> would portray "richard sitting on the privvie"...the oh pleeese!
part was what gives the
> impression of being upset.
>
> Roslyn - take my word for it - as I explained yesterday you
have completely
> misconstrued my comments. The comment 'oh pleeese' was made in
place of saying
> something like 'oh my god what a load of rubbish' or 'give us a
break' - I hope noone else
> has interpreted my comment in the way you have because it makes me
sound like I am a
> right pratt!


I read your comment as intended, Eileen, so I wonder if this may be a
case of transatlantic crossed wiring, being divided by a common
langauge and so on.
I'm sure we're both alike in our problem with More. Let's just start
with his first sentence:-

"Kyng Edwarde of that name the fowrth, after that hee hadde lyued
fiftie and three yeares, seven monethes, and five dayes, and thereof
reygned two and twentye yeres, one moneth, and eighte dayes, dyed at
Westmynster the nynth daye of Aprill, the yere of oure redempcion, a
thowsande foure houndred foure score and three, leavinge muche fayre
yssue, that is to witte, Edwarde the Prynce, a thirtene yeare of age:
Richarde duke of Yorke, two yeare younger."
Edward was actually just short of his 43rd birthday when he died.
He reigned 22 years, 11 months and just seven days.
Yes, he died at Westminster on the 9th April 1483!
Prince Edward was actually a little under 12 and a half, and Richard
Duke of York was a little over THREE years younger.
As for the enormities of Richard's birth, whose version (saving the
teeth) will you pick? Rous's that he was born unnaturally overdue
(two years gestation, in fact!)with long hair and teeth, or More's
that he was a premature breech birth, but also with teeth. An
unnatural and unpleasant entry into the world is, of course,
necessary for the antichrist figure. Watch Rosemary's Baby if you
don't believe me.

A letter from Cecily to Queen Margaret, written a few months after
Richard's birth and rediscovered few years ago, was being used for a
while by historians as evidence she had had a difficult birth, as in
it she congratulated Margaret on her pregnancy and complained of her
own ill health because of her 'labour'. Fortunately, publication of
the text has now allowed all and sundry to see she was complaining
about the ill health she had suffered because of her labour to the
King on behalf of her husband (for the past year banished to his
estates in disgrace)! This is an example of what I meant by
historians interpreting contemporary finds in the light of ideas
received from Tudor histories rather than reading them properly. Did
it never occur to them that complaining about the horrors of the
birthing process to a woman pregnant with her first child would have
been rather tactless, and not the sort of social faux pas one would
commit with the Queen when trying to butter her up.
As regards More and Rous, I'd sooner take Rous, even though the two
years thing is silly. He at least was attached to the house of
Warwick and might very well have had 1st-hand info from the Countess,
who, he tells us, loved attending women in childbirth. It just
happens that Cecily's previous child was born just under two years
before Richard, so that is probably the basis for Rous's wild claim
regarding dates. It is highly unlikely he would use that, however, if
he had been told that richard was premature. Also, were it a breech
birth he would have told us. I imagine More's breach birth is just an
excuse for a pun: it meant he could say Richard had been
ever 'froward' (which of course also carried the meaning of contrary
in temper).
Taking up what Katy said about symbolism with the three mistresses,
I'd been wondering if there was a possible allusion to the four
elements, Edward representing Earth (carnality, sins of the flesh),
the holy mistress Air (spirituality), the merry one Fire, and the
wily one Water.
Where I think More is good is in giving a feel for what was going on
in London at the time. Here his family and family friends could
probably tell him a lot. Yet it is here, interestingly, that he
confines himself to plain narrative. This makes his fly-on-the-wall
dramas of the great and good, with their dialogues on privies and
stuff so much the more suspect. Let's face it, nobody at all was
there with a notebook, let alone little More.

I'm sure More suppressed facts that didn't suit his picture. As a
Londoner, for instance, he must have been aware of the scandal of
how, after Mistress Shore became Edward's mistress, she got the Pope
to annul her marriage on the grounds that William couldn't, to put it
crudely, get his end up (I suspect this may have been done so that
she could have proof for Edward that any children she bore were his -
a great boost to her power). Yet More completely rewrites this:-
"But when the king had abused her, anon her husband (as he was an
honest man & one that could his good, not presuming to touch a kinges
concubine) left her vp to him al togither"
"the p[ro]tector sent into the house of shores wife(for her husband
dwelled not with her)".

More must also have known of her remarriage to the King's solicitor,
who lived with her in London close to her birth family (the Lamberts)
for the next few years. Yet these don't fit the picture of an
innocent young girl brought to ruin by the Monster. More tells us
pathetically:
"she is now in the more beggerly condicion, vnfrended & worne out of
acquantance"
"Albeit some that now se her (for yet she liueth) deme her neuer to
haue ben wel visaged. Whose iugement semeth me somwhat like, as
though men should gesse the bewty of one longe before departed, by
her scalpe taken out of the charnel house: for now is she old lene,
withered & dried vp, nothing left but ryuilde skin & hard bone."
At the time More wrote, Thomas Lynham was apparently living in
Shropshire where he was from time to time still being appointed to
royal commissions, and the couple had had at least two children (see
the new DNB for details). More's friends are unlikely to have seen
the King's former mistress for years, and she was certainly not
living in poverty.

What I find most suspicious about More's censored version of
Elizabeth Lambert-Shore-Lynham's story is that in 1515 a London
mercer named William Lambert left 3s 4d to More's father in his will.
Elizabeth's father was also a mercer, so the two men were probably
closely related. So More's family were apparently on close terms with
some of Mistress Shore's relatives, and yet we have such a misleading
account of her history. Surely this was not ignorance but calculation.

