Rumour and truth

This may well have struck others before, but it isn't something I've
seen before.

Reading a recent book that deals with Richard's reign in part I
suddenly thought, as the writer begrudgingly pointed out, north of
the Trent Richard was always fêted, and the region stayed fiercely
loyal to him both during and after his reign.
Now, we are told, far too often in my view, how the south took
against him because of the way he took the throne and 'got rid' of
his nephews. Fair enough, but are writers saying that as far as the
north was concerned it didn't matter what he did, or how he did it,
and that the northmen were all cut from the same cloth as their king?
Outrage at rumours of "infanticide" in the south, nothing but praise
in the north? Doesn't make sense to me. Surely such a "crime" would
have affected the whole land, and yet, nobody points out that the
rumours we are all told were current in the south and brought about
rebellion, would also have been current in the north. Yet there was
nothing but peace and goodwill in the north.
To me this is a clear indicator that any rumours of murder had little
to do with the rebellion of 1483, and probably were current in a very
small section of the polity - IF AT ALL! Or else, that if they
reached the north the men of the north, who knew Richard well, knew
him the best, dismissed them out of hand as being something they knew
him incapable of.
Either that, or seeing the sons of Edward IV wandering about Sherrif
Hutton and Middleham showed that that rumour was the lie of all lies?
Paul

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

> but are writers saying that as far as the
> north was concerned it didn't matter what he did, or how he did it,
> and that the northmen were all cut from the same cloth as their king?

I had understood that Richard won the good opinion of the North long
before he became king. So, if generally they had a high opinion of
him, they may have been skeptical about any rumors.

Also, word of what - disappearance? murder? - would have taken time to
travel north. Since no one in authority spoke of the whereabouts of
the princes, it could be that those in the north thought simply that
their whereabouts were unknown, if they thought about them at all.

--- In , "tvcforum" <suemiller7382@...> wrote:
>
> >> I had understood that Richard won the good opinion of the North long
> before he became king. So, if generally they had a high opinion of
> him, they may have been skeptical about any rumors.

These 'rumors' - Im wondering - at that time- how long did it take 'rumors' to travel such a
long distance. Did half of the population ever get to hear these rumors at all! They could
only travel/spread by word of mouth. I should imagine lots of people, even as late as the
19th century never got to travel far from their villages/birthplaces with lack of transport and
dangers of travelling. Take a busy city like York - if these rumors reached them there it
seems strange Richard what so much lamented on his betrayal and death by the people of
York. Maybe the rumours never existed - much - in his lifetime and only come into being
after his betrayal spread by those seeking to justify the usurpation of Tudor.
Just a thought.
Eileen
>
>

--- eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:

> --- In ,
> "tvcforum" <suemiller7382@...> wrote:
> >

[big snips]

Maybe the rumours never existed - much - in
> his lifetime and only come into being
> after his betrayal spread by those seeking to
> justify the usurpation of Tudor.
> Just a thought.
> Eileen
> >

Hi, Eileen and all,

I wish I had time to dig out the citation right now,
but I don't -- maybe someone else can lay hands on it
quickly. In a relatively recent Ricardian Bulletin
(i.e., since the change in format), there was a report
on Nicholas von Poppelau's account of his trip to
England, including time he spent with Richard's court
in Middleham around the time of young Edward's death.
The occasion was a new translation of von Poppelau's
journal into, I believe, modern German.

vP mentions that he had heard the rumors of the
Princes' demise but that members of the court said
they weren't true, but that Richard had put them up in
a "deep dungeon." Livia Visser-Fuchs commented that
she hoped that was a mistranslation of "secure
castle."

This suggests that there were rumors and
counter-rumors in early 1484.

I assume that this suggestion has no contemporary origin ?