Anyway, could go on all day but probably shouldn't.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've been finding this post very interesting.
>
> I suspect the comment on rejecting More because you don't like
what
> he says was also addressed to me.
>
> I too would like to place on record that this is not at all the
> reason I have rejected More. The reasons are:-
>
> 1) I have read him in his entirety (albeit donkeys years ago), and
I
> have compared his statements to what proper primary sources we
have,
> and found that the two do not tally.


I too have read More in his considerable entirety asnd have read
numerous biographies of the man, and I'll put ot even more
strongly: More was not the man you meet in "A Man For All Seasons,"
the brilliant, pious man who stood up to Henry VIII and died for his
beliefs.

More is a fascinating study in a certain type of personality
disorder, and I admit that the more I learned about him, the less I
liked him. (Some of his published biographers, such as Richard
Marius, obviously had the same struggle.) Basically, More had a
desperate drive to be noticed, to be famous, that was evident even
in childhood. He was a hypocrite. I believe that he deliberately
managed to get himself set up as a martyr Unlike the also-sainted
John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, who preceded More up the steps of
the scaffold (Fisher is the man who actually had the attributes
associated with More) More never articulated the reasons his faith
would not allow him to accept Henry's actions.

More is not to be relied upon if you are looking for the truth. One
flagrant example is his outright perjury -- there can be no other
term -- as an official in the Hunne affair. (Anyone interest will
have to read up about it; it is too complicated to go into here.)
More outright lied in his testimony, evidently believing that the
records would be sealed for all time.

Katy

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:


> I'm sure we're both alike in our problem with More. Let's just
start
> with his first sentence:-
>
> "Kyng Edwarde of that name the fowrth, after that hee hadde lyued
> fiftie and three yeares, seven monethes, and five dayes, and
thereof
> reygned two and twentye yeres, one moneth, and eighte dayes, dyed
at
> Westmynster the nynth daye of Aprill, the yere of oure redempcion,
a
> thowsande foure houndred foure score and three, leavinge muche
fayre
> yssue, that is to witte, Edwarde the Prynce, a thirtene yeare of
age:
> Richarde duke of Yorke, two yeare younger."


Are you quoting More or Holingshed, Marie? Because if that's More,
he's deliberately writing in "chroniclese", ye olde quainte
Englisshe, for some reason. More was a better speller than that, as
were most educated people of his day. Maybe he's attempting to make
his prose look more authentic by using the spelling and grammar he
thinks were typical of "the old days".

If it's Hollingshed, I don't know how good a speller he was.

Katy







> Edward was actually just short of his 43rd birthday when he died.
> He reigned 22 years, 11 months and just seven days.
> Yes, he died at Westminster on the 9th April 1483!
> Prince Edward was actually a little under 12 and a half, and
Richard
> Duke of York was a little over THREE years younger.
> As for the enormities of Richard's birth, whose version (saving
the
> teeth) will you pick? Rous's that he was born unnaturally overdue
> (two years gestation, in fact!)with long hair and teeth, or More's
> that he was a premature breech birth, but also with teeth. An
> unnatural and unpleasant entry into the world is, of course,
> necessary for the antichrist figure. Watch Rosemary's Baby if you
> don't believe me.
>
> A letter from Cecily to Queen Margaret, written a few months after
> Richard's birth and rediscovered few years ago, was being used for
a
> while by historians as evidence she had had a difficult birth, as
in
> it she congratulated Margaret on her pregnancy and complained of
her
> own ill health because of her 'labour'. Fortunately, publication
of
> the text has now allowed all and sundry to see she was complaining
> about the ill health she had suffered because of her labour to the
> King on behalf of her husband (for the past year banished to his
> estates in disgrace)! This is an example of what I meant by
> historians interpreting contemporary finds in the light of ideas
> received from Tudor histories rather than reading them properly.
Did
> it never occur to them that complaining about the horrors of the
> birthing process to a woman pregnant with her first child would
have
> been rather tactless, and not the sort of social faux pas one
would
> commit with the Queen when trying to butter her up.
> As regards More and Rous, I'd sooner take Rous, even though the
two
> years thing is silly. He at least was attached to the house of
> Warwick and might very well have had 1st-hand info from the
Countess,
> who, he tells us, loved attending women in childbirth. It just
> happens that Cecily's previous child was born just under two years
> before Richard, so that is probably the basis for Rous's wild
claim
> regarding dates. It is highly unlikely he would use that, however,
if
> he had been told that richard was premature. Also, were it a
breech
> birth he would have told us. I imagine More's breach birth is just
an
> excuse for a pun: it meant he could say Richard had been
> ever 'froward' (which of course also carried the meaning of
contrary
> in temper).
> Taking up what Katy said about symbolism with the three
mistresses,
> I'd been wondering if there was a possible allusion to the four
> elements, Edward representing Earth (carnality, sins of the
flesh),
> the holy mistress Air (spirituality), the merry one Fire, and the
> wily one Water.
> Where I think More is good is in giving a feel for what was going
on
> in London at the time. Here his family and family friends could
> probably tell him a lot. Yet it is here, interestingly, that he
> confines himself to plain narrative. This makes his fly-on-the-
wall
> dramas of the great and good, with their dialogues on privies and
> stuff so much the more suspect. Let's face it, nobody at all was
> there with a notebook, let alone little More.
>
> I'm sure More suppressed facts that didn't suit his picture. As a
> Londoner, for instance, he must have been aware of the scandal of
> how, after Mistress Shore became Edward's mistress, she got the
Pope
> to annul her marriage on the grounds that William couldn't, to put
it
> crudely, get his end up (I suspect this may have been done so that
> she could have proof for Edward that any children she bore were
his -
> a great boost to her power). Yet More completely rewrites this:-
> "But when the king had abused her, anon her husband (as he was an
> honest man & one that could his good, not presuming to touch a
kinges
> concubine) left her vp to him al togither"
> "the p[ro]tector sent into the house of shores wife(for her
husband
> dwelled not with her)".
>
> More must also have known of her remarriage to the King's
solicitor,
> who lived with her in London close to her birth family (the
Lamberts)
> for the next few years. Yet these don't fit the picture of an
> innocent young girl brought to ruin by the Monster. More tells us
> pathetically:
> "she is now in the more beggerly condicion, vnfrended & worne out
of
> acquantance"
> "Albeit some that now se her (for yet she liueth) deme her neuer
to
> haue ben wel visaged. Whose iugement semeth me somwhat like, as
> though men should gesse the bewty of one longe before departed, by
> her scalpe taken out of the charnel house: for now is she old
lene,
> withered & dried vp, nothing left but ryuilde skin & hard bone."
> At the time More wrote, Thomas Lynham was apparently living in
> Shropshire where he was from time to time still being appointed to
> royal commissions, and the couple had had at least two children
(see
> the new DNB for details). More's friends are unlikely to have seen
> the King's former mistress for years, and she was certainly not
> living in poverty.
>
> What I find most suspicious about More's censored version of
> Elizabeth Lambert-Shore-Lynham's story is that in 1515 a London
> mercer named William Lambert left 3s 4d to More's father in his
will.
> Elizabeth's father was also a mercer, so the two men were probably
> closely related. So More's family were apparently on close terms
with
> some of Mistress Shore's relatives, and yet we have such a
misleading
> account of her history. Surely this was not ignorance but
calculation.
>
> Anyway, could go on all day but probably shouldn't.
>
> Marie
>

i can't answer for where marie got her quote from...but i do know holinshed wrote after moore..in fact holinshed frequently quotes moore and hall. he occasionally remarks.."other writers". it appears holinshed attempted to compile all of the known versions into one source.

plus it also appears that holinshed provided some independent research as he occassionally writes that this info was found here, or an named source provided this info. etc.

the copy of holinshed i'm reading was published in 1587. his spelling/style is more modern than the example provided by marie, below.

now..i'm wondering..and only marie can answer where she got her excerpt from, but if the info below is moore..then is the sample, perhaps not written by moore, but instead written by morton, and more copied it verbatim?

morton died in sept. 1500.

or did moore get his info from other earlier writers other than morton..and of course you could be bang on the mark with moore was waxing eloquent.

btw..i'm going to use moore for mr. more. as i read my own comments, sans upper case lettering..more/additional and more/moore become confusing...or at least cause the reader, being myself to stutter/think when reading the commentary.

roslyn

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:


> I'm sure we're both alike in our problem with More. Let's just
start
> with his first sentence:-
>
> "Kyng Edwarde of that name the fowrth, after that hee hadde lyued
> fiftie and three yeares, seven monethes, and five dayes, and
thereof
> reygned two and twentye yeres, one moneth, and eighte dayes, dyed
at
> Westmynster the nynth daye of Aprill, the yere of oure redempcion,
a
> thowsande foure houndred foure score and three, leavinge muche
fayre
> yssue, that is to witte, Edwarde the Prynce, a thirtene yeare of
age:
> Richarde duke of Yorke, two yeare younger."

Are you quoting More or Holingshed, Marie? Because if that's More,
he's deliberately writing in "chroniclese", ye olde quainte
Englisshe, for some reason. More was a better speller than that, as
were most educated people of his day. Maybe he's attempting to make
his prose look more authentic by using the spelling and grammar he
thinks were typical of "the old days".

If it's Hollingshed, I don't know how good a speller he was.