Richard G

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Either that, or seeing the sons of Edward IV wandering about
> Sherrif Hutton and Middleham showed that that rumour was the lie of
> all lies?
> Paul

That was simply me suggesting a possibility for discussion.
Paul

On 20 Jun 2007, at 17:28, rgcorris wrote:

> I assume that this suggestion has no contemporary origin ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>>
>> Either that, or seeing the sons of Edward IV wandering about
>> Sherrif Hutton and Middleham showed that that rumour was the lie of
>> all lies?
>> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Rumour can travel a hundred miles while truth is still pulling on his
tights!
Paul

On 20 Jun 2007, at 16:56, eileen wrote:

> --- In , "tvcforum"
> <suemiller7382@...> wrote:
>>
>>>> I had understood that Richard won the good opinion of the North
>>>> long
>> before he became king. So, if generally they had a high opinion of
>> him, they may have been skeptical about any rumors.
>
> These 'rumors' - Im wondering - at that time- how long did it take
> 'rumors' to travel such a
> long distance. Did half of the population ever get to hear these
> rumors at all! They could
> only travel/spread by word of mouth. I should imagine lots of
> people, even as late as the
> 19th century never got to travel far from their villages/
> birthplaces with lack of transport and
> dangers of travelling. Take a busy city like York - if these
> rumors reached them there it
> seems strange Richard what so much lamented on his betrayal and
> death by the people of
> York. Maybe the rumours never existed - much - in his lifetime and
> only come into being
> after his betrayal spread by those seeking to justify the
> usurpation of Tudor.
> Just a thought.
> Eileen
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Sort of my point Laura, the north ignored the rumours, if there were
any, which the VP story seems to confirm.
I think this maybe a case of those who knew him well not giving them
any credence whatsoever.
Paul


On 20 Jun 2007, at 17:29, Laura Blanchard wrote:

>
> --- eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
>> --- In ,
>> "tvcforum" <suemiller7382@...> wrote:
>>>
>
> [big snips]
>
> Maybe the rumours never existed - much - in
>> his lifetime and only come into being
>> after his betrayal spread by those seeking to
>> justify the usurpation of Tudor.
>> Just a thought.
>> Eileen
>>>
>
> Hi, Eileen and all,
>
> I wish I had time to dig out the citation right now,
> but I don't -- maybe someone else can lay hands on it
> quickly. In a relatively recent Ricardian Bulletin
> (i.e., since the change in format), there was a report
> on Nicholas von Poppelau's account of his trip to
> England, including time he spent with Richard's court
> in Middleham around the time of young Edward's death.
> The occasion was a new translation of von Poppelau's
> journal into, I believe, modern German.
>
> vP mentions that he had heard the rumors of the
> Princes' demise but that members of the court said
> they weren't true, but that Richard had put them up in
> a "deep dungeon." Livia Visser-Fuchs commented that
> she hoped that was a mistranslation of "secure
> castle."
>
> This suggests that there were rumors and
> counter-rumors in early 1484.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

It certainly supports the notion that the court had
another story to tell folks. I don't know how much von
Poppelau got out and actually mingled with the
northerners, and he didn't say much about that, as I
recall, so I can't comment on the larger ramifications
of his report.

Clearly they weren't running about Middleham, or von
Poppelau wouldn't have reported that "deep dungeon"
thing. But we can still hope for Sheriff Hutton...

--- Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...>
wrote:

> Sort of my point Laura, the north ignored the
> rumours, if there were
> any, which the VP story seems to confirm.
> I think this maybe a case of those who knew him well
> not giving them
> any credence whatsoever.
> Paul
>
>
> On 20 Jun 2007, at 17:29, Laura Blanchard wrote:
>
> >
> > --- eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
> >
> >> --- In ,
> >> "tvcforum" <suemiller7382@...> wrote:
> >>>
> >
> > [big snips]
> >
> > Maybe the rumours never existed - much - in
> >> his lifetime and only come into being
> >> after his betrayal spread by those seeking to
> >> justify the usurpation of Tudor.
> >> Just a thought.
> >> Eileen
> >>>
> >
> > Hi, Eileen and all,
> >
> > I wish I had time to dig out the citation right
> now,
> > but I don't -- maybe someone else can lay hands on
> it
> > quickly. In a relatively recent Ricardian Bulletin
> > (i.e., since the change in format), there was a
> report
> > on Nicholas von Poppelau's account of his trip to
> > England, including time he spent with Richard's
> court
> > in Middleham around the time of young Edward's
> death.
> > The occasion was a new translation of von
> Poppelau's
> > journal into, I believe, modern German.
> >
> > vP mentions that he had heard the rumors of the
> > Princes' demise but that members of the court said
> > they weren't true, but that Richard had put them
> up in
> > a "deep dungeon." Livia Visser-Fuchs commented
> that
> > she hoped that was a mistranslation of "secure
> > castle."
> >
> > This suggests that there were rumors and
> > counter-rumors in early 1484.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
>
>
>

i doubt it would take more than a few weeks to make it around the known world.

the pulpit was often used as a place to spread the news. everyone attended church, it was mandatory. if it wasn't "broadcast" by the priest, it was relayed by congregational gossip.

from information i've read here n' there. the rumours started in the southwest of england in late august. the king of france, "louis the universal spider" knew the boys were dead by the time he died on august 30, 1483.

a possible reason the country became rife with rumours of the boys dying by easter of 1484 was the death of richard's son in april of that year.

the illiterate and superstitious people, i.e. the lower classes would not have been all that up on the full politics of the day. the change of king wouldn't make a great difference in their day to day life. ergo, hearing the prince is dead can easily be converted to "the king's son is dead"..the king's sons dead.

how many literate people in our "modern" world take an interest in our modern politics? quick..name your mayor, provincial/state rep/s, federal reps, and who held these postitions before them? now, do your neighbouring communities? bottom line unless it effects us personally, we as breed don't really care who is in charge unless it our interest is "whipped up" by a good campaign. and the tudors did know how to campaign, they had a great propaganda machine. the priests and the diplomats were their "news readers".

human nature does not change, just our laws and punishments and of course technology. the printing press was also in england by 1483...the problem was of course not everyone could read.

roslyn



eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
--- In , "tvcforum" <suemiller7382@...> wrote:
>
> >> I had understood that Richard won the good opinion of the North long
> before he became king. So, if generally they had a high opinion of
> him, they may have been skeptical about any rumors.

These 'rumors' - Im wondering - at that time- how long did it take 'rumors' to travel such a
long distance. Did half of the population ever get to hear these rumors at all! They could
only travel/spread by word of mouth. I should imagine lots of people, even as late as the
19th century never got to travel far from their villages/birthplaces with lack of transport and
dangers of travelling. Take a busy city like York - if these rumors reached them there it
seems strange Richard what so much lamented on his betrayal and death by the people of
York. Maybe the rumours never existed - much - in his lifetime and only come into being
after his betrayal spread by those seeking to justify the usurpation of Tudor.
Just a thought.
Eileen
>
>

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>>
> "louis the universal spider" knew the boys were dead by the time he died on august
30, 1483.
Roslyn