Katy

> Edward was actually just short of his 43rd birthday when he died.
> He reigned 22 years, 11 months and just seven days.
> Yes, he died at Westminster on the 9th April 1483!
> Prince Edward was actually a little under 12 and a half, and
Richard
> Duke of York was a little over THREE years younger.
> As for the enormities of Richard's birth, whose version (saving
the
> teeth) will you pick? Rous's that he was born unnaturally overdue
> (two years gestation, in fact!)with long hair and teeth, or More's
> that he was a premature breech birth, but also with teeth. An
> unnatural and unpleasant entry into the world is, of course,
> necessary for the antichrist figure. Watch Rosemary's Baby if you
> don't believe me.
>
> A letter from Cecily to Queen Margaret, written a few months after
> Richard's birth and rediscovered few years ago, was being used for
a
> while by historians as evidence she had had a difficult birth, as
in
> it she congratulated Margaret on her pregnancy and complained of
her
> own ill health because of her 'labour'. Fortunately, publication
of
> the text has now allowed all and sundry to see she was complaining
> about the ill health she had suffered because of her labour to the
> King on behalf of her husband (for the past year banished to his
> estates in disgrace)! This is an example of what I meant by
> historians interpreting contemporary finds in the light of ideas
> received from Tudor histories rather than reading them properly.
Did
> it never occur to them that complaining about the horrors of the
> birthing process to a woman pregnant with her first child would
have
> been rather tactless, and not the sort of social faux pas one
would
> commit with the Queen when trying to butter her up.
> As regards More and Rous, I'd sooner take Rous, even though the
two
> years thing is silly. He at least was attached to the house of
> Warwick and might very well have had 1st-hand info from the
Countess,
> who, he tells us, loved attending women in childbirth. It just
> happens that Cecily's previous child was born just under two years
> before Richard, so that is probably the basis for Rous's wild
claim
> regarding dates. It is highly unlikely he would use that, however,
if
> he had been told that richard was premature. Also, were it a
breech
> birth he would have told us. I imagine More's breach birth is just
an
> excuse for a pun: it meant he could say Richard had been
> ever 'froward' (which of course also carried the meaning of
contrary
> in temper).
> Taking up what Katy said about symbolism with the three
mistresses,
> I'd been wondering if there was a possible allusion to the four
> elements, Edward representing Earth (carnality, sins of the
flesh),
> the holy mistress Air (spirituality), the merry one Fire, and the
> wily one Water.
> Where I think More is good is in giving a feel for what was going
on
> in London at the time. Here his family and family friends could
> probably tell him a lot. Yet it is here, interestingly, that he
> confines himself to plain narrative. This makes his fly-on-the-
wall
> dramas of the great and good, with their dialogues on privies and
> stuff so much the more suspect. Let's face it, nobody at all was
> there with a notebook, let alone little More.
>
> I'm sure More suppressed facts that didn't suit his picture. As a
> Londoner, for instance, he must have been aware of the scandal of
> how, after Mistress Shore became Edward's mistress, she got the
Pope
> to annul her marriage on the grounds that William couldn't, to put
it
> crudely, get his end up (I suspect this may have been done so that
> she could have proof for Edward that any children she bore were
his -
> a great boost to her power). Yet More completely rewrites this:-
> "But when the king had abused her, anon her husband (as he was an
> honest man & one that could his good, not presuming to touch a
kinges
> concubine) left her vp to him al togither"
> "the p[ro]tector sent into the house of shores wife(for her
husband
> dwelled not with her)".
>
> More must also have known of her remarriage to the King's
solicitor,
> who lived with her in London close to her birth family (the
Lamberts)
> for the next few years. Yet these don't fit the picture of an
> innocent young girl brought to ruin by the Monster. More tells us
> pathetically:
> "she is now in the more beggerly condicion, vnfrended & worne out
of
> acquantance"
> "Albeit some that now se her (for yet she liueth) deme her neuer
to
> haue ben wel visaged. Whose iugement semeth me somwhat like, as
> though men should gesse the bewty of one longe before departed, by
> her scalpe taken out of the charnel house: for now is she old
lene,
> withered & dried vp, nothing left but ryuilde skin & hard bone."
> At the time More wrote, Thomas Lynham was apparently living in
> Shropshire where he was from time to time still being appointed to
> royal commissions, and the couple had had at least two children
(see
> the new DNB for details). More's friends are unlikely to have seen
> the King's former mistress for years, and she was certainly not
> living in poverty.
>
> What I find most suspicious about More's censored version of
> Elizabeth Lambert-Shore-Lynham's story is that in 1515 a London
> mercer named William Lambert left 3s 4d to More's father in his
will.
> Elizabeth's father was also a mercer, so the two men were probably
> closely related. So More's family were apparently on close terms
with
> some of Mistress Shore's relatives, and yet we have such a
misleading
> account of her history. Surely this was not ignorance but
calculation.
>
> Anyway, could go on all day but probably shouldn't.
>
> Marie
>

In fac, Edward IV was 19 days short of 41 when he died - born 28 April 1442.

But I agree, if More can't get basic points such as dates and ages right, we have to be cautious about his reliability on contentious matters.

Ann

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
>
>
> > I'm sure we're both alike in our problem with More. Let's just
> start
> > with his first sentence:-
> >
> > "Kyng Edwarde of that name the fowrth, after that hee hadde lyued
> > fiftie and three yeares, seven monethes, and five dayes, and
> thereof
> > reygned two and twentye yeres, one moneth, and eighte dayes, dyed
> at
> > Westmynster the nynth daye of Aprill, the yere of oure
redempcion,
> a
> > thowsande foure houndred foure score and three, leavinge muche
> fayre
> > yssue, that is to witte, Edwarde the Prynce, a thirtene yeare of
> age:
> > Richarde duke of Yorke, two yeare younger."
>
>
> Are you quoting More or Holingshed, Marie? Because if that's More,
> he's deliberately writing in "chroniclese", ye olde quainte
> Englisshe, for some reason. More was a better speller than that, as
> were most educated people of his day. Maybe he's attempting to
make
> his prose look more authentic by using the spelling and grammar he
> thinks were typical of "the old days".
>
> If it's Hollingshed, I don't know how good a speller he was.
>
> Katy

That is, More - cut, pasted & hung up to dry.

Marie

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> In fac, Edward IV was 19 days short of 41 when he died - born 28
April 1442.

Ooh, you're absolutely right. Even worse, isn't it?

Would More have a reason for pretending Edward lived much longer than
he did, or was he just ignorant?

Marie

holy smokes..i'm going to have go give the bones of a few of my ancestors a good rattle. they couldn't even get their own birth years/dates correct for 19thC census takers.

i have this wonderful de-aging gr gr gr gr mother..dropping 5 or 6 years every decade/per census..i sometimes think if she had lived long enough, she would have been younger than her children..and of course this de-aging trait was hereditary..her daughter, my gr gr gr aunt started de-aging too.

my own father didn't even know his true age...it wasn't until he applied for his old age pension, and he had to order his birth certificate.
that he found out he was a year older than he believed he was...the result was a nice bonus of a year's worth of back dated pension benefits...and an older, but wiser dad..:-))

the bottom line is..just because you find one or more errors, shouldn't give free reign to discredit ALL information from the source. the trick is to verify the contenious bits that may hold the grains of truth...a slow go, but in the end you find the occassional pearl of info that IS composed of the natural grain of truth.

the challenge is to determine if.. it is the natural grain, or has the researcher "cultured" it to fit their needs/bias and/or lack of background information..i.e. hicks says richard was incestuous.

even regarding the find of "richard declared his innocence...before the world" still needs a bit more tweeking..for instance the portuguese source..how did he come by this info?

was he an eye witness to the parliament in early 1484? the modern pocketbook/publication may provide some info as to where he was living at the time.

if he was in england, he may well have witnessed/heard richard speak directly to the accusation that he murdered his nephews.

what is clear, is the commentary was written after the events occurred.