How can it be that Louis "knew" the boys were dead? He had heard the rumours - that is
all, and if he had any brains, which he probably had, he would have recognised them as
just that - rumours.
Eileen
>
> a possible reason the country became rife with rumours of the boys dying by easter of
1484 was the death of richard's son in april of that year.
>
> the illiterate and superstitious people, i.e. the lower classes would not have been all
that up on the full politics of the day. the change of king wouldn't make a great difference
in their day to day life. ergo, hearing the prince is dead can easily be converted to "the
king's son is dead"..the king's sons dead.
>
> how many literate people in our "modern" world take an interest in our modern
politics? quick..name your mayor, provincial/state rep/s, federal reps, and who held these
postitions before them? now, do your neighbouring communities? bottom line unless it
effects us personally, we as breed don't really care who is in charge unless it our interest is
"whipped up" by a good campaign. and the tudors did know how to campaign, they had a
great propaganda machine. the priests and the diplomats were their "news readers".
>
> human nature does not change, just our laws and punishments and of course
technology. the printing press was also in england by 1483...the problem was of course
not everyone could read.
>
> roslyn
>
>
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
> --- In , "tvcforum" <suemiller7382@>
wrote:
> >
> > >> I had understood that Richard won the good opinion of the North long
> > before he became king. So, if generally they had a high opinion of
> > him, they may have been skeptical about any rumors.
>
> These 'rumors' - Im wondering - at that time- how long did it take 'rumors' to travel
such a
> long distance. Did half of the population ever get to hear these rumors at all! They could
> only travel/spread by word of mouth. I should imagine lots of people, even as late as the
> 19th century never got to travel far from their villages/birthplaces with lack of transport
and
> dangers of travelling. Take a busy city like York - if these rumors reached them there it
> seems strange Richard what so much lamented on his betrayal and death by the people
of
> York. Maybe the rumours never existed - much - in his lifetime and only come into
being
> after his betrayal spread by those seeking to justify the usurpation of Tudor.
> Just a thought.
> Eileen
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

okay, we'll go with your.."louis heard rumours", however, the spider believed the boys were dead.

he did not like richard. richard did not like or trust him.

while louis had demonstrated, he was definitely intelligent in a devious way, he would believe whatever he would chose to believe. he died believing or possibly even knowing the boys were dead. he may have even had an underhanded role in abetting the rebellions richard experienced in his early weeks of kingship.

louis is the fellow who ransomed his first cousin margaret d'anjou after the defeat of h6. louis' paternal aunt was catherine valois, mother of h6, and edmund tudor who was the father of h7.

elizabeth woodville was also a third cousin to louis. buckingham was his 4th cousin. richard was only his 6th cousin. both buckingham and h7 could have counted on covert assistance from the spider. both buckingham and h7 have demonstrated they were of the same ilk as louis.

the spider conned e4 with regard to eliz of york's marriage. richard had spoken out against louis. i strongly doubt there was any love lost between the two kings. interestingly, e4 died before he could retalliate against louis for breach of contract.

Sir Walter Scott's posthumous attack on Louis XI
Louis XI's undermining of the Feudal system and of the knightly code of Chivalry rooted in that system earned him the uncompromising posthumous enmity of the Nineteenth Century Romantic writer Sir Walter Scott.
Scott's foreword to the novel "Quentin Durward" consitutes a bitter attack on the French king, three and a half centuries dead at the time of writing (1831). Scott wrote that "(...) Among those who were the first to ridicule and abandon the self-denying principles in which the young knight was instructed, and to which he was so carefully trained up, Louis XI was the chief. That Sovereign was of a character so purely selfish - go guiltless of entertaining any purpose unconnected with his ambition, covetuousness and desire of selfish enjoyment - that he seems almost an incarnation of the devil himself, permitted to do his utmost to corrupt our ideas of honour at the very source."
Later in the same essay, Scott compared Louis XI to Goethe's Mephistopheles.
source Wikipedia

eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>>
> "louis the universal spider" knew the boys were dead by the time he died on august
30, 1483.
Roslyn