"And after the passing away of king Edward in the year of 83, another
one of his brothers, the Duke of Gloucester, had in his power the
Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, the young sons of the said king
his brother, and turned them to the Duke of Buckingham, under whose
custody the said Princes were starved to death. And the said
Gloucester, author of this murder out of his desire to be king,
wishing to clear himself of so ugly an event, beheaded the Duke of
Buckingham and rose to kingship..."

roslyn

A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
In fac, Edward IV was 19 days short of 41 when he died - born 28 April 1442.

But I agree, if More can't get basic points such as dates and ages right, we have to be cautious about his reliability on contentious matters.

Ann

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: holinshed - richard declares innocence before the world - re princes



Hi all,

I've been finding this post very interesting.

I suspect the comment on rejecting More because you don't like what
he says was also addressed to me.

I too would like to place on record that this is not at all the
reason I have rejected More. The reasons are:-

1) I have read him in his entirety (albeit donkeys years ago), and I
have compared his statements to what proper primary sources we have,
and found that the two do not tally. This also holds true, even
though to a lesser extent, of that much more highly regarded 'Tudor
historian', Polydore Vergil.
It therefore seems to me to be extremely dangerous to rely on More or
any other later humanist writer to fill in the gaps in the primary
record. I am actually aware of a couple of important issues on which
modern historians have completely missed the significance of an
important discovery because they have persisted in trying to
reconcile it with the Tudor histories rather than examining it on its
own terms.
True antiquaries, on the other hand, can be useful, as in many cases
they have left us copies of genuine documents which are no longer
extant.

The Tudor histories are full of speeches and scenes which read like
fly-on-the-wall journalism. But they are not. This was the humanist
style of writing history. The main purpose of history for them was to
make a moral point, and fleshing out the bones of the tale with
invented scenes and dialogue was not only admissable, it was
fashionable and a chance for them to show off their own writing
skills and powers of rhetoric. They were copying the way the Romans
had done things rather than writing either chronicles in the medieval
sense or history in the modern sense.

I agree to some extent that where Tudor historians say something
which is against their own argument it is more likely to be true. But
the problem with trying to use this sort of evidence is that
traditionalist opponents will accuse us of trying to have our cake
and eat it - ignoring the Tudor histories where we don't like what
they say, and accepting them where we do. People taking the
traditionally accepted line can afford to get away with far woollier
evidence than those challenging it. In fact, some of the sloppiest
historical writing these days is coming out of the traditionalist
camp simply because they can.

Can't think who you mean, Marie ;)


There is a second problem with accepting bits of Tudor historianese
which appear to run against their general flow, and that is that we
may be missing their reasons for including it. With Richard
protesting his innocence to Parliament, for instance. This could be a
corruption of the true fact that Richard's murder of the Princes was
proclaimed by the French Parlement at pretty much exactly the same
time. It could also be meant as another example of
Richard's 'hypocrisy', which is a strong thread running through the
Tudor histories - you know, this guy presented himself as a good man
with the public interest at heart, but he was such a bare-faced liar.
It could well be picking up on his denial to an audience at
Clerkenwell of his desire to see off his wife and marry his niece. Or
it could be true. But we've no way of knowing.

There's a lot more truly contemporary documentation surviving than we
often imagine, and more is coming to light all the time (the vast
majority of the holdings of the National Archives, for instance, have
never been indexed, and the online indexes for most of the country's
other archives are also very incomplete). There are also published
contemporary sources which are quite obscure and not much looked at
(often local material). Plus material of relevance to English affairs
lurking in foreign archives. A lot of manuscript sources are huge and
in Latin, and some of them are in poor condition, making their use
far more of a chore than just picking up More or Vergil, but I do so
strongly feel that this is where we Ricardians should be
concentrating.

There. That's that off me chest.

Marie

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> see below...way below..:-))
> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote: --- In
, fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
>
> > morton is more of a poster boy for machavelli's prince, than
> cesare borgia.
> > btw..the borgias liked their poisons..if anyone slipped e4 a
> mickey, it was morton...with perhaps a little assistance from
> margaret beaufort.
> >
> > morton, according to holinshed was a devoted h6 supporter..
> >
> > so i wonder when did morton first begin to serve at h6's
> court...how much influence did he have on h6..how closely aligned
> was morton with margaret d'anjou?
> >
> > where was morton in the 1460's. it appears he was attainted in
> 1461
> > see...
> > http://www.yorkshirehistory.com/towton/towton4.htm
> >
> > morton was solidly pro-lancasterian..he just held his enemy
> close until he could get the house of york replaced.
>
> Oddly enough, since he was a pivotal if behind-the-scenes player in
> so much of 15th century politics (he deserves the title King-Maker
> more than Warwick does) there is no good biography of John Morton
> that I am aware of. Someone should take him on.
>
> Katy
> i'm more inclined to think of morton as a king destroyer vs maker.
> i have to wonder what head games he played on poor h6..h6 was a
very devote person. morton probably parlayed that into something good
for himself.
> morton is a good candidate for poisoning e4. look at what he has
done to ric iii.
> and then consider the reputation h7 gained by the association
with morton..and using morton's fork to rob his peers blind.
> roslyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Please scroll to end.

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> holy smokes..i'm going to have go give the bones of a few of my
ancestors a good rattle. they couldn't even get their own birth
years/dates correct for 19thC census takers.
>
> i have this wonderful de-aging gr gr gr gr mother..dropping 5 or
6 years every decade/per census..i sometimes think if she had lived
long enough, she would have been younger than her children..and of
course this de-aging trait was hereditary..her daughter, my gr gr gr
aunt started de-aging too.
>
> my own father didn't even know his true age...it wasn't until he
applied for his old age pension, and he had to order his birth
certificate.
> that he found out he was a year older than he believed he
was...the result was a nice bonus of a year's worth of back dated
pension benefits...and an older, but wiser dad..:-))
>
> the bottom line is..just because you find one or more errors,
shouldn't give free reign to discredit ALL information from the
source. the trick is to verify the contenious bits that may hold the
grains of truth...a slow go, but in the end you find the occassional
pearl of info that IS composed of the natural grain of truth.
>
> the challenge is to determine if.. it is the natural grain, or
has the researcher "cultured" it to fit their needs/bias and/or lack
of background information..i.e. hicks says richard was incestuous.
>
> even regarding the find of "richard declared his
innocence...before the world" still needs a bit more tweeking..for
instance the portuguese source..how did he come by this info?
>
> was he an eye witness to the parliament in early 1484? the modern
pocketbook/publication may provide some info as to where he was
living at the time.

>
> if he was in england, he may well have witnessed/heard richard
speak directly to the accusation that he murdered his nephews.
>
> what is clear, is the commentary was written after the events
occurred.
>
> "And after the passing away of king Edward in the year of 83,
another
> one of his brothers, the Duke of Gloucester, had in his power the
> Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, the young sons of the said
king
> his brother, and turned them to the Duke of Buckingham, under
whose
> custody the said Princes were starved to death. And the said
> Gloucester, author of this murder out of his desire to be king,
> wishing to clear himself of so ugly an event, beheaded the Duke of
> Buckingham and rose to kingship..."
>
> roslyn


The problem for me is that if you find something in a verifiable
source then you already have it - you don't need the Tudor history
for it unless you want to use that to flesh it out. And you don't
know that the fleshing out is accurate. This is why I gave the
example of Mistress Shore (whom I have studied a bit). More is
correct in saying she was separated from her husband, but if on the
basis of that we accepted everything else he says about her we would
be in Dicky's Meadow for sure.

The Portuguese source is interesting but doesn't say Richard declared
his innocence in Parliament. Whether Richard declared his innocence
in Parliament doesn't help us decide whether he was innocent or not
anyway.
The author of this Portuguese story was apparently involved in the
negotiations with Richard's envoy. This envoy was sir Edward
Brampton, who was Portuguese by birth. He was not a member of
Parliament in 1484 (or any other year, I believe). One of his jobs
until late 1484 was Captain of Guernsey in the Channel Islands, plus
he had a lot of trading interests with far-flung parts of the known
world, so he may very well have been a long way from London in
January 1484. He went over to Portugal for Richard very soon after
Queen Anne died, was still there when Bosworth happened, and settled
back there.
He is the man who brought Perkin Warbeck from Flanders to Portugal
after Bosworth, leading to modern theories that Richard had him
smuggle either one or two princes abroad before Bosworth. Wouldn't it
be interesting if he were the source of Chaves' story?

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...> wrote:
>
> > > >
>>>
>
>>> Anyway, could go on all day but probably shouldn't.
>
> Marie
>
Yes Marie it is quite possible to go on & on all day about the inaccuracies/absurdities in Sir
Thomas' story there are so many.
To quote from Jeremy Potters excellent article 'Good King Richard' "His (More's) history is
not a history but a literary exercise in the dramatic representation of villany. A third of it
is in imaginary dialogure & the remainder contains factual inacurracies with palpable
absurdities".
Speaking of absurd - what can be more absurd than his story of Richard in the privvy (I
make no apology for returning to this subject again) - consider it - according to More (For
this communication had he sitting at the draught, a convenient carpet for such a counsail)
Richard asks his page aka lavoratory attendant 'ah whom shall a man trust' after
Brackenbury has firmly refused to put the two princes to death (how does he repay
Brackenbury for failing to comply with his wishes - well the truth is Richard bestows on
Brackenbury rewards and grants & later on Brackenbury serves his king to the very last &
dies for him at Bosworth) - are we expected to believe Richard would be foolish enough
to put this question (who can he get to murder the princes) to a mere page? Its absolutely
Stupid. Some of the mostimportant people of the time - Henry Tudor, Stanley, clearly
never knew the fate of the princes yet we are expected to believe that Richard asked the
advice of a page who in fact was able to direct him to the person who would comply
(Tyrell) who is conveniently lying outside on a pallet. In fact Richard had known Tyrell for
many years prior to this. He had fought at the battle of Tewkesbury and had been
knighted after the Scots campaign 1482.

Yet more stupidness later on regarding the actual murder of the princes, More tell us how
Dighton and Forrest creep up on the princes and smother them - they are then buried
'meetly deep in the ground under a great heap of stones'. When Tyrell informed Richard
the deed is done 'some say he made him a knight' (although he had already been knighted
in 1482). Richard's conscience then pricks him (regarding the burial site) and More tells
us 'as I have heard' (more tittle tattle!) a priest of Brackenburys digs then up and buries
them elsewhere. In the Tower of London, teeming with people - noone notices. Yet
although More has named the murderers when Tudor usurps the throne are these men
arrested and punished, the boys bodies found and buried in proper manner befitting their
rank - well no.
To sum up - how can anyone believe anything in Sir Thomas' story - its full of rumour,
mistakes and foolish tittle tattle - its punctured with remarks such as 'as the fame runs'
'some wise men think' & 'they that thus deem' etc., He spent time as a young boy in
Morton household & Morton was one of Richards most dangerous enemys whose main
goal in life was to see Richard dead. Its tragic really that a man of More's reputation chose
to write these lies because a lot of people have probably taken his story as the truth
simply because the sainted More is the author - I believe this is where Shakespeare got a
lot of material from for his version of Richard.
Eileen

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: holinshed - richard declares innocence before the world - re princes



Hi all,

I've been finding this post very interesting.