How can it be that Louis "knew" the boys were dead? He had heard the rumours - that is
all, and if he had any brains, which he probably had, he would have recognised them as
just that - rumours.
Eileen
>
> a possible reason the country became rife with rumours of the boys dying by easter of
1484 was the death of richard's son in april of that year.
>
> the illiterate and superstitious people, i.e. the lower classes would not have been all
that up on the full politics of the day. the change of king wouldn't make a great difference
in their day to day life. ergo, hearing the prince is dead can easily be converted to "the
king's son is dead"..the king's sons dead.
>
> how many literate people in our "modern" world take an interest in our modern
politics? quick..name your mayor, provincial/state rep/s, federal reps, and who held these
postitions before them? now, do your neighbouring communities? bottom line unless it
effects us personally, we as breed don't really care who is in charge unless it our interest is
"whipped up" by a good campaign. and the tudors did know how to campaign, they had a
great propaganda machine. the priests and the diplomats were their "news readers".
>
> human nature does not change, just our laws and punishments and of course
technology. the printing press was also in england by 1483...the problem was of course
not everyone could read.
>
> roslyn
>
>
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
> --- In , "tvcforum" <suemiller7382@>
wrote:
> >
> > >> I had understood that Richard won the good opinion of the North long
> > before he became king. So, if generally they had a high opinion of
> > him, they may have been skeptical about any rumors.
>
> These 'rumors' - Im wondering - at that time- how long did it take 'rumors' to travel
such a
> long distance. Did half of the population ever get to hear these rumors at all! They could
> only travel/spread by word of mouth. I should imagine lots of people, even as late as the
> 19th century never got to travel far from their villages/birthplaces with lack of transport
and
> dangers of travelling. Take a busy city like York - if these rumors reached them there it
> seems strange Richard what so much lamented on his betrayal and death by the people
of
> York. Maybe the rumours never existed - much - in his lifetime and only come into
being
> after his betrayal spread by those seeking to justify the usurpation of Tudor.
> Just a thought.
> Eileen
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Here's your answer:

C.A.J. Armstrong, "Some Examples of the Distribution and Speed of
News in England at the Time of the Wars of the Roses," in Hunt,
Pantin, and Southern, eds., Studies in Medieval History Presented to
Frederick Maurice Powicke, 1948.

The article gives numerous examples, and I've included the northern
ones. Note that this is for the spread of NEWS, perhaps rumors
would have taken a little longer since they wouldn't have benefitted
from the use of personal messengers or post riders:

The repulse of the Scots before Berwick; Newcastle-London, 276
miles; 3-9 July 1455, full moon 3 July.

Battle of Towton; York-London, 192 miles; 30 March-4 April 1461,
full moon 31 March.

Landing of Queen Margaret at Bamburgh; Bamburgh-London, approx. 325
miles; 25 October-by 30 October 1462, new moon 26 October.

Best regards,

Joe

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "tvcforum"
<suemiller7382@> wrote:
> >
> > >> I had understood that Richard won the good opinion of the
North long
> > before he became king. So, if generally they had a high opinion
of
> > him, they may have been skeptical about any rumors.
>
> These 'rumors' - Im wondering - at that time- how long did it
take 'rumors' to travel such a
> long distance. Did half of the population ever get to hear these
rumors at all! They could
> only travel/spread by word of mouth. I should imagine lots of
people, even as late as the
> 19th century never got to travel far from their
villages/birthplaces with lack of transport and
> dangers of travelling. Take a busy city like York - if these
rumors reached them there it
> seems strange Richard what so much lamented on his betrayal and
death by the people of
> York. Maybe the rumours never existed - much - in his lifetime
and only come into being
> after his betrayal spread by those seeking to justify the
usurpation of Tudor.
> Just a thought.
> Eileen
> >
> >
>

Here's another example of fast-winged rumour (and messengers). This took place at the
height of Archbishop Becket's quarrel with Henry II and the bishop of London and the
archbishop of York:

"On Ascension Day [May 29] a great press of Londoners came to hear mass at St. Paul's.
Lords of the Church being absent for fear of Becket, a priest of no standing celebrated
mass in their place. As this man, Vitalis, made ready the bread and wine, a stranger
entered the chancel, fell on his knees, seized the priest by the hand and said: "I present to
you this letter from the archbishop of Canterbury conveying the sentence he has
pronounced on the bishop of London, enjoining him and his clergy to observe this
sentence: I bid you, by God's authority, to celebrate mass no more in this church until you
shall have delivered this letter to the bishop."

Straightforward so far; but the very next day the same messenger -- so contemporary
wisdom believed -- showed up at York Minster with the same injunction. London to York
in one day?