I suspect the comment on rejecting More because you don't like what
he says was also addressed to me.

I too would like to place on record that this is not at all the
reason I have rejected More. The reasons are:-

1) I have read him in his entirety (albeit donkeys years ago), and I
have compared his statements to what proper primary sources we have,
and found that the two do not tally. This also holds true, even
though to a lesser extent, of that much more highly regarded 'Tudor
historian', Polydore Vergil.
It therefore seems to me to be extremely dangerous to rely on More or
any other later humanist writer to fill in the gaps in the primary
record. I am actually aware of a couple of important issues on which
modern historians have completely missed the significance of an
important discovery because they have persisted in trying to
reconcile it with the Tudor histories rather than examining it on its
own terms.
True antiquaries, on the other hand, can be useful, as in many cases
they have left us copies of genuine documents which are no longer
extant.

The Tudor histories are full of speeches and scenes which read like
fly-on-the-wall journalism. But they are not. This was the humanist
style of writing history. The main purpose of history for them was to
make a moral point, and fleshing out the bones of the tale with
invented scenes and dialogue was not only admissable, it was
fashionable and a chance for them to show off their own writing
skills and powers of rhetoric. They were copying the way the Romans
had done things rather than writing either chronicles in the medieval
sense or history in the modern sense.

I agree to some extent that where Tudor historians say something
which is against their own argument it is more likely to be true. But
the problem with trying to use this sort of evidence is that
traditionalist opponents will accuse us of trying to have our cake
and eat it - ignoring the Tudor histories where we don't like what
they say, and accepting them where we do. People taking the
traditionally accepted line can afford to get away with far woollier
evidence than those challenging it. In fact, some of the sloppiest
historical writing these days is coming out of the traditionalist
camp simply because they can.

Can't think who you mean, Marie ;)


There is a second problem with accepting bits of Tudor historianese
which appear to run against their general flow, and that is that we
may be missing their reasons for including it. With Richard
protesting his innocence to Parliament, for instance. This could be a
corruption of the true fact that Richard's murder of the Princes was
proclaimed by the French Parlement at pretty much exactly the same
time. It could also be meant as another example of
Richard's 'hypocrisy', which is a strong thread running through the
Tudor histories - you know, this guy presented himself as a good man
with the public interest at heart, but he was such a bare-faced liar.
It could well be picking up on his denial to an audience at
Clerkenwell of his desire to see off his wife and marry his niece. Or
it could be true. But we've no way of knowing.

There's a lot more truly contemporary documentation surviving than we
often imagine, and more is coming to light all the time (the vast
majority of the holdings of the National Archives, for instance, have
never been indexed, and the online indexes for most of the country's
other archives are also very incomplete). There are also published
contemporary sources which are quite obscure and not much looked at
(often local material). Plus material of relevance to English affairs
lurking in foreign archives. A lot of manuscript sources are huge and
in Latin, and some of them are in poor condition, making their use
far more of a chore than just picking up More or Vergil, but I do so
strongly feel that this is where we Ricardians should be
concentrating.

There. That's that off me chest.

Marie

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> see below...way below..:-))
> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote: --- In
, fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
>
> > morton is more of a poster boy for machavelli's prince, than
> cesare borgia.
> > btw..the borgias liked their poisons..if anyone slipped e4 a
> mickey, it was morton...with perhaps a little assistance from
> margaret beaufort.
> >
> > morton, according to holinshed was a devoted h6 supporter..
> >
> > so i wonder when did morton first begin to serve at h6's
> court...how much influence did he have on h6..how closely aligned
> was morton with margaret d'anjou?
> >
> > where was morton in the 1460's. it appears he was attainted in
> 1461
> > see...
> > http://www.yorkshirehistory.com/towton/towton4.htm
> >
> > morton was solidly pro-lancasterian..he just held his enemy
> close until he could get the house of york replaced.
>
> Oddly enough, since he was a pivotal if behind-the-scenes player in
> so much of 15th century politics (he deserves the title King-Maker
> more than Warwick does) there is no good biography of John Morton
> that I am aware of. Someone should take him on.
>
> Katy
> i'm more inclined to think of morton as a king destroyer vs maker.
> i have to wonder what head games he played on poor h6..h6 was a
very devote person. morton probably parlayed that into something good
for himself.
> morton is a good candidate for poisoning e4. look at what he has
done to ric iii.
> and then consider the reputation h7 gained by the association
with morton..and using morton's fork to rob his peers blind.
> roslyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

comments intersperced see below.

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
Hi all,

I've been finding this post very interesting.

I suspect the comment on rejecting More because you don't like what
he says was also addressed to me.

I too would like to place on record that this is not at all the
reason I have rejected More. The reasons are:-

1) I have read him in his entirety (albeit donkeys years ago), and I
have compared his statements to what proper primary sources we have,
and found that the two do not tally. This also holds true, even
though to a lesser extent, of that much more highly regarded 'Tudor
historian', Polydore Vergil.
It therefore seems to me to be extremely dangerous to rely on More or
any other later humanist writer to fill in the gaps in the primary
record. I am actually aware of a couple of important issues on which
modern historians have completely missed the significance of an
important discovery because they have persisted in trying to
reconcile it with the Tudor histories rather than examining it on its
own terms.
True antiquaries, on the other hand, can be useful, as in many cases
they have left us copies of genuine documents which are no longer
extant.
-----------------
we all have the luxury of the intervening years to know that much of what is written is indeed tudor propaganda. the trick is to read between the lines, using the surviving primary sources to assist in verifying or debunking moore's or any tudor historian's perspective of the events.

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


The Tudor histories are full of speeches and scenes which read like
fly-on-the-wall journalism. But they are not. This was the humanist
style of writing history. The main purpose of history for them was to
make a moral point, and fleshing out the bones of the tale with
invented scenes and dialogue was not only admissable, it was
fashionable and a chance for them to show off their own writing
skills and powers of rhetoric.
-----------------------
for the most part i strongly agree with you. however, the source of these diaglogues and scenes aka fly on the wall journalism very likely come from high ranking church officals.

for instance, i'm reading about richard's moaning to thomas rotherham..who just happens to connect to john alcock bishop of ely..and who happens to connect to john de vere, whose mother had provable issue with ric iii regarding the consfication of her lands.
some of these speeches/scenes are fanciful and definitely written to paint richard in a bad light..and almost everyone else as being flower of virtuous knighthood.
morton is the source of this info..and he extracted the info from his peers and underlings of the lords spiritual...confession is good for the soul..and in the tudor era..good for gossip too.

while the writers may wax eloquent in speech and location, i'm willing to bet my bottom dollar there are distinct grains of truth, and twisted truths.
john de vere was also one of the commissioners who tried james tyrrell. he was also married to richard neville/warwick's sister. he sided with warwick.
de vere was also "relevent" to h7.
so..it is possible he is some of the source of the "fanciful speeches/orations" aka fly on the wall journalism..albeit twisted to suit the tudor historians.
----------------------------------


They were copying the way the Romans
had done things rather than writing either chronicles in the medieval
sense or history in the modern sense.

I agree to some extent that where Tudor historians say something
which is against their own argument it is more likely to be true. But
the problem with trying to use this sort of evidence is that
traditionalist opponents will accuse us of trying to have our cake
and eat it - ignoring the Tudor histories where we don't like what
they say, and accepting them where we do. People taking the
traditionally accepted line can afford to get away with far woollier
evidence than those challenging it. In fact, some of the sloppiest
historical writing these days is coming out of the traditionalist
camp simply because they can.
There is a second problem with accepting bits of Tudor historianese
which appear to run against their general flow, and that is that we
may be missing their reasons for including it. With Richard
protesting his innocence to Parliament, for instance. This could be a
corruption of the true fact that Richard's murder of the Princes was
proclaimed by the French Parlement at pretty much exactly the same
time. It could also be meant as another example of
Richard's 'hypocrisy', which is a strong thread running through the
Tudor histories - you know, this guy presented himself as a good man
with the public interest at heart, but he was such a bare-faced liar.
It could well be picking up on his denial to an audience at
Clerkenwell of his desire to see off his wife and marry his niece. Or
it could be true. But we've no way of knowing.

-----------------
we have clues to follow..for instance it has been discussed..why did woodville come out of sanctuary at easter? if richard could prove it was buckingham who had killed her sons, of course she would have more trust in him...the speech to parliament may have been part of the motivating factor.
----------------

There's a lot more truly contemporary documentation surviving than we
often imagine, and more is coming to light all the time (the vast
majority of the holdings of the National Archives, for instance, have
never been indexed, and the online indexes for most of the country's
other archives are also very incomplete). There are also published
contemporary sources which are quite obscure and not much looked at
(often local material). Plus material of relevance to English affairs
lurking in foreign archives. A lot of manuscript sources are huge and
in Latin, and some of them are in poor condition, making their use
far more of a chore than just picking up More or Vergil, but I do so
strongly feel that this is where we Ricardians should be
concentrating.

---------------------
yes, yes, yes and a big double yes to the above. more and more documents are being found..some verify..some debunk..but they are being found..and this is a very good thing. the victors may write history..but real history lets out the real truth.
we just have to dig for it.
roslyn
---------------
There. That's that off me chest.

Marie

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> see below...way below..:-))
> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote: --- In
, fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
>
> > morton is more of a poster boy for machavelli's prince, than
> cesare borgia.
> > btw..the borgias liked their poisons..if anyone slipped e4 a
> mickey, it was morton...with perhaps a little assistance from
> margaret beaufort.
> >
> > morton, according to holinshed was a devoted h6 supporter..
> >
> > so i wonder when did morton first begin to serve at h6's
> court...how much influence did he have on h6..how closely aligned
> was morton with margaret d'anjou?
> >
> > where was morton in the 1460's. it appears he was attainted in
> 1461
> > see...
> > http://www.yorkshirehistory.com/towton/towton4.htm
> >
> > morton was solidly pro-lancasterian..he just held his enemy
> close until he could get the house of york replaced.
>
> Oddly enough, since he was a pivotal if behind-the-scenes player in
> so much of 15th century politics (he deserves the title King-Maker
> more than Warwick does) there is no good biography of John Morton
> that I am aware of. Someone should take him on.
>
> Katy
> i'm more inclined to think of morton as a king destroyer vs maker.
> i have to wonder what head games he played on poor h6..h6 was a
very devote person. morton probably parlayed that into something good
for himself.
> morton is a good candidate for poisoning e4. look at what he has
done to ric iii.
> and then consider the reputation h7 gained by the association
with morton..and using morton's fork to rob his peers blind.
> roslyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>