It goes to show: "Swart wizards fly; and witches too. But words fly faster." (Dark Sovereign,
2.5)

Robert Fripp

--- In , "Robert Fripp" <r_fripp@...> wrote:
>
> Here's another example of fast-winged rumour (and messengers). This took place at the
> height of Archbishop Becket's quarrel with Henry II and the bishop of London and the
> archbishop of York:

What are the chances that the rumours got slightly muddled with which kings son was
dead, ie. did the roumours begin after the death of little Edward of Middleham and were
interpreted as the other Edward. They were both princes were they not?
Whoops! there are some dont like me using the term 'little' or 'little Ned" - tough!
Eileen
>
> "On Ascension Day [May 29] a great press of Londoners came to hear mass at St. Paul's.
> Lords of the Church being absent for fear of Becket, a priest of no standing celebrated
> mass in their place. As this man, Vitalis, made ready the bread and wine, a stranger
> entered the chancel, fell on his knees, seized the priest by the hand and said: "I present
to
> you this letter from the archbishop of Canterbury conveying the sentence he has
> pronounced on the bishop of London, enjoining him and his clergy to observe this
> sentence: I bid you, by God's authority, to celebrate mass no more in this church until
you
> shall have delivered this letter to the bishop."
>
> Straightforward so far; but the very next day the same messenger -- so contemporary
> wisdom believed -- showed up at York Minster with the same injunction. London to
York
> in one day?
>
> It goes to show: "Swart wizards fly; and witches too. But words fly faster." (Dark
Sovereign,
> 2.5)
>
> Robert Fripp
>

--- eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:

> What are the chances that the rumours got slightly
> muddled with which kings son was
> dead, ie. did the roumours begin after the death of
> little Edward of Middleham and were
> interpreted as the other Edward. They were both
> princes were they not?
> Whoops! there are some dont like me using the term
> 'little' or 'little Ned" - tough!
> Eileen
> >

This seems unlikely to me, Eileen. Domenic Mancini,
writing in the fall/winter of 1483, clearly describes
the rumor that the princes were dead in his
newsletter. So, too, does the Crowland Chronicler, who
also reports the death of Edward of Middleham.
Crowland links the rumors of their deaths to
Buckingham's uprising, fall 1483. I believe the death
of Edward V was also among the rumors jotted down in
June 1483 and preserved in the Cely papers.

Finally, von Poppelau reports both rumor and denial at
Richard's court.

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Robert Fripp"
<r_fripp@> wrote:
> >
> > Here's another example of fast-winged rumour (and messengers).
This took place at the
> > height of Archbishop Becket's quarrel with Henry II and the
bishop of London and the
> > archbishop of York:
>
> What are the chances that the rumours got slightly muddled with
which kings son was
> dead, ie. did the roumours begin after the death of little Edward
of Middleham and were
> interpreted as the other Edward. They were both princes were they
not?
> Whoops! there are some dont like me using the term 'little'
or 'little Ned" - tough!
> Eileen

Hi all.

Possible, but I think it is more probable the rumours just got
stronger as a result of Edward''s death. Croyland says that their
deaths were announced during Buckingham's Rebellion, and caused the
redirection of the original rising to restore Edward V. Their murder
was announced to the Estates general in France in January. But The
Great Chronicle says there was much rumour after Easter that the
boys were dead. Easter fell on 18 April that year and my own
feeling, looking at Richard's itinerary, is that Edward of Middleham
died in the second half of April, not the first half.
Incidentally, this is Livia Visser-Fuch's translation of what Von
Poppelau had to say about the rumours concerning the princes. He was
introduced to Richard at York on 2nd May, and after describing him
goes on to say:

"Common rumour has it that King Edward had King Richard's brother
drowned in Malvesey because he had threatened his life and wanted to
destroy him: and they were both King Edward's brothers. And King
Richard, who reigns at the moment, has, they say, also killed King
Edward his brother's sons, so that not they, but he, was crowned.
However many people say – and I agree with them – that they are
still alive and are kept in a very dark cellar."

Incidentally, on the subject of Charles and Camilla I'm apt to be
forgiving. I totally agree that Charles only married Diana because
royal protocol AND the British press at the time insisted he had to
marry, and marry a Protestant virgin. I can't see that Camilla has
put a foot wrong yet since her marriage to Charles and I'm sure her
spending and lifestyle can't be any more extravagant than Diana's.
The whole thing has been a great human tragedy and yes Charles does
seem to have done a great job of bringing up the boys since. It must
also be awful for them to keep reading these attacks on the only
parent they have left, as if they should have to choose between
their dead mother and their living father and stepmother. Never mind
the cruelty of the crankier sectors of the media in suggesting their
grandfather had their mother murdered.

On the subject of queens, I notice from the online contents list of
the latest EHR that Joanna Laynesmith has a biography of Anne
Neville coming out, which is what I really meant to post about.




> >
> > "On Ascension Day [May 29] a great press of Londoners came to
hear mass at St. Paul's.
> > Lords of the Church being absent for fear of Becket, a priest of
no standing celebrated
> > mass in their place. As this man, Vitalis, made ready the bread
and wine, a stranger
> > entered the chancel, fell on his knees, seized the priest by the
hand and said: "I present
> to
> > you this letter from the archbishop of Canterbury conveying the
sentence he has
> > pronounced on the bishop of London, enjoining him and his clergy
to observe this
> > sentence: I bid you, by God's authority, to celebrate mass no
more in this church until
> you
> > shall have delivered this letter to the bishop."
> >
> > Straightforward so far; but the very next day the same
messenger -- so contemporary
> > wisdom believed -- showed up at York Minster with the same
injunction. London to
> York
> > in one day?
> >
> > It goes to show: "Swart wizards fly; and witches too. But words
fly faster." (Dark
> Sovereign,
> > 2.5)
> >
> > Robert Fripp
> >
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> >
>
> > Whoops! there are some dont like me using the term 'little'
> or 'little Ned" - tough!
> > Eileen
>
> Hi all.
>
>> On the subject of queens, I notice from the online contents list of
> the latest EHR that Joanna Laynesmith has a biography of Anne
> Neville coming out, which is what I really meant to post about.
>
> Hi Marie - good to hear from you after so long. I have missed you postings.
Do you think the new biography will be an improvement on the last one by Whats His
Name?
Eileen
>
>
> > >
> > > "On Ascension Day [May 29] a great press of Londoners came to
> hear mass at St. Paul's.
> > > Lords of the Church being absent for fear of Becket, a priest of
> no standing celebrated
> > > mass in their place. As this man, Vitalis, made ready the bread
> and wine, a stranger
> > > entered the chancel, fell on his knees, seized the priest by the
> hand and said: "I present
> > to
> > > you this letter from the archbishop of Canterbury conveying the
> sentence he has
> > > pronounced on the bishop of London, enjoining him and his clergy
> to observe this
> > > sentence: I bid you, by God's authority, to celebrate mass no
> more in this church until
> > you
> > > shall have delivered this letter to the bishop."
> > >
> > > Straightforward so far; but the very next day the same
> messenger -- so contemporary
> > > wisdom believed -- showed up at York Minster with the same
> injunction. London to
> > York
> > > in one day?
> > >
> > > It goes to show: "Swart wizards fly; and witches too. But words
> fly faster." (Dark
> > Sovereign,
> > > 2.5)
> > >
> > > Robert Fripp
> > >
> >
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> > Possible, but I think it is more probable the rumours just got
> stronger as a result of Edward''s death. Croyland says that their
> deaths were announced during Buckingham's Rebellion, and caused the
> redirection of the original rising to restore Edward V

When you consider it it was only natural in the absence of any firm announcement
regarding the fates of the princes and their apparent disappearance from the face of the
earth that rumours were bound to grow and spread even with the aid of malice. When
presented with a mystery people will always talk and deduce their own opinions. Its
natural and people, on the whole love to gossip. In a way perhaps, and I assume here that
Richard had transported them to places of safety/of maybe death from natural causes,
perhaps it was a massive error on his part as the secrecy kept the stories alive and
growing. Indeed 500 years later. Would it perhaps been better if the truth had been given
out. Of course highsight is a wonderful thing and obviously Richard and his advisors
would have done what they thought was the wisest thng at the time. But things could not
have turned out any more worse than what they did anyway.
Eileen




Their murder
> was announced to the Estates general in France in January. But The
> Great Chronicle says there was much rumour after Easter that the
> boys were dead. Easter fell on 18 April that year and my own
> feeling, looking at Richard's itinerary, is that Edward of Middleham
> died in the second half of April, not the first half.
> Incidentally, this is Livia Visser-Fuch's translation of what Von
> Poppelau had to say about the rumours concerning the princes. He was
> introduced to Richard at York on 2nd May, and after describing him
> goes on to say:
>
> "Common rumour has it that King Edward had King Richard's brother
> drowned in Malvesey because he had threatened his life and wanted to
> destroy him: and they were both King Edward's brothers. And King
> Richard, who reigns at the moment, has, they say, also killed King
> Edward his brother's sons, so that not they, but he, was crowned.
> However many people say – and I agree with them – that they are
> still alive and are kept in a very dark cellar."
>
> Incidentally, on the subject of Charles and Camilla I'm apt to be
> forgiving. I totally agree that Charles only married Diana because
> royal protocol AND the British press at the time insisted he had to
> marry, and marry a Protestant virgin. I can't see that Camilla has
> put a foot wrong yet since her marriage to Charles and I'm sure her
> spending and lifestyle can't be any more extravagant than Diana's.
> The whole thing has been a great human tragedy and yes Charles does
> seem to have done a great job of bringing up the boys since. It must
> also be awful for them to keep reading these attacks on the only
> parent they have left, as if they should have to choose between
> their dead mother and their living father and stepmother. Never mind
> the cruelty of the crankier sectors of the media in suggesting their
> grandfather had their mother murdered.
>
> On the subject of queens, I notice from the online contents list of
> the latest EHR that Joanna Laynesmith has a biography of Anne
> Neville coming out, which is what I really meant to post about.
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > "On Ascension Day [May 29] a great press of Londoners came to
> hear mass at St. Paul's.
> > > Lords of the Church being absent for fear of Becket, a priest of
> no standing celebrated
> > > mass in their place. As this man, Vitalis, made ready the bread
> and wine, a stranger
> > > entered the chancel, fell on his knees, seized the priest by the
> hand and said: "I present
> > to
> > > you this letter from the archbishop of Canterbury conveying the
> sentence he has
> > > pronounced on the bishop of London, enjoining him and his clergy
> to observe this
> > > sentence: I bid you, by God's authority, to celebrate mass no
> more in this church until
> > you
> > > shall have delivered this letter to the bishop."
> > >
> > > Straightforward so far; but the very next day the same
> messenger -- so contemporary
> > > wisdom believed -- showed up at York Minster with the same
> injunction. London to
> > York
> > > in one day?
> > >
> > > It goes to show: "Swart wizards fly; and witches too. But words
> fly faster." (Dark
> > Sovereign,
> > > 2.5)
> > >
> > > Robert Fripp
> > >
> >
>

eileen wrote:

>>>On the subject of queens, I notice from the online contents list of
>>>
>>>
>>the latest EHR that Joanna Laynesmith has a biography of Anne
>>Neville coming out, which is what I really meant to post about.
>>
>>Hi Marie - good to hear from you after so long. I have missed you postings.
>>
>>
>Do you think the new biography will be an improvement on the last one by Whats His
>Name?
>Eileen
>
>

Couldn't be any worse.

Gilda